penworks

Thank you for obviating this. Apathy about the seriousness of these matters is beyond belief. If any of us has knowledge that can help someone else who is in pain but we withhold it, then shame on us. If any of us has knowledge that sheds light on past events to reveal their nature or their lessons, than I think most would agree that it is our moral obligation to speak up.

Since you asked an honest question, I'll throw in my two cents along with the others here. Since you are asking how to avoid being "derided" as an offshoot of TWI just because you at one time were affiliated with it, the advice already given to not charge money and lose the "way-speak" vocabulary is great advice. I would also add the following: First, I would seriously ask myself some tough questions about the "biblical principles" you were taught (You didn't say from where, so I don't really know). Ask yourself what they really mean, what you understand about them, how you think they are to be interpreted, how do you apply them, how do you know you're applying them appropriately, and why you think they are good to begin with. Next, I absolutely caution you about being "zealous for God" and encourage you, again, to question what that means and the effects it produces. Keep in mind some people's concept of God and what He or She does is not the same as yours. Too much zealousness leads to problems I think we're all very familiar with. Next, If you're basing your ideas at all on TWI's style of research, (which you may not be) just remember TWI research led to teachings founded on the idea that there are originals of the Bible to "get back to," - they do not exist anywhere in the world except in people's minds. Therefore we can't make claims about them, since we've never seen them nor has anyone else. Lastly, my experience after TWI when approached to join up with other ex-TWI people and start a group was to reject the idea. I discovered the basis for TWI research was the same as most other Christian groups within the framework of Fundamentalism. If I were you, I'd try and find a way outside this framework to "help people." If you are interested, there are several topics being discussed here at the moment on this topic of offshoots. I suggest you give yourself the chance to read them. One is a discussion on my article currently on the front page, Nostalgia for TWI Research... . Since you are trying to avoid being in that camp, perhaps getting as much info about it as you can would help. Best wishes for doing good in the world. IMO, we all need to ask ourselves, "what is the good we can do?" Peace, Charlene

In my case, the irony of ironies, was that our limb leader recommended my husband and I apply for jobs at HQ to get a "spiritual boost." He thought we needed that. I knew I needed some sort of change, and in those days, HQ was thought to be the "spiritual center" of the org. That was 1984. 1984, mmm...isn't there a frightening novel by that title? For more on that "spiritual boost" I got working at HQ, you can read my memoir here on the front page, An Affinity for Windows. Enjoy! Charlene

I was just thinking of that Emperor story today! Especially in regards to the fact there are no "originals" of the Bible texts to "refer back to." I for one was too intimidated to point that out! Cheers, Charlene

Good

Sometimes I think there are a few of you here who must have worked as writers for Saturday Night Live or Monty Python. If we couldn't laugh at some of the past... Must be why I like M*A*S*H reruns. I've have war vets tell me that's what it takes to survive in that insane environment...a little silly harmless spoofing... So, thanks.

Uh, excuse me, but TWI will know about it NOW. You realize they have at least one designated reader of this site, right? Yeah, some people miss going to the Home page of this site and just log into the Forums all the time. They miss stuff like the list of all the Waydale stuff that's there... :unsure:

It is unfortunate all this happened. We're lucky we have translations of versions that are copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. The documents we DO still have are records of a time many people are interested in, to say the least. I'm wondering, though, about the tendency to downplay the significance of all those fly specs and extra comments in the margins. They can make the difference when it comes to translations. Any one else have this concern? Is anyone out there reading this who has worked with translating any of the scriptures?

For me, the interest I had over time became the research of TWI and to me there's nostalgia for that which is driving the creation of the TWI offshoots. At the risk of tooting my own horn (which I'll go ahead and do as all my writer friends tell me to do), there is a new topic that Pawtucket started for discussion of my article posted on the Home page here. The name of the post contains the name of the article, Nostalgia for TWI Biblical Research Raises Questions. Enjoy! Charlene

