socks

Hello BlueCord! Wikipedia may well be correct in their interpretation of their policy and guidelines. I've been through this ad nauseam in other unrelated areas of Wikipedia. I'm not sure I agree how they're describing their position but - well, take a look at a couple other entries for organizations that are very publicly labelled "cults" by many people including former members - Scientology's page opens with this line: Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86). LDS/Mormons open with this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), often informally known as the Mormon Church, is a nontrinitarian, Christian restorationist church that is considered by its members to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. Yet if we look up "Cult" on Wikipedia we read a very broad discussion of the topic that starts with this: And so on and so forth.... To your intent and point however, it could be appropriate to say something to the affect of the Way being considered a cult by many (for the following reasons)....etc. etc. Whether anyone believes that to be true or not, it has been a fairly consistent accusation historically since it's growth in the 70's and as such would simply be a statement of a significant fact reflecting a concern of society in regards to new religious "movements". So the logic is kind of like saying "John Lennon once said that he felt The Beatles were more popular then Jesus, given the reactions of their fans around the world to their music".....as opposed to saying "John Lennon said The Beatles were more popular than Jesus"......both statements are "true" but arguably the first statement gives more information. The Wikipedia page covers a great deal of information on The Way and in my opinion does a decent enough job - but you'll notice that while there's mention of Martindale's "sexual misconduct" and other issues, nothing's mentioned of that being an accusation made against his predecessor. VPW gets a pass on that - and that's buggy to me from a historical standpoint but - I get why that's probably the case, ashis accusations don't have any legal or formal record and Martindale's does....so a writer would be on safe ground to note LCM's history as it's a matter of court record, but VPW's problems with it such as they may have been - are not. Still and all it has become a very public part of the Way's history, of that there's no question. And while reading it I think there's a very telling few lines about the Way West and East, and the era of Jim Doop and Steve Heefner.....it's this part under the paragraph "The Way": "Some of the groups he met later incorporated as The Way East (based in Rye, New York) and The Way West (based in Mill Valley, California), groups that utilized Wierwille's PFAL class in their ministries.[10] Wierwille also recruited a number of new members on his trip, marking a period of large growth for his ministry. Wierwille later merged The Way East and The Way West into The Way Inc., now the Way International.[21][22]" That very succinctly describes what happened, and the results of what they're calling a "merge" indicates the intent of VPW to grow his ministry's assets into a larger organization. But calling it a merger is like calling a shi t storm a reason to buy more toilet paper. Clearly the writers of the Wiki page are giving VPW a pass and making the earlier history of the Way dust free, while lightly covering the later problems that more people alive now are likely to know about. Anyhoo - don't sweat it. Peace!!

This one?

Hmmm. no. I'm not kidding. Was I not clear enough? Let me try again, more seriously. "So is that correct - did LCM's legacy amount to "0" for EVERYone, whether they continue to maintain some, all or any part of what they were taught by The Way....?" I'm going to put your answer as a "Yes", my question/statement is true. So far everyone appears to agree. Thank you for your response, it's appreciated. If anyone reading disagrees or has other thoughts or perspectives please feel free to respond! Thanks!

Speaking of Refesteration and Revilery, here's a question fer y'all...lemme see if I can make this make sense...I was thinking about it after reading that one of the principles of the STFI/Truth of Tradition ministry had left and was teaching something radically different than what the group teaches. It made me wonder - would those who leave that group refer back to their roots and the points at which they left the herd by name and by date, for instance using the name of John Schoenheit or John Lynn or whomever....since they're branching off from a group that built their doctrinal platform by the hands of a few people, it would make sense if they did. It might also make sense for them to reach even further back or for that matter, to skip people altogether and just start from "scratch" so to speak, from "The Word" and not what their previous founders and bible-pounders taught. Or from some other point of reference that they consider important. Likewise, today there are groups, ministries, fellowships and otherswho are carrying forth the teachings of Dr. Wiewille, by name, both in part and whole. Refaced PFAL classes, reworked teachings and books, in whatever form, some people openly favor all or some part of "what they were taught" and are willing and ready to keep the candle burning for "What Doctor Taught".... But - I never hear of anyone referencing or building their platform from what Craig Martindale taught - and he redid the Way's "Foundational" series class....yet there seems to be a vast void of anyone who references him directly as "What Rev. Martindale Taught" or as a way of calling the fold together around something he taught in the past....it seems no one sees a point of his involvement as a milestone date or event in a positive way. And I could see why - I personally can't think of anything he did or said that's worth remembering, other than some personal communications I might have had with him, but nothing on a deeper scale. I was only involved for a short few years after he took over but others were on board with him for many years.... So is that correct - did LCM's legacy amount to "0" for EVERYone, whether they continue to maintain some, all or any part of what they were taught by The Way....? Your responses are welcome.

