waysider

Hi, Jafin Welcome There is a wealth of information here that addresses the very questions you have posed. Two items, in particular, that have been discussed here recently are: 1.The "law" of believing". 2.VPW's true nature. Something that helps in understanding GSC, is to start at the very beginning, on the home page. Read some of the articles and documents. Next, look at some of the tutorials for new posters. It takes a bit of time to approach it that way, but the forums make more sense if you do. There is also a search feature here which may be of interest to you. waysider

-------------------------------------------------------------- Hey, there, Bumpy Change a few names, toss in some scripture and--------------- "There but for fortune go you and I."

If you didn't sign for it, they have no proof you ever received it. That's why it costs extra to require the recipient to sign for delivery. Not only do you have no obligation to pay for it, you have no obligation to return it. So, if you receive a carton of paisley widgets that you did not order or sign for, you can consider yourself the proud owner of a carton of paisley widgets. I got this info from someone who spent most of his working years as an employee of the Postal Service. Of course, there may be some loophole somewhere so it would be a good idea to contact the postal authorities to verify this information. ps---The postal authorities do NOT look favorably on people using the mail to defraud the innocent. They are usually very receptive to hearing your concerns.

Anyone ever done a comparative study to see if what we think of as "tongues" is somehow connected to the "confusion" of tongues that happened at Babel? I never have. It's just a goofy thought that popped in my head. If there is a connection, it could give a whole new meaning to what "tongues" really is. Suppose for a moment that the phrase " I would that ye all spake in tongues" was referring to people understanding what was spoken regardless of their native tongue. There would be a renewed sense of unity that hadn't been know since the days of the Tower of Babel. "Even if I had the ability to speak in a way that everyone could understand me, regardless of the differences in our languages, it wouldn't mean squat if I didn't have love." Just tossing this out for consideration.

Irisheyes------That pretty much sums up how it felt to be a FLO, also. Our typical day went from 5am til midnight. Lights out and "no talking" after lights out. Two or three to a room. There was one tiny 1/2 hour break at about 11pm . That's when we would walk to the truck stop, out of earshot and share "notes". There were some other times on the weekend that we used for laundry and such. But, no one ever drove anywhere alone. (out of economic necessity.) So it was impossible to bring things up if there were 3 or 4 other people in the car. If word got out that you ever complained or questioned leadership, you would find yourself in deep doo-doo. It was a commune set in a rural location with no accessible phones aside from the PUBLIC pay phone at the truck stop. Almost any call you made was long distance and expensive and right out in the open where anyone could hear. But, at least there was that bit of time you had as you walked to or from the truck stop when you could talk without an audience. I don't think any of us had the slightest idea how far reaching some of these problems were. Mostly we viewed it from our narrow perspective inside the parameters of the program. Sorry, I think I strayed from topic.

Good choice, excie I read you loud and clear.

The weather sure was gloomy today. :blink: Just kidding, Groucho. I agree with you.

Had a '67 Le Mans with spinners, bucket seats, 326, etc, that I literally GAVE away. Can you hear me kicking myself?

Thanks for your response, Rachel. That certainly adds a great deal of clarity to the subject.

Anson is "the man", no doubt. Saw him many times with BIG Sam Meyers.(May he RIP) No frills and foo foo--- just real, honest to goodness music.

Thank you for your response, Pond. You have raised some interesting points to consider.

No, seriously, Sharon, you're supposed to post a line from a song, not a personal experience. HEEHEEHEE! (I have no idea what this one is.)

John I'm not declaring you "possessed or M&A". I'm not "threatened" by you. I'm not "all over" you. I never even mentioned the word "transparent". I'm not "afraid" of what you might say. I'm not "attacking" you. Fact is, though, John, you continually twist people's words to change the intended meaning. You flagrantly abuse the "quote/reply" feature. You constantly launch yourself into a homiletic discourse, vis a vis VPW, in an apparent attempt to dissuade those who would speak negatively of Wierwille or his alleged "ministry". Should I ignore you? Why don't you tell me if that's what you think I should do? (and then tell me "why".) "

