Abigail

I asked this in another thread, but thought I would ask it here as well. Can anyone show me a Biblical example of a "council of prophets"?

I have a question for those who follow the doctrine of personal prophesy, can any of you document in the Bible where there was a "Council of Prophets"? Also, Biblically speaking, how many instances of prophesy deal solely with and indivdual's life v how many instances of prophsey deal with issues pertaining to the group of followers as a whole? Because my understanding of the Bible is that the majority of the time, the prophet was speaking to the group as a whole, and in a signficantly smaller number of instances, did the prophet reprove the individual. Yet with the CES council of prophets, it seems that the majority of the time their prophesies are specific to an individual and rarely are they specific to the group as a whole. Just some food for thought.

I find it interesting that Gary and Karen were reproved for keeping their marriage private. I guess not all of them are complete idiots! Good for them for refusing to let the "clergy" and "prophets" intrude. And if the prophets are so great, why didn't God tell them about Gary and Karen's marriage? Maybe they simply didn't need to know, in which case there is no need for reproof now, is there? Or maybe they are simply false prophets? Wolves in sheeps clothing? And gee I can't imagine why somone would be anxious and suspicious about allowing the prophets to prophesy about them, can you? Perhpas Karen learned from what happened to Elizabeth? No, that couldn't be. Do any of you see how incredibly illogical, hypocritcal, and just plain old insane all of this is? How convenient too, that the only "prophetic source" indicating Mark needed to step down was from Tier 3 and therefore less than credible. Someone from outside the inner circle is in trouble now! I am simply flabbergasted by what I am reading. I feel like I have stepped into a "Lord of the Rings" movie. None of this has anything to do with God, it is all about power - who gets to be in charge! I know my criticsms probably sound harsh to those CESers who are still following this personal prophesy path, but really my harshness is meant for those who have led you down this path and not so much for those who follow. I know those oustide of TWI thought the path I was following looked pretty insane too, though I did not. The boundaries into your personal life, your space, your head, your walk with God, are generally moved gradually. So gradually you are barely even aware that it is happening. I don't fault you for that, I've been there. But, I pray that this insanity coming out in the open like it has, will help you step off this path. I pray that you get off this path before your boundaries and your relationship with God is pushed even further. I especially pray for the healing heart and spirit for those of you who have been twice bitten, for those of you who went from TWI to CES.

HA! Depends on how you define improved I suppose. In reading the various documents that have been posted here, it almost sounds to me like CES has the potential to be even worse than TWI was under Martindale's rein. They have taken "revelation" and "spiritual suspicion" to totally new heights!

Yes, that is one of the theories, Soulsurfer. In reading John Lynn's letter, I noticed he made reference to truth with a capital T, does this mean CES has two truths? It sounds like they took what VPW taught about Truth and Fact and simply changed the terminology.

Well said Grace and DogLover! I have started working my way through the very lengthy "clergy report". Holy carp, talk about conflicts of interest - MG and his wife are part of the Clergy Board too! They write that they want to understand what "The Lord" has spoken to them, and not just find support for their position. When I read that, God gave me a prophetic word. He said, "The check is in the mail and I won't . . . ." Well, you get the picture. :blink: And how interesting that out of the 9 who make up this clergy group, the 4 with the minority view couldn't make the meeting! How convenient too, that the clergy could find no biblical reason to take the position that certain fellow clergy members, MG & KG, were "unsafe". Sounds like the same logic the BOD in TWI must have used in justifying why they never asked LCM to step down, despite knowing of his extra-marital activities. Afterall, he was the MOG!

Well said, and yet I disagree. I think the doctrine and/or practice of personal prophecy is definitely bad, but there are more problems than that. It is the level of intimacy that has existed among the BOD/Leadership in this group sounds as if it borders on incest. It is highly improbable such a group could make an objective decision that was in the best interest of the ministry as a whole. Particularly, if that decision has the potential to hurt or offend one of the leaders. Heck, even their attorney had to resign because of a conflict of interest on a personal level! Structurally, there appears to be no specific set rules or guidelines (at least none that are consistently followed) regarding which group (clergy, BOD, prophetic council, president) gets to make decisions about what. Then there is the high level of meddling within each other's personal lives (and no way am I buying that prophesies regarding each other are godly, remotely objective, or without some agenda of personal gain), which amounts to some very serious and far reaching boundary hopping. How far down the chain this boundary hopping has gone, only those within CES could know - but it is certainly going on within the leadership ranks and will ultimately trickle down to the rest of the people as well. It is TWI all over again. The names and locations have been changed to protect the guilty, but the story is the same. I'm sure I could say more, but I have a life away from this place too, and it is time for me to attend to it.

