Tzaia

I never took the class, so I don't know what was and wasn't said. What I do believe is that in hindsight one can say that he left the door wide open, but I can say with a degree of assuredness that most of us did not take things that way. There was a sense that if one found themselves in a situation, such as being unwed and pregnant that one would be forgiven if one took the path of abortion, but I didn't get any sense of it being a good thing. While there was co-ed living in Way homes, it was not condoned for men and women to live together and "know" one another without being married. Most of us at the twig level were unaware of what was going on at HQ or at the colleges. I have talked to others at the corp level and they were unaware of what was going on. Many of us left in 1987 in response to learning about the behavior. People who stayed, stayed because they didn't believe it was happening, or perhaps because they were benefiting (that's an assumption). I know that for one family, it took someone telling them that they were being pressured into turning their teenage daughters over to HQ for them to get that people were not lying about this, and they finally left. It wasn't that they were turning a blind eye to the situation. It was because the incidences at the twig level were not pervasive enough to believe it was going on at HQ. My first hint that it was going on was in 1980 when VPW gave me one of those leering looks and held onto my hand a bit too long. I was stunned, but I was also assured that he was just being nice. I knew better. The only other time I came into contact with the behavior was when a girl confided to me about being in a "relationship" with a guy, only to be told after she took the class that it was no longer OK because she had become a "sister in Christ." When I confronted the guy, I was told that "anything was OK if it brought someone to the word." Then he threw around his name tag and spiritual maturity. I told him he was full of crap, and if this was what he was being taught at the corp level that it was simply wrong. It got ugly. I walked away saying that I would not ever bring a person into this ministry, nor would I ever help run a class again. Once I had that behind the scenes look, I didn't want any part of it. I think a lot of people felt that way because it was hard to find people to help run classes - at least where I was - which was a mile down the road from the Limb HQ.

The "grace administration" was not the problem as much as he believed all sin (except for the sin of believing and then not believing) was covered by grace.

Which is nothing short of ironic as these decisions affect "crowns".

That's true. This is the reason why I suggested early on (to the people at STF) that people needed to distance themselves from the beliefs (theology) and try to review ALL of it independently. I realize there can be a lot of fear as people had been warned repeatedly about "rightly-dividing" and "private interpretation," and a certain amount of stiff-necked pride in having believed one is in possession of THE truth, but I pointed out then and I will continue to say that doing so is necessary.

Oldies, although I am no longer dispensational in my beliefs, I have to agree that the belief is not directly responsible for the immoral teachings, no more than Calvin's views on grace and salvation are responsible. VPW's interpretation of those 3 beliefs are where the problems lie. Johnj, I can't blame dispensationalism as much as VPW's take on grace and salvation. There was a sense of you can't ever earn salvation, so why try. It's not so much the "grace administration" as grace itself. Being carnal was more of a spiritual state than what you happened to be doing with your body.

It doesn't infer that if immorality is present, the theology is false. What it says is if immorality is practiced in light of clear scriptures regarding the immorality, the theology that allows the practice is false.

For me, it wasn't a matter of being spiritual enough to handle it. When I was confronted with the notion that I was not spiritual enough to handle the concept of date and switch, I told the guy that I had no idea what exactly he was being taught, but that there was clear verses regarding sexual behavior and that if he was in the situation where he had to do what he was doing to "bring someone to the word" that perhaps his believing was not up to par - as in not believing the class had value in and of itself.

No idea if that was the case. What I do know was that adultery was not taught or practiced amongst the rank and file. Every once in a while you would have a corp person come around and pull the old "date and switch," but limb coordinators seemed more likely to turn their heads the other way than to be involved in such activity.

I agree with some that it was the best of both worlds - I could continue to sin, yet be under the protection of God. That was a great deal. I met some nice people - most of whom I have no contact. I met some butt-faces - none that I have contact with. TWI did not alleviate my basic cynicism towards religion - it only added to it. And the more time I put into "proving these things are true," the less I believe.

I don't know if TWI was a haven for bullies. What I do know is that some people perceived there was a spiritual "pecking order" and they felt compelled to peck at those who they believed were spiritually beneath them. I was never corp, but I experienced first hand that tendency to peck. And I was probably one of the few who got in a corp person's face and told him that levels of spirituality were not doled out on the basis of a name tag and whoever told him that was not reading his bible right. From that point forward, I took leadership with a very large grain of salt and behaved accordingly.

