Tzaia

amen.

I've walked the via dolorosa (actually both of them) in Jerusalem, and the fact that there are 2 distinct routes turned out to not be the distraction that it could have been once I got it through my head that complete historical accuracy was not possible because the ancient city that we visit was actually built on top of Jerusalem that was destroyed. My belief is that it really doesn't matter - that it (and every other thing TWI believed was wrongly taught in the orthodox church) is not the deal breaker that TWI made it out to be.

The gospels were not written from recalled memories. They were written from recalled stories. The reality probably is the gospels were more of an afterthought since the apocalypse did not occur in Jesus' generation (as he predicted), and were written after the epistles to help us know who Jesus was, which was after Paul proclaimed "all scripture is god-breathed". I believe this is the reason why most mainstream denominations are not literalist in their interpretation of scripture. Think of it this way - the Bereans were not searching MMLJ to see the truth of what Paul was teaching - they were searching the prophetic texts of the OT. I know my assumption was that since TWI was a "research ministry" that all those little factoids of information were taken into consideration when coming up with its conclusions. When I discovered that none of those things was factored into the conclusion, that's when I realized that pretty much everything that TWI taught was at least as off-base as anything taught mainstream - if not more so.

It is all about him - VPW. He becomes the "savior of the world" by correcting all the mistakes that everyone over the course of history has failed to realize are mistakes in translation and transmission.

That was/is not an option in TWI (nor most splinters who hold to TWI doctrine). The idea is to get one to believe that mainstream Christianity is a conspiracy against the "true" believer who obviously wants nothing but the truth. (slightly edited for clarity)

The Nov/Dec Sower has an "enlightening" article on the royal priesthood and how "modern" Christianity produces "weak Christians" who "are rarely equipped to walk out on what the Bible says Christians are to do." Where have I read that sort of thing before? Oh, perhaps every year in a TWI and then STF rag. Written by people who haven't stepped into a church in years, and couldn't plan and execute a large group get-together (church) on a weekly basis and do it well if their lives depended on it. Large group (corporate) worship is not a bunch of people spectator-ing. It is people being led in worship by other people, preferably by people who do those things very well. STF, IMO, does corporate worship poorly in pretty much every aspect, so it tells its followers that corporate worship is not needed for "true believers". Suggestion: Find yourself a good church (they are out there) and participate in corporate worship. I think you will find out there is a place for it.

Contradictions mess horribly with the concept of God-breathed.

Did you have a rough day or something? I really don't know how to help you other than to tell you my "take" on TWI and the people who involved themselves in the organization. Most of us became involved with the best of intentions. We didn't plan to hand over our lives to a few sick fuks and some are very angry that it happened and what that has made their lives look like. Whether a person finds their voice here is largely determined by them.

I dunno if people who are directly affiliated have any clue. If they saw the in-process documents that I saw regarding the operation of affiliated fellowships, they'd have an idea of what's to come. The idea that some of this stuff was even being thought, much less written down, was scary.

The one or 2 times that was said to me I asked them how the heck they knew an action was or wasn't God's "primary will".

I know. My point was that my thought about meeting people where they are morphed into meeting needs. I don't think we need to do anything except try to be as patient with others as we would want them to be patient with us.

Shellon was the one who brought up meeting needs. I said that I thought it would be beneficial to meet people where they are, which is different from meeting needs.

My first (and only) teaching was on "bowels of compassion (or mercies)," which I taught as having the compassion that Jesus had towards others. That it wasn't something that came naturally - that one had to really go down deep to bring that out. And it was picked apart.

Well - I'm looking forward to someone coming on here and setting me straight about how I've been so wrong about the whole group. Maybe an implosion of biblical proportions.

Sheesh Louise

I believe he was pretty upfront with me - and I know that people on the board and those from the beginning knew. It's kinda why I thought it was a bad idea for them to get all in each other's personal lives and serve as each other's counselors. About the flawed doctrines - they're all in denial about that.

I have run online discussion lists (none of mine are public forums) since the mid '90s and have been trashed mercilessly at times - it just goes with the territory. There are a lot of nasty people out there. My only hope is that I don't become one of them.

Which part didn't people know about? He (out of the whole bunch) has been more honest about his "sins" than any of them.

I'm not above getting in someone's "face". But I don't do it as a knee-jerk response or as a first response - and I try to do it in such a way that one (hopefully) doesn't get that sick feeling in their stomach. I've had more than a few that I could have chewed up and spit out (and I have been known to take a measure of pleasure in doing so), but it actually is more rewarding in the long-term to restrain myself.

We (collectively) are cult survivors that appear at times to forget how deeply ingrained the mindset can be, regardless of the amount of time out. As survivors we can empathize with what is involved in coming out of a cult and give people the opportunity to come to an awareness at their own pace. I don't think we can spare or necessarily shorten anyone's journey, nor can we be anything but present (in our capacity as survivors) for these people. I personally don't think we should act as counselors. I think listeners, and to a certain extent facilitators, is a more appropriate role. When we (collectively) lash out at people who still hold the beliefs taught in TWI close, that is for our sake, not the benefit of the person who still believes. We (collectively) are directing our anger towards people who have been (probably) just as victimized as we ever were - and don't even know it. I think we can start by finding out why someone is no longer involved with the organization. We could show those who hold to the TWI doctrines how scripture was changed, or "studied" according to a set of "rules" or assumptions that are designed to lead one to TWI's conclusion. We can share how the promise of changing beliefs has more to do with what the "leader" thinks and not what the word says - and there are serious questions about what is "the Word" in TWI-think, as in many came to believe the classes and the written material are "the word". We can share how the research "standards" used in TWI would not hold to minimal standards on the outside, much less God's idea - that people in research were retained or fired based on their allegiance to TWI's doctrine and not due to any ability or inability on their part. We can continue to share the pervasive oral tradition that ironically and unfortunately carries more clout than "it is written" and that is for a reason - that reason being that it's much harder to deal directly with oral traditions in an organization who claims to have no oral traditions. We can share our journey and how GSC has added to our journey. I know I'm a very different person than I was when I first arrived and that has partly been due to being able to share and learn from the people here and I truly thank them for that opportunity and their patience.

Why aren't people like MG and JAL being included in this Q&A?

We can't always meet needs - we can meet people where they are, not where we think they should be. We (collectively) rarely get it right when dealing with newcomers.

I would agree that the tone is harsh towards people that are perceived as not getting "it". We (collectively) have not done a good job at meeting people where they are.

How has GSC not been helpful? It would be useful to know what are her issues with the site.

Is it me, or did those 2 paragraphs cancel each other out?