I was reading the CES webpage and came across this, written by Mark Graeser: " Our commitment to truth . . ." The topic of truth also came up on one of the threads. Both remind me of VPW's teaching that "God's Word" is truth, everything else is fact. Here is some information on the word Truth from Wikipedia. The entire article can be found HERE Common dictionary definitions of truth mention some form of accord with fact or reality. There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of scholars agree . . . Some of the theories regarding the meaning of truth are as follows: Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols . . . For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system . . For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group There are many more, including those revovling around mathmatics and semantics (as is used in logic and critical thinking courses). Some theories propound an objective view, some subjective. It occurs to me, as we have these discussions, we all may have a different understanding of who the word truth, or other words, are defined. So I am interested, how do you define the word truth? Can you think of other words we may define or understand differently from one another?

Maybe some of us have a different perspective/opinion regarding what constitutes a "truth of significant proportion"

:)

What bothers me is the sheer arrogance of the statement. The notion/implication that said group has some inside track or special knowledge that no one in roughly 1900 plus years has been able to find. Also mixed in there is a very myopic (in my opinion) view of the scriptures and how they are to be understood, which basically amounts to my way or the highway - my god is bigger than your god. But hey, that's just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Mark, Thank you for so beautifully summarizing what I could not. :)

Well said and definitely worth repeating over and over again.

Thanks, Satori, I plan to, though it will probably be a few days before I have the time to put the thought into it, and then put the thoughts into words. :) I was just thinking about how much I benefitted from your thread, and was thinking the topic would be appropriate for this subforum.

Relax Rich. I think your buttons have been pushed far more than mine, based on how strongly you responded. Understable either way, be it mine or yours, these topics can be highly charged for a lot fo ex-Wayfers and/or ex CESers. Perhaps I can better explain where I am coming from in my responses to this thread. "No, right out of the gate YOU are back in TWI. I can call it group worship, I can it church, I can call it a barnyard with a dog barking. I have been other places where the word fellowship was used in the USA. It can be 6 people, it can be 6000 people, it can be a TV ministry. I never called it fellowship via twi/ces. You did. I am looking for positive attributes of ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP that is not dysfunctional, not another rant against twi/ces." No, I am not back in TWI. I think the topic of positive attributes of any relgions group that is not dysfunctional is a great one for discussion, too. Likewise, we could call it anything, church, the ecclesia, temple, community gathering, etc. However, we didn't call it anything, we called it fellowship. Do other organizations use that term? Certainly they do. But we aren't here at the cafe because we came from other organizations, we are here because we came from TWI and/or CES. One of the things I learned to look at, post TWI, was the usage of words - but in a different light from how I learned it in TWI. TWI had a tendency to take a simple common word, such as "truth", "fellowship" "faith" and add a slightly different take or connotation to the meaning of the word. They also made up words, like believing, as in "I am believing for a good parking space." The words we use, how we understand and interpret the words we use, effect the way we think. So, when you use the word fellowship among people who are from the background of TWI and CES, it has a connotation to it that probably doesn't exist among other groups. I never used the word Research - which is a word used primarily by twi and waybrain people which I have never heard used in other mainline churches - so where are YOU coming from? Just a question, not a slam. I didn't say YOU used the word research. I chose the word research. Why? Because TWI was supposed to be a research and teaching ministry. Likewise, CES, though using different wording, claims to be a research and teaching ministry. You asked for hallmarks of a healthy fellowship. In utilizing the term research (because both organizations claim to research and thus I deduct that many of their followers have an interest in research), I have some examples of what a healthy fellowship involving research is not. See, I was doing two things here, I was suggesting we re-evaluate what the worship does and does not mean and respondinging to your initial topic at the same time. I put up a list of healthy attributes of any group fellowship and you wanna go back to twi. Nope, been there, done that, no plans of doing it again. What I do want to do, however, is put some food for thought out there, for those who have now been twice bitten, first by TWI and then by CES. I think you do as well. Our perspectives may be different, but I am guessing our goals and motives are not so very different. "You also seem to be saying don't try to have a relationship like a marriage or a friendship because eventually a will happen, then b, then c then d and then it will all go wrong and you will leave me and hate me and I will feel bad. Uhhhh??? Wassup" This is entirely your read on what I said - your "private interpretation", and not at all what I said. What I was saying is that there is a proper context for a healthy intimate relationship, propery boundaries - which really could be another thread altogether. What I said was, one attribute of an unhealthy fellowship, when that fellowship involves research, is overly intimate relationships. Why? Because it causes people to lose objectivity. No where did I say ALL intimate relationships are bad. No where di I say marriage or friendships are bad. "To semi-quote the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS - somewhere there is a family with the bean salad and the picnic at the beach where everyone gets along. " Sure there is. But that same family, if they are a healthy family, will also have disagreements. That doesn't mean they will be in each other's faces screaming, cussing, threatening. It simply means they will have different opinions, different perspectives, different ideas. In a healthy family, there will be mutual respect. That mutual respect will make it possible to calmly hear and consider the other person's perspective and then calmly and lovingly talk things through. Sometimes an agreement will be reached, sometimes a compromise, sometimes they will simply agree to disagree with no hard feelings. Obviously, spiders out the nose does not consitute healthy. I think if youu look back at what I was saying, you will find that although I didn't respond in list form, I did offer a number of examples of what is and what is not healthy, in my opinion and from my perspective. Likewise, I think you will find my heart and motives in all of this are really not so very different from your own. Peace.