As I pointed out previously (and you seem to have taken it on as your own), the estate of the dead can sue for defamation, but when that happens the burden of proof (as to pain and suffering, loss of income) lies with the plaintiff. They also have to prove that the slanderous/libelous statements are not true. Historically, TWI has been very quick to defend its trademark, copyrights and, "intellectual property" in various courts of law. Yet it has not done anything to defend the honor of its founder. How incongruous is that? I think it doesn't defend VPW's "honor" because it can't. There are too many people who were eyewitnesses and receivers of abuse for TWI to have any hope of successfully suing anyone for defamation. In fact, I think the other reason why it keeps its "mouth" shut regarding VPW's "honor" is because it would open itself up to civil lawsuits, which it would not win. You keep asking for proof of guilt. I believe that the proof lies completely in the notion that TWI has done nothing to shut this site down, which (as I stated before) is incongruous with its history of vigorously defending its name and intellectual property. If VPW had been libeled on this forum, TWI would have reason to go after the people responsible for saying untrue things about him. I think TWI hasn't because what is being told is true and TWI would be unable to successfully dispute what is being said about VPW in a court of law. This inability to successfully defend the honor of its founder would most certainly be the end of the organization and right now there are enough people hanging on to his "presumed innocence" state coughing up 15% that it would be foolish to rock the boat. It's best interest of the corporation to not go there. Moreover, even while some defend the legacy of the man, they have not gone so far as to say that the allegations of sexual abuse are untrue. In fact, at least one splinter organization has specific wording in its code of conduct to address such abuse. This was not done preemptively; it was done to address specific issues that occurred in the prior organization. One person was asked to step down because he violated the spirit of the code of conduct regarding clergy and sexual purity. In other words, there are many people who know it's true and have taken steps to ensure this particular legacy is not a part of their organization. The statute of limitations has run out for the adults who were abused by VPW. However, adults who were abused as children by clergy have been able to successfully bypass the statute of limitations in several states and successfully sue for damages. You may think you are doing TWI a big favor by defending it with your legal-sounding rhetoric, but TWI might not see it that way. You may provoke someone who decides to pursue civil action against the corporation. Personally, I wish all the minor children who were abused would initiate a class action suit.

Accusations demand no documentation. Evidence is not even required (although it is recommended) to charge someone of a crime. Oftentimes "reasonable suspicion" is sufficient. However, if you want to get a conviction, one either must present compelling evidence, or at least present what evidence has been gathered as compelling enough to sway a jury. As stated before, legal guilt is not to be confused with factual guilt. And as far as "crimes" are concerned, while plagiarism and adultery are bad, they are not prosecuted as "crimes." The women who were drugged to have sex would have a case for rape, as would underage girls. Ministers and others in authority are held to a standard of behavior that assumes the positional authority of the authority figure does not allow for consensual relationships. That is why it is a bad idea for ministers to have sex with members of the congregation, therapists to have sex with clients, lawyers with clients, police with people they stop for traffic violations, teachers with students, prison guards with inmates. In those "relationships" there is a level of implied coercion. Do you not get that? Oh, and by the way, many people have been accused of improper relationships and found themselves out of a job with no charges ever filed or without ever facing prosecution.

In the beginning, there were few of us who had children. Oftentimes I was told by those who DIDN'T have children how I was supposed to raise my kids. I would tell them to wait and have children of their own. I can't remember exactly when the wooden spoon became the rod of correction of choice in TWI, but TWI wasn't the only religious organization that advocated its use. I know that because of friends that were involved with other organizations were also using the spoon. While I'm not against the use of the spoon, I do think there was a tendency to smack instead of teach. What I saw were frantic mothers trying to make babies and toddlers sit for long periods of time and that somehow the mark of a "good" mother was the level of obedience the children showed during these long teachings. What I saw were kids who were using a pacifier or bottle well into their 3rd year; kids who were obviously miserable. I was not considered a good mother according to TWI standards because I didn't beat/frighten my kids into submission. After the 3rd kid was born, we quit bringing our kids on a regular basis. One of us would stay home. While we would hear about how we weren't raising our kids "in the word," we pretty much stuck to our guns because we believed it was unrealistic to expect kids to sit for over an hour during a teaching that stretched long past their bedtime. The twigs where we went tried and tried to establish kids programs, but most underestimated the amount of time, effort, and energy it took to run a successful program and doing so kept people away from the teachings, so the programs usually fell by the wayside. My stance was that TWI was not particularly family-friendly and had very unrealistic expectations regarding children. While I didn't personally see any child abused, I felt that many were making poor choices regarding child discipline, including allowing people who had unreasonable expectations to dictate how they needed to raise their children. On the other hand I can't imagine most of the parents I came into contact with allowing others to abuse and hurt their children - not including corp. It seemed the corp parents had a higher threshold when it came to allowing others to discipline their children.

You were not alone. I heard that from several way corp people.

All (I think I can say that) of us deny that the scriptures overtly teach or imply that God is triune. Most of us would believe it if we thought it was in the scriptures. Some of us don't care too much anymore either way - but that is a discussion for the doctrinal forum.