That's a good recap, DWBH, thank you. So much of what I've seen as well as heard from others says that the Moneyhands are a very damaged couple who are not interested in helping much less "restoring" anyone unless it serves their own purposes. Taxiperson, you're on the right track. Remember, in the "old" days everyone used to say that The Way was....Jesus Christ, and that we were followers of the Way, of Jesus Christ, not people. That has a practical application and requires you and I actually do it, and understand that Jesus Christ was and IS the Living Logos, and it is through that Word that we understand and have a perspective of God. God magnified "His Word" above His own name, which puts the Living Word as the thing that we must live to see and follow. Men and women will always want you to follow THEM, as an aid, a means to better do that....their "ministries", so called, if given by God are in SERVICE to God's people and will always magnify Jesus Christ, making His Way clearer. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word, indeed....and it's that "faith of Jesus Christ" which is complete and full and all that we need to rely on and identify with. Yes, thank God we have a written record to read and learn from - but we must always remember that the Way of Christ is straight, simple and easily intreated, not burdensome though we may choose to bear the burdens of others as Christ has our own - it's loving, forgiving and only requires that we subject ourselves to God's forgiveness, knowing that we need it - we need the broken ends of our lives brought that together and "restored" - so we can live for God. The Way was so subtle replacing the simplicity in Christ with the complexities of it's own religion, born out of The Way Corps program which ultimately drilled down into every fellowship The Way held for many years. Ultimately in order to be true to God, each person that came out of the Corps program had to divest it'self from the authority of The Way in order to make any use of what they'd learned. I for one did learn a great deal and I do not understate the value of the experiences I had, including of course the mistakes I myself made and those of others that affected me. It's far outweighed by what I gained. This in no way values bad over good, error over truth or ungodliness over true faith. However everything I am today is the sum total of what I have been and done up to this point, and it will never be the perfection that God promises through eternal life wholness, in Christ. Still I persist! There's really nothing else to do but that. PEACE!!

I fielded a couple questions recently on this group and their communications. I only know what I've seen online but note that it's Moynihan who says - 'nothing happens without leadership, and when we have great leadership things happen greatly'.... Given the last few decades and what they've being doing, I'd have to agree - it appears obvious that In the absence of anything close to "great" leadership in the Way ... nothing great has happened for many many years, unless you count leaving being great. In which case, now that they've left, perhaps...."great leadership"....might develop? I won't develop that idea further but this is why you can't trust what so many people say. They just don't really think about what they're saying but sometimes the truth comes out anyway... Also the woman who emphasizes that the 'self governing, self propagating' aspect of the home fellowship has been "slowly taken away" is showing how blind they really are and have been. It was not slow, and for practical purposes once the 'Way Tree' was installed as a functional organizational tool that's been gone, going back to the early 70's. I would say that since Dr. Wierwille really hit the road looking to promote his newly filmed PFAL class, the organizational model of close corporate level control over everything has been in place. Certainly since the late 70's it's been impossible for any smaller ministry units like "twigs" to be truly self governing unless it's in strict "cooperation with the next higher level" of leadership. It wasn't slow by these peoples' timeline, some of them didn't even know about the Way until the 80's......edits were made to the pamphlet "First Century Church in the Twentieth" when it it went into the New Dynamic Church "The Green Book" that left out key parts of the early Acts model of growth. All classes related to the "Way Tree" and ministry outreach hammered the point of maintaining accountability to what the New Knoxville "leadership" said and did at "The Root". Allegiance to the "man of God" was promoted and the idea that you HAD to stand with him and the Way to be a "true believer" became essential long before Craig got a hold of it. (that's why Craig was able to step so easily into being a self serving Hitleresque President, the frame work already existed to keep all control within the BOT's, he just exercised it to a greater degree across all parts of the Way. ) Likewise for years and years there was a growing development of process and procedure for local fellowships to support the Way Nash by giving TO them and supporting them in all ways but little to no development of process and procedure for the Way Nash Trunk/Root level organizations BACK to support local fellowships - except in products and merchandise. The products of the ministry were books, classes, tapes and visits and assignment of Way leaders and teachers to live in areas where the ministry had work. But there was no real tangible connection to allow for the local expanding churches/twigs in a state to have autonomy amongst themselves. Everyone followed the same ministry calendar of events, parallel classes and concurrent meetings, plus attendance at all larger state and multi state meetings, reviews f the Way Magazine being done week after week, the SNS teachings being reviewed in twigs week after week - the only way or reason a local fellowship coordinator could be assured of exercising self governance was to just not tell his "next higher" level of leadership, to hide it. Which oddly was something even Dr. Wierwille advised regarding certain things....! Slowly taken away, indeed...............ah, kids, lotta things, but you gotta see it in the original to really appreciate it. It was hardly "slow" - it was actually rather quick, starting in about 1971 and moving forward from there.