Hold everything. Some people can believe that they are not sure they believe in God. That is another topic that belongs in a different thread, IMO. I appreciate these lessons in mathmatics and logic lately, but I'd like to drag the conversation back to point of the article: To show that inerrancy is a premise that disallows genuine research to be done. Why? Because a person who thinks the scriptures must be perfect will only look at evidence to back up their claim. Part of the post I made last night, which is #38 in this thread)reminded us that: There are no originals of the text(s) of the Bible to make this claim about. Fundamentalist are making a claim about something that does not exist. No one has seen the original(s), they were destroyed long ago. Get it? I cannot overstate the importance of this point. I'll use VPW's quote here because we are dicussing TWI and its offshoots that adopt the same premises he did for researching the Bible: PFAL book, pg.128: "What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men." Did VPW ever show us these originals? NO. He did not have them. Nobody does. When he refered to "the Word of God" he refered to what he THOUGHT the Word of God must be. The claim of inerrancy is an assumption made about something that does not exist. No one can point to the originals and say, "See these are perfect, without contradiction, they are inerrant." Why? Because no one has them. Cough, cough. They should be embarrassed if nothing else about making such a claim. It is easy to make a claim about something that does not exist. I can claim the "original" moon was made of cheese and no one can prove me wrong. There's no original moon for anyone to examine who might want to prove me wrong. The amazing thing is that I could get some people to BELIEVE my claim about the original moon made of cheese or something else that does not exist. There are always people, given certain circumstances, who will believe (and I was one in TWI and may very well be one again some other time) even the most outrageous claims made by the most sincere and kind people. I suspect we all can think of examples... Topic Disclaimer: What this post is NOT: This post is not intended to destroy anyone's belief in God or the sacredness of the scriptures, or any religious beliefs or lack of them. This post is not an attack on God or a way to dispute His (or Her) existence or non-existence. These ideas IMO would be What this post IS: An attempt to use critical thinking regarding the physical texts of the Bible and to remind everyone of the fact - which most of us already know - that there are no original texts of the scriptures about which we can even make a claim of inerrancy. Most people seem to forget this. Why remind us of this? Because inerrancy is the cornerstone of TWI research and is till being perpetuated in offshoot groups who claim their beliefs as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD. This has been proven time and time again to lead people into making bad decisions for their lives and families. That's what I find a problem with. If you want examples, roam around the topics here at GSC and you'll find them aplenty. If some people still want to BELIEVE in inerrancy, fine, they have that choice. I simply ask those people one thing: Please have the courtesy to say inerrancy is your BELIEF, and not say it is THE TRUTH which everyone else must accept. Peace, Charlene Now, back to the "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" shared with us on the previous page...now THAT'S funny!

Ha, I edited that out just as you commented on it...but glad you liked it. I felt it was too snippy but since you liked it, enjoy! Thanks and good night. Charlene

This is a major reason I wrote my article. Some of my daughter's friends who were raised in twi still believe VPW is their father in "the word." They have no idea of the meaning of these terms, or rather the FALSITY of them. These people are now more than 30 years old and swimming around in a fog believing this hideous assertion of VP as their spiritual Father in The Word and are clueless as to what the term "The Word" means, which I was too because I didn't stop and realize it refers to something that does not exist: the originals of the Bible texts. VPW himself pointed this out in PFAL. I just didn't THINK about the implications back then when I was only 18 years old. PFAL book, pg.128: "What students or scholars refer to as originals really date from 430 and later. These manuscripts are not originals [he's right about that]...at best we have copies of the originals. [most scholars say we have copies of copies of copies of copies etc. of the originals]. When I refer to the Word of God, I do not mean a copy or a translation or a version; I mean that Word of God which was originally given by revelation to holy men." BUT NO ONE HAS THEM. ORIGINALS DO NOT EXIST. How do you refer to something that does not exist? The term "the Word of God" does not refer to any thing in our possession. These kids have no knowledge of the fact that there are no originals of the Bible texts about which the claim of "perfect" was made by VPW and is made by Fundamentalists. It's made about something THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Am I repeating myself? Yes. On purpose. My daughter struggles with how to penetrate this thinking her friends have, that NEVER was addressed by their own parents. For various reasons, I'm sure. As a parent, I felt it imperative that I try and sort out what the heck I had been believing all those years so I could explain to my child why I left such a system and just why it was not good for me or for her. She was 12 years old when we left. It's an ongoing process but thankfully has not held us back from creating new, productive lives. BTW - I'm sure some readers will not agree with me about the non-existence of "The Word" but I welcome their ideas. But I'll say right off that I think most of those "keys to research" that VPW preached in order to "get back to the original" don't fit the locks. They are subjective tools used to create someone's interpretation of whatever version they're using. That's another thread or topic or article, though... For this second generation, there are sources of Way history and practices that cover the 1970s like The Cult that Snapped, Losing The Way, 2 books by TheWritingMachine, a couple of other memoirs, and tons of information written here at GSC by people who were around in the 70s. Of course, the problem is, as I have heard it, may of these kids (who are adults now) would NEVER DARE read any of it for fear of getting possessed by devil spirits or something. Has anyone else heard this fear they have? Good grief. Are we still living in the dark ages? I've heard rumors that these kids (again, they're actually adults now) think GSC is full of "negatives" about twi and that's just not "acceptable" to say the least. On the other hand, I had a professor from Rollins write me today and say how civil the dicussion on this thread was and complimented the people here at GSC on that. Kudos to ya'll. It's my hope that somehow this second generation can start thinking for themselves...it may take more work than they expect, so I suggest they start ASAP. That's it for tonight. Thanks everyone for listening and contributing to this thread. I've learned so much from you. Charlene