I have it on good authority, Shellon is a 'person of interest' in this case.

Excatly, Mark. I would point out also, that they way the weekly services in the temple are cyclical. Every week a portion of the Torah (the laws) and a portion of the Haftorah (rest of the writings are read). It is set up so that over the course of a year, the entire O.T. is read. I In every temple around the world, the same portions are being read on the same night. For the week preceding the service, it is up to the individuals and families to study those portions in their homes, to come prepared. The services I have attended do not include some drawn out explanation of what those readings mean. It is between you and God, what you take away from the reading. After the service, there is the breaking of bread (or bagels ). During that time, the people are free to discuss and even debate what they took away from the service. They are also free to discuss the current events of their lives, their government, or even the weather. It is funny to me, in retrospect, how I once thought Judaism was so incredibilty legalistic that I completely shied away from studying it. I look back now and see that there was far, far more legalism within TWI. I don't know how much of that legalism has crept into CES, but it sounds like at least some of it has. I'm betting the same could be said of Catholicism - that for all the claims of legalism, it is less so than TWI was.

Wow, reading that makes me feel like I was back in TWI again. Very spooky. I find the practice of mark and avoid completely repugnant. I know it is in the Bible. However, whatever God meant it to be, however God meant it to be practiced, I strongly believe that neither TWI nor CES have it right. The last step is to treat the person as you would an unbeliever (i.e., kindly, but detached). Hmmm, I wonder if Elizabeth feels that she was treated kindly, but with detachment. Someone I seriously doubt it. Perhaps one should investigate what kindess means to those who lead CES.

Satori, it is good to see you again. I've been wishing I could ressurect your thread from summer/fall of 2001 regarding logical fallacies, but alas, I suspect is may be gone forever. Thanks for adding your insightful thoughts to the mix.

