JeffSjo

I'm thankful for your post Doojable and the thread. Truth must of neccessity include both good and bad I think. Sometimes anger and sometimes kindness too. I like it best when I err on the good and kind side but that hasn't always been the case.

I have to agree with Spectrum49 on one point for sure. It's up to him how long he sticks around and fights for the truth. The Lord is the one who will judge things like: Is it love, Was it worth the sacrifice, Was he/she following a man or was it following the Lord in spite of the painful result. I understand well intended advise, but it's still a choice and I know that ultimatly I'm not the judge. When people say that I wasn't following the Lord I know in my heart that they may be right or they may be wrong, but to pronounce judgment is not their place. I edited for a spelling error.

For me the key ingredient for me to want to use the term "legalism" is an element of abuse in the events. I suppose it can be when the issue is simply control too. It's been written for 2000 years or so now as a term for people who used the O.T law to control people but without the heart or love that is in Christ. They didn't know what they were doing in other words. Sorry if you don't believe in the same things that I do everyone, but I don't know how to talk about this without some kind of biblical reference. I hope that you can look past the reference and consider the principles behind what I'm saying. My opinion on the slave issue: Slave to Jesus Christ---------------GOOD Slave to self serving leadership---BAD

Dear Excathedra and Potato, Not only did he allow people to call him "the Word in the flesh" but as far as I know I was the last one willing to stand up to his B.S. so I have every reason to believe it can only be worse now. He is 14th Corps and now he believes that he's the judge of everything leftover from TWI. I can't count the times he's lead people into believing that it all will or should belong to him. The one thing that I can say for sure is that the manner in which he ruined my life proves that he can be very wicked and destructive. Dear coolchef and potato, This is why I don't like the "C" word. In the eighties TWI was called a cult by many religious people and it's primary effect on the street was to discourage reasonable folks from considering very real doctrinal issues. As soon as I got into the word I went out and bought a copy of "The Kingdom of the Cults" and did my best to reconcile what they said with what I saw. I didn't see the bad things going on deep inside the ministry, but I did see good people holding on to controversial doctrine and get labled a "cult" for their trouble. That's why I will never use that word. It was and always will be primarily a slanderous term to me. But I'm not going to dog any of you about it either. The effort to hold on to the good doctrine in spite of the bad things going on is painful to me. But I will do my best to do both. History is full of God doing great things for people only to have them sin grievously. Not just in the pages of the bible but in church history and even current events. The sin does not change what God was trying to do. You may not agree with me, but it's where I stand. God help me, I can do nothing else. I will not disparage the experiences of the folks who were deeply hurt either.

Hi Waykid and welcome. I hope things go well for you here.

I remember being exited 1st and formost with the understanding of the bible. The rest of that stuff you speak of I remember being exited about too. Thank you for sharing Spectrum49. That is interesting how you percieve the addition of "fellowship." I wonder if instead of a doctrinal error, if that wasn't about the time you started picking up the bad vibes so to speak. Maybe when fellowship stopped being fellowship in the best biblical sense is the same time that it became a bothersome addition for you. At any rate, thank you again for sharing, it certainly brought back some good memories.

Hi Rachel, Thank you for sharing some of your joy and delight with us. I hope that talking with us gets easier for you. I don't mind being told things, I usually prove them though. Maybe as people get to know you and your intentions better it'll get easier.

Thank you Brideofjc. Thank you for the post Markomalley, I will certainly look at St. John of the Cross. Often times when I look back at heated doctrinal discussions the one who started the fight is the same one who accuses the other of being mean, bigoted, and/ or unreasonable. It seems that sometimes heat is necessary in these discussions, but most often it is unfruitful I think. If we both lived in the 1600's it might not be as smooth between us Mark. But I'm glad for the fellowship so far. SOMETIMES I FEEL THE SAME WAY ABOUT TWI AS YOU DO ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. For instance I remember Dr. Wierwille telling people that we were "just begining to scratch "the H in theHoly Bible." The context of that taped statement was how far we'd come in terms of our understanding. Perhaps in another circumstance Dr. was not as meak, but that day he was. I believe that many people in TWI were too puffed up about our supposed knowledge, but I'm not certain that it was Dr's doing. But that is kind of an "in house" thing, I mostly object to the abundance of misstatements by people who don't have any clue. I can relate to how you feel about the Catholic church in these type of topics.

Hi Skyrider, That's a lot of information and I'm thankful for the post. The small splinter group that I come from since TWI has a lot of those characteristics. Seating when dining together is organized carefully according to kingdom heirarchy. Never mind that without love we're nothing. The leader allows the followers to refer to him as "The Word in the Flesh." The leader was above reproof. No matter how twisted his actions are, any legitimate reproof is viewed as a personal attack. Any legitimate reproof from anyone else was viewed as done by "another man." Implying unfaithfullness in the one who listened) Peoples live's being destroyed by leadership was used to build fear in the rest. All Biblical integrity was tossed out the window in favor of the leaders opinion. FOR ALL THAT, I DON'T LIKE TO USE THE TERM CULT AND I'M NOT CHANGING MY MIND. But I'm not going to dog people over their choice of words either. Arguing about terminology would be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Dear Excathedra, You're welcome. I'm doing fine too. ( Today ha ha ha ha ha ) I think that I know how you feel. Dear Wordwolf, Thanks for all the information, it helps me a lot to deal with the things that I have no scope on. You filled in some pretty big blanks for me. Dear Potato and But Now I See, Those are very hard things for me to hear. I think that if I had been more of an "innie" in those days I may have fallen into those kinds of things. Even if I wouldn't have, as a man I can imagine the temptation. Power sometimes leads to corruption. It brings to mind Biblical records like: Eli and his sons, Balam and the daughters of Moab: and even David and Bathshebah. Dear Waysider, Thanks for posting the statute, it makes it very plain. Like I've said before, I don't believe activity has to be technically criminal for the works to be burnt up.