Okay, one last book recommendation and I'm done for now. Emotional Awareness - A Conversation Between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman, PhD. Forward by Daniel Goleman. It's about overcoming the obstacles to psychological balance and compassion. I read it because religious issues are often emotional ones and I needed help in dealing with them. I'm still working on it. I found it HELPFUL, just sayin'... Cheers, Penworks

Thanks for chiming in here. You raise important issues. I would like to refer back to the statements I made in post #25 above as a reminder that I am asking questions, just like everyone else. That's what led me to the place where I am in now. I lean heavily on the still small voice and find inspiration in the words of many writers on these topics, and as I said in the statement above the booklist, " Here is a reading list that may be useful." If it is not useful to you, don't read them. That list and the article were intended to be my personal contributions to the conversations here at GSC. I'd like to point out that even though you might not have intended this, when the following types of statements are made they come across as trying to intimidate the reader: "I am surprised that in 72 hours you can question the basis of your faith on the basis of a few people's opinons. Every author I read on that list is refuted by another scholar. Are you going to read them all?" Maybe she is going to read them all. She's a grown up, she can make up her own mind. It's safe to say she's on her own journey like the rest of us who are sorting things out. At this point, I'd like to remind everyone of the opening line of my article which makes it clear who my intended audience was: "Are you someone questioning the value of Biblical research done by The Way International (TWI) or groups run by former Way followers? I am. If you are, then what I have to say may interest you." If you're not questioning, then disregard my article in good old File 13. It's only my contribution, one person's opinion, not the "truth" of the matter certainly nor the end of my own "reading" life certainly. No, I'm not a bible scholar. That's clear from my memoir and bio at the end. I just ask questions. I just like to think and read... Cheers!

These are honest questions and since I started all this whirlwind, I'll try to say something here... I think each person would want to address them on their own. They are, IMO, matters of faith not reason. I venture to say that some people form beliefs about them without necessarily accepting the idea that the Bible is "perfect." To me, they are matters to which theology poses answers. Theology (the study of the nature of God and religious issues) is a big topic with a long history, and since I am not a theologian, I can't offer answers to these questions. What I can offer is my view: that there are no pat answers. The challenge is to admit we're always taking someone's word (for the most part) for whatever "answers" come our way about anything. We trust a lot of things for which we do not have "proof" or understand (except maybe you scientists out there) - like electricity. We can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it or touch it (hope not) but it is real and we rely on it. For me, trusting what even VPW used to call "the still small voice" inside (isn't it ironic that even HE used to encourage us to do that?) is what's been the best help to me over the years post-TWI. Willima James masterpiece, The Varieties of Religious Experience, is a good source for thinking about these issues, too. It's huge, though. I've only read some of it but found it helpful...and comforting. Enjoy life! We only get one (as far as I know ) Cheers! Charlene