Ya know, this stuff just takes all kinds of twisted turns. When I went into FLO(mid '70s) I signed an agreement that my marital status would not change during my time in the program. I went in as a single person.(not exactly a kid, either.) It was MEGA, MEGA taboo to engage in sexual activity in the program. (not the teenage variety) To do so(and be caught) meant you would be immediately expelled from the program. And, this did, in fact, happen. (not going to give names) So, I did my part to live up to the bargain. Yeah, I know, there are probably some FLO who will read this and think"GEEZE!, waysider, you sure were naive!" That doesn't bother me. I did what I thought I needed to do to honor my commitment. All the while, the limb leader, who ran the program, had his own personal crew of "cleaning ladies" who took care of his house when his wife was out of town. Naturally, this raised the usual suspicions. ----BUT---- We were not allowed to voice those suspicions with one another. And lest you forget, we lived in a commune where not much happened privately. To even voice a suspicion, was considered a spiritual weakness and sign of a carnal mind. That's why , during that half hour of free time at night, we would make a "junk run" to The Wayside Truck Stop and try to privately make some sense of what was going on.(hence the name "waysider") After I graduated, I got married and went back in as the spouse of a first time FLO. (marital status rule thus circumvented.) My spouse(long since divorced) was one of the limb leader's favorite people and also cleaned his house on various occasions. I guess I'm really just kinda rambling here. I hope some of that makes sense.

Pardon me for pointing this out, but if this was not a legal issue, there would be no "due process" to consider nor would there be a "system" to call into question. What happened was heinous in GOD's eyes. I believe His standards trump that of any court of law.

You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.

Rachel I don't quite understand your point. VP frequently spoke in a derogatory manner regarding the Catholic Church as well as the doctrines that the Catholic Church adhered to. How is that not "anti" Catholic? Maybe I have misunderstood your post. Could you clarify?

Suppose for a moment there were no laws governing rape and sexual misconduct, would that make these occurrences any less heinous?

Thanks, Potato for adding women vs. women to the mix. Don't know how that one eluded me. Yes, I think you are correct in posing the probability that men harassing women is more common than the opposite. Also, men tend to be very reluctant to divulge such secrets. Dang!---edited for yet another spelling error.

There are two things that I have seldom seen addressed in detail here on GSC. 1. Sexual abuse or harassment of men by other men. (not the same as adult men abusing male children) In an organization as large as TWI, it seems like the possibility that it happened is likely. Add to that the lust by some individuals to attain higher ranking status in the organization and it doesn't seem impossible. I had a guy come on to me once at ROA. It was subtle and ambiguous. Plus, I didn't want to think that what I was seeing was accurate. (Can't think bad things about a brother in Christ, now, can we?) Of course, today, I would probably see EXACTLY what his intentions were without trying to deny the reality. I don't have anything against the guy but my door doesn't swing that direction, for sure. 2. Sexual harassment of men by women. This is one that I personally saw. While I was in FLO, a single WC female who was acting as an area leader or something, had designs on a married FLO man. She frequently leveraged her Corps status to make sure she found herself in situations where there was no one but the two of them present. Kinda like the motor coach strategy. She also used her status to suggest that he should do what she said if he wanted to advance himself into higher leadership positions. I know this because his wife confided in me. (She was furious!) When I discussed it with him, it was the same old mumbo-jumbo about how "even suspecting such a thing" was a sign of "unrenewed mind". I don't think he wanted to admit to himself what was really happening and I don't believe anything ever really did. God knows she sure tried, though. He had absolutely no interest in her but she constantly persisted in trying. I'm not sure HOW or even IF that fits here. edited for grammar.

John You haven't answered my question. What is the reference you are using to show that Wierwille made that statement ? edited because I accidentally "omitted" a word.

Yo, Seth Just wanted to let you know I wasn't poking fun at your question. Actually, your motivation in asking it seems to have some real merit. VP probably would have been pickled tink if he could have been associated with a real genuine "secret society". After all, he was all the time trying to promote his "ministry" as the appointed keepers of "the greatest secret in the world today", now wasn't he? Yeah, we could have called ourselves the Sacred Hierarchy of Interpretation and Tongues. Do I really need to call attention to the fact that an appropriate acronym describing The Way could thus be drawn from that name?

John would you be so kind as to direct me to the reference that shows that this( the bolded section) is what VP said? On page 62 of the syllabus I have in front of me, VP states that(I'm paraphrasing) if you know how to speak in tongues but don't, you are ignorant. I don't think he meant that in a Biblical sense. He meant it as a derogatory barb aimed at people who did not speak in tongues. The scriptures he uses to stress his point are found in I Corinthians 14. This is stressed again in the Intermediate Class and again he uses the "ignorance" argument in a belittling manner. Then, in the Advanced Class, he (VP) says on page 10(item #3) that "speaking in tongues daily is a prerequisite to revelation." Did you know anyone who did not desire to operate revelation, John? It sounds to me like he was rendering an enticement to SIT daily if you wanted to "grow". Again, I welcome a reference that illustrates your assertion.

"If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?"--------Bruce Cockburn

Context, John, context. If you read Danny's statement in context, he is saying "Let me do what he(Jesus) did." (in relation to prayer) It's usually not beneficial to extend a statement beyond the parameters that have been set by its context.