When I brought this thread back to the front, it was because Dot had shared that she was in a struggle and might need to take another look at this prophecy. One of the ways I thought this could be a blessing to Dot was that if the prophecy was false that she could see that, that would be a blessing for sure. I reserve my judgement because I'm not in Dot's shoes and am not qualified to judge the truth of it. To be perfectly honest, I'm never completely comfortable with a spoken prophecy. I do believe that there's more to it in practice than was generally allowed in TWI days and can be very good. I also believe that a lot of damage is done by false prophecies. DEAR RACHEL, I am never suspicious of prophecies that contradict the written word of God. I REJECT THEM WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I don't know for sure if you were refering to this prophecy for Dot or not. Even though this is the doctrinal section I'm going to hold off on making disparaging statements on the prophecy at hand because this was brought to the front to bless Dot. And if she's blessed, I'm blessed. On the other hand, if you have specific and clear concerns it is the doctrinal section. If you want to bless Dot and not see her mislead, why don't you plainly stait your concerns? Were they specific concerns or were you just speaking in general? Why say anything at all if not to help another? DEAR DOT, I beg your pardon for stiring the pot a little. I hope you don't mind. IF YOU DO MIND, I WILL BE QUIET AND FIND ANOTHER PLACE TO DISCUSS PROPHECY WITH RACHEL. Just say the word and I'll sadly regret that I ever brought it up in relationship to your prophecy and I won't say another word. DEAR DOT, I HOPE THINGS ARE WELL WITH YOU.

I understand what you're saying TheHighWay, I wouldn't term that behavior as legalism but instead I would call it abusive. But however we may choose to refer to the "legalism" as you call it, I understand what you're talking about in tems of the appropriate vigor in enforcing the rule.

Hi Markomalley, I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on. I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good. I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind. Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too. The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me. Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect. For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much. I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.

One of my favorite reads about truth is the book of 1John. I think it reads best when I consider myself as a little child reading a simple writing.

I am grieved by the Way International for employing lawyers to sue people over something that has been public domain for nearly two thousand years. I do NOT want to grieved by TWI for them infringing on free speach. I'll just wait and see.

Dear Excathedra, I think that you've got treasure in you. If you've been through so much then you deserve whatever you need to be built up. Being tore down can be so wearisome. Dear Rascal, I'm so very thankful for your posts. Dear Paw, I do not understand all this board stuff. When it comes to computers and the internet I'm at kindergarten level. Are you facing legal pressure as to the content of this site? Is that common? Am I completely misunderstanding these references to board liability? SOME PEOPLE JUST WON'T STOP AT ANYTHING TO GET PEOPLE TO BE QUITE. Dear Rhino, What is Waydale? Dear Wordwolf, I don't really think WD was trying to protect us from TWI's lawyers either, but I felt that I had to something good about WD's posts. The best I could come up with was saying that the warning "could be" considered well intended. I CAN'T BLAME THE LAWYERS FOR JUST DOING THERE JOBS. WITH MY BACKGROUND I WOULD PROBABLY PASS ON BEING A LAWYER FOR A GROUP THAT WAS GOING UP AGAINST PEOPLE WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE. I've read the book of Acts a lot and would be waiting for God to bring the matter to a satisfying conclusion like he did for Paul in Corinth. Even if nothing like that happened, I think too highly of the American rights of free speech and so forth to want to cave in to a nuiscance lawsuit. In the early eighties I counted on my rights as an American citizen to persuade my then misguided family to quit considering the deprogramming option. I think they believed that I was acting of my own accord when I got to talk to them, when I was a WOW Ambassador. What a supreme pity that the same organization that was the target of fear mongering and bullying of all sorts is now the same one that treats people just as badly and even worse. WHAT'S NEXT, KIDNAPPING?

Hi eyesopen, I don't know if everyone agrees but our little derail seems good to me. I've faced a lot of the same scepticism you have, or at least a lot of similar stuff it sounds like. It's nice to be treated as honest and decent folks, isn't it? I appreciate it too! It does my heart good. NOW, maybe back to the scheduled programming..........

Hi eyesopen, I really hope you were completely right, and did what you had to do. For whatever it's worth to you, it sounds to me like you were right, I don't have any reason to doubt you. NOW ; BACK TO THE SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING...........

Hi skyrider, For whatever it's worth, I like that you've got a lot of up close and personal experience to share and I think I'll enjoy reading your posts.