Yes, that's it! A very bizarre flick, and at 11 years old, seemed kinda kinky. Wacky! AOS - We drove up with another couple for the premiere weekend showing. Stayed a night, and were back home Monday. We all discussed it for a long time on the way home - and remember we were broadly pro-the-ministry, and weren't looking to trash it. I had friends involved, and really really wanted to like it, to learn something from it, to be encouraged the Ministry was moving in a healthy direction that we could all grow with. Plus this was seeing our new Pres Craig in action and saw it to be something of a harbinger of his future. Buuuuuuuuuuut...outside of the dancers trying to do their best I thought it was a terrible production. It had no natural rhythm or flow that carried the viewer, no real story being told, no narrative quality, texture. Considering I was very well schooled in what they were trying to communicate I felt I knew less about the topic after seeing the production - seriously, the imagery was, to put it into a word, "corny" and took away from the realities being referred to. It removed all sense of horror from the reality of a rebellious adversary working contrary to God the Creator's will. It made it seem like an academic exercise - given Craig's failure and that he was about to have his defeated "Adversary" tying a plastic bag around his head while being drug into quicksand, he was being cavalier at an almost Shakespearean level. In the Way we were taught to see God as the sum of the things He does for us. We lost the magnitude of His glory, the breadth of His will as Creator by reducing it to words and definitions we could parse. We knew the greek nuances of the words that told us that God was beyond our highest perceptions but ignored what that meant and how it might affect our actions and attitudes. AOS was a perfect example of Craig's "flat earth" view of spirituality. Lacking grandeur and scope, but struggling with every wiggling drop of sweat to communicate. Anyway, I'd never show that to anyone. We never watched it back home in our fellowship. It eventually was shown locally buuuuuuuuut I barely remembered it. There was an incident on the road trip home from Ohio that has lived on our memories as one of the more hilarious travel stories we accumulated but that's another story. Anyway. Yeah.

To add: I'm sure there was but it doesn't ring any bells. It likely ran around 2 am, right after the "Shepherds Chapel" and the Bahai Events Calendar for that month.

When I was a kid going to Cat'lic school, we used to get summer Movie passes to a local theater, and it included weekly cheep matinee showings. Sold a lot of popcorn and soda, I'm sure. They would show all kinds of fringe stuff in the matinees with an emphasis on cheesy horror and sci-fi flicks. (back when there were 2 movies plus cartoons and news reels) There was a movie I saw then that I would bet you've heard of - "The Mask". It wasn't the Jim Carey movie but the plot was somewhat similar - there was this African witch doctor kind of mask that would give the person wearing it wild hallucinations, visions of alternate dimensions which of course had a scattering of weird looking women in tights and tattered colored clothing, dancing around being menacing - I don't remember all the details but I've never seen it shown anywhere since then. It was so odd - it could have been an early reference to the coming DMT and LSD movements. It was in 1961 or so I saw it, and it's now available through some streaming services. Anyway - I wonder if anyone else has ever seen it? AOS and all the undulating dancing "spirits" reminded me of that movie's look and feel when it goes into the hallucination sequences when the person wears the mask. So few have ever seen that movie it barely qualifies for cult classic status but it's really a fringe-gem. Anyway, figured you might like to know, if you haven't seen it, might be worth a shot.

Speaking of that tune.....I re read Craig's July 1994 letter to the Corps covering the current status of his "Homo Purge". In it he added a PS that is really a commentary on his entire future as Pres' of the Way. I wasn't involved in the Way at that time, wasn't getting corps-espondence or Happy Ho Ho' Holiday cards, so I only saw this later as it was shared by others. It went out that year a month before the August Corps Week and ROA, I'm not even entirely sure if there was even one that year but it sounds like he was gearing up for a real rip roaring time in the tents that year if there was. Anyway - he notes early in that letter about VPW's "older standard" he had taught of dismissing anyone who was "caught in the act" of - well, I guess "being homo". Craig says they can no longer "wait" for that kind of thing. (I picture him pacing and fidgeting day after day at his desk, "did you get 'em?? did you see 'em?? No??!! Keep at it, we have to catch them IN THE ACT!! and GET PICTURES!) ....He ramps it down to "genuine spiritual suspicion" guiding the noses of those in "leadership"... ( I really struggle even writing that word in regards to the hose-pumps that ran the Way at that time, so I get where he's going with his sense of disgust). So the ethical rubber met the road in VPW's time only if you got caught breaking a fundamental rule of his organization. Craig is clarifying that back in the day he understood that whatever you could get away with was okay by VPW. Just keep it down, manage your stuff, take care o' business and have a nice day. He might not like it, it might not even be "off the Word" but hey. So Craig wanted everyone to get out their genuine suspect-acles and eyeball everyone for homo-nistic influences. I shudder at that thought - no unnecessary offense is intended to anyone including myself but the Way had a lot of people in the Corps who couldn't tie their shoes if they didn't have someone to tell them why and then had practiced doing it a lot...I'm not trying to be mean but it's the truth...plus a growing percentage of the "leadership" at the Way by that time were those who were too corrupt to pass up the emerging opportunities it's failure was offering...Yikes!! Knowing now that Craig was looking down the lane at a sh it storm of biblical proportion his PS to close that letter is telling - it read: "Howard Allen said quite a thing to me by way of a note the other days, when he said that he never saw Dr. Wierwille work as hard as I do to keep the household clean...." and he closed it by saying "so either get on or get scared to death and get out." Of course he didn't - why do you think that was, genius! Craig was so busy busting other people from his elevated perch of judgment that he couldn't see the irony of a man who enjoyed the privacy of his own sexual activities looking under every rock to smoke out the activities of others. Kinda bad form as that kind of thing goes, you'd think. "No honor amongst those thieves" to be sure.