I've been thinking about these sorts of things a long time, myself. One thing I found is that there are other ways to value the Bible besides thinkig it is has to be either "God's Word" (thereby it has to be perfect because God is perfect) or a "bunch of stories" like you said. When someone says "a bunch of stories" to me it seems to belittle the documents in the Bible. I don't think we need to do that. I don't think you intended that, right? There are other good options to valuing the literature of the Bible that respect the culture and writers of these documents. After all, it's a book of rich imagery, myth, cultural viewpoints, personal accounts, and yes, there are stories - good ones that teach interesting lessons - and there is much wisdom to be found between those two covers, in my view it is mostly found in Ecclesiates and parts of Proverbs, for instance. But IMO it should not be my only rule of faith and practice, nor should I attribute to it qualities it does not have. And it is unfair of me to expect it to apply to me today in most instances. That's where we run into trouble accusing people of not being believers like they did in the epistles of Paul. But that's another long story... Anyway, I think one thing we face in this discussion is VPW's tendency to pose EITHER/OR questions. That thinking forces us to make a choice between only those two ways of looking at the Bible. It rules out FOR US any other ways. I know one thing, it certainly intimidated me from investigating other ways and making up my own mind. This is a big topic, so I'll stop for now. My intention here is just to shed a little more light on this subject than I did in the article on the front page. Cheers!

"...critical thinking skills are like a muscle; either use it or lose it." I think there's a lot of truth in this; in my own experience, at least...and that was what finally got me out of TWI: awakening that faculty of my mind. The memoir I wrote, An Affinity for Windows, which is now posted here at GSC (front page link), is meant to show how that happened for me. Maybe it'll make sense for others...guess I'm tooting my own horn, but why not? It fits this topic, right? Peace, Charlene

You brought out a good point when you said,"The inerrancy of the Bible is an AXIOM, something assumed to be true without proof. For me, a fundamentalist, it is not only reasonable but also makes the Bible more than just a bunch of short stories." Actually, that is my point, that it is something assumed to be true without proof. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has ever shown it to be "true." For that reason, it is in the category of belief. Which is fine. Most people just don't come out and say it is their belief. They say it is the truth. And you are right, it is not only a TWI "problem" as you said. It is an assumption made by anyone who believes the Bible is the Word of God. VPW said this sort of thing all the time. PFAL book, page 128: "If it is God's Word, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word - which I am confident we can - then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, "Thus saith the Lord." Not having a contradiction means without error, which is inerrancy. Anything without error is perfect. Has anyone shown the Bible in its completion to be perfect? Which canon and which translation of which version would you use to show it? Those are questions to which I have no answers...do you? These are honest questions I've been asking myself for a long time...my conclusion is it is okay not to have answers. Life is bigger than this... Peace, Charlene

Thanks for the compliment above, DWBH, but I need to say that I shy away from any claims to having more of "god's perspective." I'm sure you understand where that can lead! But I agree with you that it is VERY important to say something about the value of perspectives; some are better, healthier, and more sound minded than others. Cheers!

DWBH wrote: "my engines just can't take this one captain!! imho, there's as much twi influence in stiffy as there is in cffm, the geerites, and any other twi offshoot/way tree splinter group! they pay constant homage to the "great truths" der vicster taught them, brag about the fact that wierwille, the founder of twi and stiffy theology, would be proud of what they're doing, and every single person who sits on their exalted BOD is an ex-wayfer! ( "ex" nominally at least). and yet, you state billy, how very happy you are to see much of the twi influence go away???????????????? DWBH has questions that no one from those groups has answered yet, at least here at this site that I know of. How come? As far as I know, another reason they cannot get away from TWI's influence (besides the fact former TWI people are running them like DWBH pointed out) is that as far as I can tell, they continue to use as their foundation, the following from PFAL book, pg.5: "The first and most basic key for power for abundant living is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. This key is the greatest secret in the world today. It is a secret not because God is keeping it to Himself; it is a secret because people have not believed." STOP. These three sentences are LOADED with assumptions but the one point I want to make here is this: The definition of a "secret" is something that is hidden, NOT something that is not believed. Merriam Webster defines a secret as something, "kept from knowledge or view." However, for something to be BELIEVED, it has to be KNOWN first, then it can be accepted or rejected. A secret is NOT KNOWN. So of course, it cannot be believed or rejected yet. Right off the bat, when I heard this I should have started asking questions. VPW changed the meaning of an ENGLISH word seemingly at his whim right in the first session of PFAL right under my nose. And I let him get away with it. Why did I do that? For one thing, I WANTED what he taught me to be true. The reasons for that are complex and personal; as are everyone else's. IMO, I think the best thing to do is to take each sentence of what people say or write and THINK ABOUT IT before we get caught up in believing it and then paying money to learn more about it. Peace, Charlene