Well now that you put it like that... <_<

I'm sitting here reading a book called "Mean Genes" and wondering why I seek to revisit the pain of being a part of a cult by reading about other's experiences and writing about my own? While I believe that I have moved forward quite a bit, I wonder why I keep wanting/needing to look back over those years. I don't feel particularly hurt by the events that happened to me. I do feel more hurt by the events that happened to others that continues to distress them. It's almost like a drug - experiencing and rehashing the emotional pain.

One can only hope. Unfortunately, people are still drawn by the attraction of being set apart and "special".

For me the "clear" warnings did not occur until the letters started circulating. There were things that I most certainly did not like, such as being blamed for our baby's illness because we hadn't been doing our 15%, and being told that "anything" was ok if it got people in "the word". When I found out what I was experiencing was not isolated, but was pervasive throughout the organization - it was easy to leave. There are bunches of us who left our druggy pasts, stopped smoking, and stopped screwing around once we were found by TWI (I didn't seek it out). It's one thing to look the other way when isolated people are doing those things, but quite a different story when it is not only sanctioned, it is touted as a sign of spiritual maturity. Later, when I found out that corp and leadership children were being exposed to pornography under the guise of "teaching," I realized that the corp had been nothing more than intense grooming to be used by or become predators. It is very apparent that the ones who have suffered and lost the most were the ones who went corp, especially the women and children, which is ironic given that we were all led to believe they would receive the most rewards.

I guess it's too late to ask you not to take offense. Mark's point (I believe) was to ensure that STFI's particular beliefs were not simply lumped in with all non-trinitarian groups as there are differences between the doctrines that matter (to us).

You can't go any further than what you are taught.

No. It wasn't a major point. But I totally get why dispensations are done (even though I no longer agree). It's all an attempt to explain in a rational fashion that which can't really be explained. They want to be a haven for the former way person. They want to be a familiar place for those who have left TWI, but want the same feel, so I do agree with your take. I just don't get a vibe that they do what they do to defraud or be malicious.

Consider this WD: Had TWI allowed reasonable discourse and a reasonable means to deal with issues - there would be no GSC. As such, the few pro-TWI message boards that do exist do NOT allow anyone to speak badly about TWI. While I'm reasonably sure there are more than a few here who wish you'd put a sock in it, you have been largely unmolested and have suffered very little in the way of personal attacks on this board. I find it fascinating that you continue to try to create compelling arguments about things that are out of the realm of possibility about a guy who most here think is a scum bag. Very few here are going to have an epiphany about the guy because they already have. I guess that makes you the eternal optimist.

You're both right. There comes a point where one needs to acknowledge that the past can't be undone/relived, etc. There comes a time where the past needs to be given a voice and acknowledgment. It's a fine line.

I have maintained all along that many of the written works of CES are very good. My continued involvement was based on what I believed was the careful thought and analysis of the materials they offered - even after the Momentus debacle made me rethink active fellowship. OGOL forced JJ&M to rethink many of their TWI beliefs, starting with Body, Soul, & Spirit (image of God). When the book was started, that belief was still firmly entrenched CES is much more aware of the early church father's works and recommends the reading of "How Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein for a unitarian perspective of those formative years. CES had also dropped the Eli, Eli TWI teaching early on, choosing to embrace the Psalm 22 angle. Tongues and interpretation had not been done from the beginning. In fact, you can attend many fellowships and not hear tongues. Prophecy had picked up quite a bit and differed in what was heard. Personal Prophecy had more of a "fore-telling" slant while regular prophecy was more "forth-telling". Abundant sharing was embraced over the tithe. Believing = receiving was dropped. "Don't Blame God" was embraced. There is a stressing of Jesus' current functional equality with God, and while CES is dispensational, it is not nearly to the degree that Bullinger and TWI took it. Where they have not departed from TWI is in the doctrine over relationships aspect. They would disagree, but nearly every "parting of the ways" has been over doctrine. They are also steadfast in promoting the home fellowship concept, which IMO doesn't provide a safe seeker environment. They also tend to attract what I call the walking wounded, or the person who has had little exposure to regular church. While they have not taken the stance against psychology that TWI ha(s)d, I believe they cross an ethical line by doing their own counseling rather than refer to outside resources, apparently not understanding the importance of avoiding bias and conflict of interest. These people were counseling each other, which is what I believe ultimately led to JAL's and EL's divorce and MG's ouster. Even though I kept telling them all that it was a bad idea to get into each other's business to that level, there was still that TWI tendency to meddle in people's business believing they were still being professional. They also use confidential information as a weapon against people. There is entirely too much talk about being possessed whenever someone has a different point of view, which I believe is a throwback to TWI. What I have never questioned is their sincerity. I never sensed the element of fraud that I sensed while in TWI - at least until the latter half of 2004. Fraud - not in the sense of using people for gain, but in the sense that differences were less tolerated, and the heightened need for "like-mindedness" so there was a lot more going along to get along rather than the honest exchanges that I had been accustomed to. Those are just a few of my thoughts.