Hi WW. I think we can say that no, VPW did not cite his sources in a consistent, professional or scholarly way that would allow a reader of most of his work to track it. I used those three words deliberately - there are some references here and there but there is a notable absence of him foot noting sections of what he published under his name that were clearly and closely identical to other work of other writers and doing it consistently or in such a way that it would be on record. Nor did he observe professional and legal best practices in that area, nor educational standards. He did talk about them, at times. He referenced Bullinger, Leonard, etc. etc. but never in a way that credited them, nearly always making note that they had all somehow stepped into error at some point or stopped "believing" God at His Word. I think one of the likeliest reasons he did that was to support his claim that God would teach him like no other since etc. if he would teach that to others. If he referenced huge chunks of his ideas and language used to express them to others having it first it would erode that claim. The best thing he could have done was invite all critics including those he quoted, to question and negate his work if they so desired and then let the pieces fly as they might. That would have suited his two-fisted mans-man motorcycle riding personae he promoted. Instead he talked about it in ways that allowed him to "credit" them while making sure the listener understood they were not fit to judge his ultimate use of their words. Matthew 5 – "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." "Honesty" is a moving target for a lot of people. In the Way it's reserved for "the truth of God's Word". Everything else to them is a "fact", unreliable and invalid. Facts are ignored and replaced by "what's the Word say?"....and of course the Word says to be honest and truthful in regards to our "facts". Jesus taught His followers to pursue honesty through clarity and performance. Say what you mean, mean it and do your best to do it. We're not going to perform a 100 per cent of that all the time, we know that, but any effort to redefine that blurs the reality Jesus led us to.

I'd taken PFAL in 1969 (or late '68, sometime around that time frame) I didn't vote in the survey. I can't say how well I "know" the book. I doubt I could pass a test on any but the most obvious references. I knew Elena W and thought she was a sweet person, kind and thoughtful. I just don't remember much about the book other than it was about the Way, and covered a relatively short period of time. It's been so many years I honestly don't remember any details. I know it meant a lot to a lot of people at the time but I never really felt like it represented "me" or my thoughts and impressions, wholly and to the point I'd say here, read this, it tells our story. I don't mean that as a criticism or as praise, it's just how It seems to sit on that shelf of my memory.

Old news story, see below for an old news clarification. https://www.christianpost.com/news/brian-houston-hillsong-youth-pastor-naked-cowboy-nyc-church-164824/