Hey you two. I'm going to start by saying I get your heart and intent here. I think your intent is great, but the premise has a problem. A healthy fellowship sounds like a beautiful thing, no? Unfortunately, from where I sit, it is simply travelling a path that will once again lead us to that very same spot we were in TWI, or CES. What is a fellowship? See, right out of the gate we are back in TWI, using their terminology. One of the problems with a fellowship ala TWI, CES, whatever, is that it promotes an emotional dependence. Even the self-governing ones, the ones lacking in a MOG (Man of God), or charismatic leader, will lead to this. In fact, I suspect it is the intimate relationships so many of us had with each other that make a fellowship such an appealing thing. There is nothing wrong with intimate relationships. There isn't even anything wrong with a small degree of emotional dependency (we all become emotionally dependant, to at least some degree, on the ones we entrust our hearts and intimate thoughts to). However, when that intimacy is mixed with what is supposed to be objective research, eventually all objectivity will go out the window. In a sense, fellowship via TWI/CES is a microcosm of the problem I see with the set up for the BOD for those very same organizations. Human nature being what it is, we will eventually tend to stop questioning in an objective fashion and stop utlizing critical thinking skills, because we don't want to offend our friend. Or, becaue we can't imagine our friend leading us astray. Eventually, someone new will come along, who hasn't yet developed that strong and intimate relationship with us, or someone will come up with a critical question, and before we know it, without even realizing it, we will begin the whole process all over again. We will become defensive on behalf of the one whose idea was critiqued. We may eventually tell the person they are spiritually immature. If they put up enough of a fight we may even mark and avoid them. There are no healthy fellowships via TWI/CES. We need to lose that terminology and mode of thinking. Start with something fresh. Research with people who we respect, but are not intimate with, so objectivity is not lost. Develop intimate relationships with those who hold similar values, but also have opinions that differ from our own. Learn how to accept someone, love someone, be intimate with someone, without having to always be likeminded with them.

how do I count them all? Define sexually harrassed, is it confined only to the work place? Does getting harassed at a laundry mat count? What about walking home from school? I never lost a job over it, but I certainly had my tushy smacked a few times. Then there was the hand on the knee . . .

Certainly, he could be one of the problems, or a symptom as I said in my previous post. Discuss what the letter says, quote it if you need to prove the statement was made. It is the arguing back and forth, he did so, he did not, he did too that gets tiresome and detracting. Hell, we could spend hours defining the word "truth" but I'm not sure it would really benefit anyone.

Some good pieces of information from among the chaos of the other thread. Grace said: NOTE: CES is not in a Mess just because on January 15 the Board will vote Mark out as President, terminate him as an employee and cut off further input from Karen Anne (and probably from Tom and Susan). CES is in a Mess because your entire BOD has continued to allow more and more ungodly words and actions to reign in their/your organization and refused to hear from many believers who pointed it out to them. Tragically, it is just what occurred in The Way under whom your BOD was trained I said: Just like TWI's problems continue, despite the change in leadership (removing the front man but retaining those who covered for him), CES's problems will continue, even if the latest front man "MG" is removed from power. It goes back to structural problems, doctrinal problems, a lack of checks and balances. Strange One said: IF they're really interested in cleaning things up as opposed to huddling in the bunker trying to defend themselves from the grenades being tossed. STAND UP and put it out there for folks to deal with... HONESTLY... without reservation Sunesis pointed out: VPW ordained these men. By law, those who left TWI years ago and were no longer affiliated with TWI could not retain their "Reverend" title. But they still use them anyway and For some reason, TWI fostered this MOG mentality, gotta follow someone. Or if someone was a MOG, well, they now have to take the package, purify it, make it better and sell it. What gives these people the right with no real theological educations the right to even do this? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Dmiller said: From my distant/ partner perspective of CES/STF -- the org has had always seemed to be forthcoming about new things they were learning. Sadly -- they were not as forthcoming with the present internal problems. While quick to admit that teachings they've promoted in the past, were in fact not correct according to new things learned -- it's a shame (imo) that *correction* couldn't be done in other areas as well. Especially in this area -- where folks are directly impacted in their personal lives. and Do I need an org to help me walk the Christian walk better?? NO. Neither do you, nor does anyone else. But many of us have chosen an org to follow after our exit from twi. And that's whether it's *this denomination* or *that denomination*. If you have involved yourself in a church/ denominatiion (regardless of persuasion), you are following an org, which (by definition) has little difference than CES. I'm sure there is more, but that is plenty to chew on.

JAL isn't the problem with CES, WhiteDove, that is by and large what I take issue with. This entire thread has derailed/distracted people from the real problems. JAL may be a part of the problem, or he may simply be a symptom. People won't be helped by arguing about JAL, they will be helped by discussing the root problems that have occured within CES. By discussing what has occured, by exposing any coverups that may have occured, etc.

Welcome Lagates. From what I have read, CES has become TWI. They too practiced the same things, they just used different terminology for it.