Well, the fact remains that TWI and its offshoots are fundamentalist Christian groups (the term "Christian" is questionable, I know) and while some people like that sort of system because it seems to offer a sense of certainty about stuff like what the Bible REALLY says, etc, lots of other people aren't interested in that system. For starters, they find it a system of denial about all sorts of things. Things like the cultural roots of Christianity are vastly different than the society we live in today, so to try and recreate the first century church today is a pipe dream (not to mention there was no clear-cut first century church, but that's another story). That's just a tiny starter... Personally, I find TWI and its offshoots as suffocating as a blanket over my head. Guess I feel pretty opinionated this morning... Anyway,no matter how many certificates they hand out for good attendance, I'm pretty sure they would not want me back, I ask too many questions... The one I'm asking myself right now is, what the heck I'm doing up at this hour on Sunday morning - oh, someone had the bright idea to change the time BACKWARDS. How do you reset your sleep cycle? Peace and happy November! Where does the time go? Oh, yeah...it goes backwards, which is okay for ONE day but I sure hope they don't decide to crank it back 20 years. Although some groups seem to be trying to do that... Peace, Charlene

This part of DWBH's post is one of the most shocking and disturbing things I've ever heard about John S. I used to know him. I worked with him on the Research Team 1984-86. "...among the most disturbing things john s. said to me during our last conversation, was the following:........." i remember one time, on the motorcoach with doctor, when he said to me, that if i remained faithful, i'd be able to take the research of the word further than he ever could have imagined possible in his lifetime. well, i believe i have remained faithful to the word, and i believe we (ces/stfi) have done exactly that and we're continuing to do so, just like doctor wierwille said. i honestly believe that."...........so, john s. apparently still sees his "calling" to be the same as his "father-in-the-word" laid it out for him "back in the day"!!..........same "basic research principles" without the more nasty mistakes vic and twi "stumbled into"!.............now that really is something vic would be "very proud of"!!............sic!............i question the "spiritual" and intellectual judgement of those who would be "blessed" that vic would be "very proud" of anything they say or do!!.............nothing like the posthumous pride of a mean-spirited, alcoholic, narcissistic, sociopathic, serial sexual predator, to validate your "ministry"!! Learning this makes today a very sad day for me...and I will email John myself...this is very scary. Charlene

I agree that not everything we were taught was a lie, such as verses that tell us to love one another, etc. Broad truths like that are good and true, obviously. But we need to remember TWI was built on a man-made theology inherited from various sources. I'm glad Research Geek posted those thoughts here so we could take a few minutes and think about some of the points in that post. I've selected just a few of his remarks to respond to: "...twi realized that things had gone too far because people were leaving in droves, so they racheted rfr's changes back to a "kinder gentler" version and that is where they are now." This reflects a popular belief that there was a "kinder gentler" version of the past TWI days to go back to. I don't know when that was. I think he should explain that statement. "This time will be a real catharsis. Just hold fast to that which is good. But in the end, you should be better and stronger for it." I agree. Each person needs to sort out what that "good" was and question EVERYTHING; start from scratch in my opinion. "you still have a Godly calling and that ministry is directed towards other believers, so it functions best within a body of some kind." This is an assumption of many people when they want to perpetuate Christian groups. This thinking was promoted by the Apostle Paul to build his organization. Think carefully about whether or not this is what you want to do. "For example, there are a whole lot of people in twi who know things are wrong and have decided to try to change it from within." In my view, they would need to know what to change TWI into. What would that be? The fact is, the nature of a group like that is a closed system and the foundation is rooted too deep to change. Disassociation from the group and starting a new life is better. There IS A WHOLE WIDE WORLD out here and plenty of chances to meet fabulous people and learn things and ENJOY LIFE. Peace, Charlene

I think it's a gross misstatement to conclude that GSC is "Just filled with people who are ....ed and feel their 20s and 30s were stolen in the 70s and 80s." I do think it's fair to say many people come here to sort through the years they spent in TWI and try to create meaning from their experiences and find understanding from them, not to mention find out facts about certain events in TWI and teachings propounded by TWI. Please try and refrain from making sweeping generalizations about the people who post here. Thanks, Charlene

Don't kid yourself.