Interesting topic, mrap. Not new but I'll give you my 'pinion. For the sake of this discussion I'm only including 2nd generation Off shoots, started by those directly taught by Dr. Wierwille. I'm not familiar with 3rd and further out although I'd say that for better or worse they seem to digress so far from his direct influence that it's no longer a viable comparison. There's a lot of that in the earlier generations too though, like John Lynn, who has deviated so far from the basics of PFAL that he's not a reasonable comparison (despite the fact he assures his followers that Dr. Wierwille would be "pleased" by his work, nothing would be further from the truth I'm sure)...so in reality he's a perfect example of the need to be cautious since he's a textbook example of someone directly taught by Dr. Wierwille who's reinvented both history and teaching to equal a new thing. I might say he's either a pathological liar or extremely mentally damaged. Perhaps he's just a well meaning do-gooder. Whatever the case a person would be advised to evaluate him as a person and by his actions when considering if what he says is true or not and even more importantly to know how to accept him as a member of the Church - I for one would give him all the love and forgiveness accorded me by God through Christ, but would never put him in the position of being a Teacher. It would be unfair to his well being and potentially others. But this isn't about him specifically although he comes to mind because he's currently recovering from illness and had had so many ups and downs and a range of experiences in his lifetime. To a great degree you have to consider the character and conduct of an individual when you evaluate their work. Some Christians over emphasize that, others under. I'd contend that behaviors and conduct and the resulting characterization of the individual drawn by their actions is important and should be factored in at this front end when considering whatever it is a person does or says. Mathew 7: 15-20 - Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Deut. 18:22 - When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Matthew infers intent - outwardly they act like sheep but their intentions are those of ferocious wolves. How do I find that out? By their actions. If we are comparing a fruit bearing tree then Jesus is saying that a bad tree won't yield good fruit. Ultimately they'll be cut down and removed. So he wants us to look at the tree, the person, and see what fruit it bears, what are the products of what it does, what it brings forth? Then judge by that - which you can do because the judgment is really already made and you only have to recognized it. Today Christian thinking accepts our lives of growth as manifestations of God's grace and mercy, without which we'd be condemned. So we see each other do good things, bad things, and we are compelled to forgive as we have been forgiven, and deal with grace and forgiveness with others. How much? Jesus said - a lot. 70 X 7. As many times as it takes. Does that then mean that when a person, a brother or sister in Christ teaches in God's name in error or in pride or for self serving reasons, that I am to forgive and accept them? The New Testament covers that too - all can be forgiven but not all are to be given freedom and access within the Church to speak for and on behalf of God. Deuteronomy speaks to that, the prophet who does not speak for God. The NT says to speak directly to each other, confront, include others, don't accept second hand information or rumors, don't promote gossip, require witnesses, multiple witnesses and proofs - why? To waste time? Be nice? No. To be sure you're right and that both they and those affected have the best opportunity to understand what's going on and how to correct it. Paul encouraged Timothy to watch out for Alexander the coppersmith because he did Paul "much harm". Paul also warned about those who would try to sneak in and defraud the church. Why, so they could defraud them? No, so they could collectively avoid being harmed. Paul also instructed Timothy what to look for in church leaders, the elders, deacons, over seers, "servants" of the Lord of God's people....he said look for honest people, men who are spoken well of, who have good reputations, who care for their families, work care for the needs of the church, who have some maturity in the faith. Basically he wants honest, reasonable people who are faithful to the church and who don't lie, cheat, steal or have ongoing problems with things like that. It's impossible to evaluate the teaching without evaluating the teachers. A person may be teaching something completely correct, biblically accurate, but not be living by the biblical teachings themselves. Worse yet, they can be lying about it, creating chaos in the church over it, hurting others without concern if they disagree with them and worse yet stuck, expecting to have their words honored over their actions - which is counter-Christianity. That's anti-Christian, it's the opposite of what Christ did or taught or what anyone who suggests their mature enough to teach "God's Word" on His behalf should be exemplifying. In order to do what the Bible teaches us to do there has to be discussion and communication between people. Will it all be right, good, even useful? Of course not. But if no one tries, no one talks, no one will know. When the news is good, we speak it. When it's not - do we ignore it? Reinvent it, translate it into something that sounds better? The Church isn't someone's personal organization that they run and manage as they see fit - its a newly minted reality where all are brought together in unity through Christ, and God fills us all through Christ. Notice how evil tries to segment and silence the individual, prevents inquiry, refuses to accept criticism, denies responsibility, blames others, prefers a vacuum. That's not the Body of Christ, the "Mystery" in living action, where each individual has God working and willing in them to both have the will and the desire to do as God wishes. Trash talk gets old and endless rounds of gossip damaging and hurtful. But if the Church doesn't make some effort to protect and warn itself and others - Who will?

I've seen how some of them re invent their resumes for the benefit of employers who don't understand that "spiritual perception and awareness" is a really valuable skill. I'd love to hear their answers to interview questions like "what do you think your greatest weakness is?"....how do you make "I can be a hateful lying bastard if I don't like you or I think you've done something to question my authority" sound good? I lost track of what they Way offered as training. Back in my day it was Howard Allen or Harry Wierwille going on about keeping a ledger, writing lists, saving money, that kind of stuff. I learned some practical things that I was able to use later, but if I hadn't continued my education I'd be seriously ham strung. Public speaking and life coaching is big amongst ex-Wayfers from what I see - but unless someone has some real experience and a thick resume why would you want them teaching you that stuff? Anyhoo.

Thanks. If I may, I'm going to string together some thoughts I've had about that, not new by any means. Retirement may very well have been what caused this latest diaspora. That idea has been in the seeds of the Wheaties many of us were eating when we left years ago. At the core of any issues the Way has is how they view authority and make decisions. "Spiritual" leadership trumps everything else for them - common sense, practical issues, planning, a "multitude of counsel". Nothing spells really spirituality for them like going against the grain. It's in the DNA there. Even though they believe this "world is not my home, I'm just a - passing through", they work 24x7 non stop to earn their rewards. Once they convince someone that 1. their immediate well being depends on them doing what they tell them and 2. their eternal future "rewards" are at stake too....they're pretty much in their pocket. Organizationally, a single person can drive the whole thing into an iceberg and then blame everyone else from their lifeboat as the whole thing sinks. They think that's the right way to work, to run a business like the Way, to manage people, etc. etc. It does take a certain kind of person to embrace being right all the time and the burdens that comes with that. Someone else always has to be wrong, but it's never personal. It's just business. So odds are that at some point any one person is going to be in conflict with the decisions of the organization and will be unable to affect the outcome, let alone change the decision. Everyone in the Way has reveled in how smart they are, how much better they live with the "accuracy and integrity of God's Word" that they and they alone have. Yet they live like weasels fighting over the same garbage can, year after year. It speaks for itself, really.

Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Faith in God and Jesus Christ is the Way to go, annio, and your personal realization of that is real and profound. Savor it. Own it! It's yours. Sometimes the work we need to do most is to remove the barriers we and others put up that obscure the path we're to follow, the Way of Jesus Christ our Savior. The good news is that God draws us all to Himself through Christ. The change you seek can only be good. I heard something last week that's stuck with me and I'll share it with you - it was the statement that "to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe that you're forgiven"....that the fundamental foundational thing that God wants us to do is to come to Christ and know that forgiveness, His grace and mercy, that finally we are at peace with Him by doing nothing more than accepting the peace He offers directly to us. I've been thinking about that this week when I pray and it feels...."good". Really good. All the best to you - there's a song by a band named Dawes, titled "A Little Bit of Everything" and the final verse captures another idea I'd share with you and that is to enjoy the life God has given you! Every bit of it, to it's fullest. I believe we witness to God's magnificence as Creator when we make everything we can of the life he's given us. Peace! "All these psychics and these doctorsThey're all right and they're all wrong.It's like trying to make out every wordWhen they should simply hum along.It's not some message written in the darkOr some truth that no one's seenIt's just a little bit of everything." (Taylor Goldsmith)

Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie.... It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal. (Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.) So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis: Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars. And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable. On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not. We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly - And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc. Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry". Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God". And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in - Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me... Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Peace, beautiful people!

Hi folks greeting Twinkster et al. Of things related to King David, Mrs Bathshebah and her sadly deceased husband Uriah - There's a few things askew in the PFAL representation of the story as well as how others have related it's implications later.... 1. The record itself says nothing to make us think there was some form of kingly rights to unmarried or virgin women, and of course nothing like that covering married women. Doesn't mean it wasn't so, it does sound like the kind of thing a male ruler might come up with but I don't really see it in the Bible and history around a "David" is kind of scant, so.... 2. This is easily seen in the way David is written to have handled his hots for Mrs B - it was all clandestine, and handled behind her husband's back and in such a way that he ultimately was killed. So of course, there's no open law that David's invoking otherwise he wouldn't have had to hide it. 3. Nothing in the Torah says anything about special dispensation for any "king" in this area. There is that law about not coveting your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff though, so there's that. 4. When VP teaches this he did IMO speak as if it was some kind of understood law of the land at that time, but I'd agree that he could have just as easily been pontificating about the general idea that sure, David was king and could basically abuse his authority in any way he wanted since he was the ruler. As a teacher myself of that record over the years I have never taught it that way myself. If you're a proponent of reading what's written, there's no need to cover that because it's not written into the record. Rather, it's written into the record that this was a "crime of passion", and David fell victim to his own lusts. 5. Nathan reacts that way to David's authority later when instructed to go reprove David - if David get's pissed at him it could be lights out. Which is a very interesting aspect to Nathan's "conversation" with God to say the least. 6. I never once thought of anything in the record or in the way VP taught it in PFAL to be an indication that what he was describing as David's behavior was somehow an indicator of how a leader of any kind today could act. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't have made sense at the time - the entire record indicates that at that point the character David was F'ING UP ROYALLY and about to bring death on Uriah and his own family as well as the nation he governed. Or as the Bible says - "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord". Why or how could anyone think that's a good thing? In the time I heard, saw, knew and worked with and around VP from 1969 through his death I never heard him teach this subject matter as a means of saying that he himself somehow might have - what? - access to all the unmarried women of the Way because David did, or something akin to that. I never heard that connection made by him. I've never really understood how this connection's been made - maybe others did hear him talk about it or they heard the teaching and figured it somehow sounded like a good idea or something. I don't know. Have fun peeps!!! Stay frosty!!

Had to say in passing one more thing - after all these years and tears, these R and R people ("rest and relaxation"?) are being said to have "noticed" and "seen" some things that were wrong. It sounds so normal - like "I went outside and noticed that the air was a tad chilly." But under these circumstances saying they "noticed" something wrong is like saying they went outside and "noticed" the snow was piled 3 feet high in the streets and it was so cold their breath froze....and as if it had just happened and was such a surprise! Or like saying...the people in Houston "noticed it was raining and decided to call it Hurricane Harvey". When I saw the video of those people going on about how what they had "seen" was so wrong, I LOL'd. Really, I don't usually LOL like that but that day I did, and I went to my study (AKA "The Garage Shoppe") and laughed even more, upon reflection. Why did you LOL so, socks? you might ask. Well - read on. The Way's been in a rag tag dyslexic nose dive for decades. Then this. Lurking below the exodus and the bladdy-blah the question wafts by.... What was it that really sparked the exodus? I'll stop, with that question and call it a year. But for those of us who have seen and heard this merry-go-round going round and round so many times over the years we know there's usually something going on a little deeper down that not everyone knows yet. Something that made it personal.....finally. Peace!!! See you round!

Howdy Penworks! DWB, thanks and much the same to you, appreciate your insight, as the years pass.

My pleasure, chockfull! Glad to hear that. Donnie Fugit was one of a kind and made an impression on many people, in his day.

If I had a buck for every person I've counseled who got bad advice and counseling from Moynihan I could buy us both a couple of dinners at the Wooden Shoe Inn, DWB. None of us were perfect, every one of us in the earliest years you're referring to had challenges, made mistakes. Every one of us got our butts kicked more than once, and deservedly so, in order to get our attention and get us moving in the right direction when we weren't. We were young and learning. The problem with guys like him is they never got the foundation set right. He and Dottie came into the Corps with previous seniority from NC pending evaluation. After the first few months they and several others were bumped into the 3rd Corps and graduated with a year of "Corps training". They were nice but they were skidding - I'll never forget the BS he gave my wife and I after we discussed his a situation I'd observed, and questioned his handling of it. All I wanted was to see it set right, and I was more than willing to talk about it to help, if I could. Instead he blamed ME for not being "spiritually" minded enough to see how he was right....a tactic that became all too common for him as the years progressed. It seemed minor, we moved on - until it blew up in the people's face later that year, as his "counseling" to them failed. He completely disconnected from any involvement or responsibility. He did the same kind of thing for many years after that. He was also famous for never getting his facts straight and making excuses it didn't matter, later. Another thing I learned early on about most of the self declared heavies from the early Corps was that most of them were not successful at witnessing, signing people up for PFAL and under shepherding them over time which was the basic thing being promoted at that time - sign 'em up, get 'em in.. They crowed about everyone else being able to do it and castigated failures but many of the assignments they got they didn't have the kind of godly revival that was seen in the early years in the West and East Coast fellowships, Kansas, and other places, they TALKED a lot about it, "taught", telling others what they should do but were not successful at doing it when it came to actual outreach. 1000's of people heard the Word of God and the "signs, miracles and wonders" abounded, confirming the preaching of Jesus Christ. Frankly I was so youthfully dumb at the time I just assumed "they" knew something I didn't when it was the reverse. Charlene talks about this in her book - if you read in and remember what it was like, it becomes painfully obvious. Picture Donnie Fugit, who just "did it", versus other guys who were more interested in "teaching" ad infinitum what was already in PFAL, while there were assuming positions in the ministry. Did I love Bob - do I today? Absolutely. But everything I've seen and read they've stated they finally saw was "wrong" was wrong for many years prior. I was not happy to see all those people who turned a cold shoulder to God and His people and stayed on there for so many years. Taking all those years to see what they were doing was wrong, they're in need of very very serious rehab. Give them ample space and time to do that. I remember a guy years ago - he'd been a long standing supporter of the Way for years after many of us had left. His wife had dropped out of active participation, he still had half a leg in and it was either on GS or WayDale where he finally posted a copy of a letter he had just sent to Rosalie. It had the tone of - "you know me, I'm a Corps grad, long time supporter and you know how I love the ministry and support it financially and now here I am, I have some recommendations that I think would help you be a better ministry". He offered to come there, meet with her and discuss these things. He expected a positive response - after all, it was HIM, right? They would listen to him, right? He got a turn down and was ignored beyond that, as he reported it - and he was SHOCKED! Why? Because he had the feeling many others had had before him - hey, it's ME, I'm with you on this, I just want to help....! When I saw how this most recent group had bailed out, domino style, what they wrote about it reminded me of the same thing, adding of course that they'd been poking needles in anything that acted legitimate for years themselves. The only good news is they disconnected, for whatever reasons. Time will tell where that leads them.

They disbanded, if I got it correctly. You have to wonder how long it would take for them to realize there's no "revival" or "restoration" of an organization possible, nothing in the Bible talks about that. People, yes. The Body of Christ, the Church, sure. Israel, God's people, yes. God didn't issue a 200 year warranty on the Way Nash, Inc. There's no guarantee "it" will survive. It doesn't have to. It hasn't, and it appears it won't.

Hello happy people. Everyone taking their Flintstone vitamins? Stayin' frosty, my friends? Keep at it, the world needs you. My icon is gone forever I see, lost in the ether of the server moves. Till I find it, I'm using the one at left, and if you know what it means please - remember the oath of silence. I will speak of this no more. The "WAP" class - I didn't "take" it or attend it or perhaps more accurately did not endure it. Some thoughts - They couldn't come up with a better name for the replacement to PFAL than that? The acronym WAP is so useless. I know, that's not the biggest issue at stake but to put that burden on the beleaguered shoulders of an already tired and worn out membership was kinda mean. It does fit the Martindale personae though. Did a man ever exist with less charisma? I liked Craig well enough when I knew him but he always seemed like a talking mannequin. I'm being kind here. Anyway... Bliss, that brochure cover looks like it's from the 70's, was some time travel involved in it being made? I don't have any innie friends so I am missing this kind of stuff. Good reason to keep it that way. It's incredibly strange for the Way to continue to promote a filmed product taught by a person they had to fire and disavow any connection to, even for the Way. Isn't he pretty much personae-non-grata at the Way for all practical purposes? I'm sure there's some reasoning for keeping it going but it can't over come the simple reality that to even play the product requires a disclaimer. I'd love to hear how they handle that. Lemme guess - "all your questions will be answered in the Class. After. So write them down now. For later. Sign here". I would guess it fits into their overall public relations strategy (sorry, had to clear my throat writing that, I'm back) buuuut if you look at their website there's apparently no real people with names involved, other than a few lines that refer to a "Board of Directors", which is I guess all they think the public needs to know. Even the quotes of happy customers have no name credited. ****** WAP 1, 2, 3 or whatever the titles - I was reminded that Martindale isn't the teacher of the WAP course that people would attend today, it's gone through a few revisions and is currently taught by 3 Representatives, See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Smell No Evil, I guess. So it's no longer Mr. Personality doing the teaching. I guess there's a ray of light in those clouds after all, hey? The Way is a perfect example of silo'd thinking. They're locked into a progression they feel they have to uphold so they don't look outside "the box" they're in. If they were as concerned about really reaching people and helping them as they are with avoidance and covering their asses they'd see there are some very very very obvious routes they could take to "re energize" their efforts that would still give them a layer of legal protection for past events, which is what it appears they're most concerned with. ******* Now knowing how frequently The Way loses people and members shift their status with them that may serve some purposes but it makes it look like a hack job, a phony business front, which is very common in the digital world today and is marketing -101 for the masses of online media miscreants gaming your clicks. Even the Catholic Church has a big ass photo of the current Pope mugging for the camera on the Holy See site. Sight. Web site. One thing I do know - classes taught to people in living rooms huddled on brown metal chairs every night suck. It's a painful way to reach people but many of us endured. There are better ways to pass on the teachings of the Bible and the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It works but I feel so sad whenever I see photos of people in chairs in rooms somewhere and a guy at a table up front huddled down, "teaching". They talk, you shut up and listen, questions later. It's not like they're trying to teach Calculus or Advanced Trigonometry or C# or Java. It can be done around a camp fire, over the phone, in a living room setting or in a coffee shop. It doesn't have to be crammed into 2 or 3 weeks, it can be done over days, weeks, months very effectively, as Christianity is a new life and a new lifestyle. Life doesn't jam into small spaces well. Many many years ago I spent hours on the floor of my living room with friends, bibles and books strewn across the floor reading and talking and studying. We chattered like kids. Well, we were, pretty much so we did. We drank coffee like it was a sacrament. We had a great time. There was laughter, at things no one had to be cued for! No one had to tell us to be on time but sometimes I had to tell them to go home when it got late. All that metal brown chair stuff is just cruel, and needs to be kept to a minimum. I guess it's no surprise they still hustle the old stuff though, it takes little effort and probably feels comfortable to them. "ROI". I wonder when they go to sleep at night there at the Way Nash if they hear echoes across the grounds, of years past and wonder at all, about anything....probably not. Stay swell, my friends! Peace! P.S. AOS? No. Absolutely not. Uh uh. Nada. Zip. Bad cha cha. Absolute travesty, took several years for everyone involved to evoke their "plausible deniability" clause. So no. Stop it. No. P.S.S. AOS? No. Does anyone really think they got ANYthing out of it's depiction of the devil spirit realm? Anyone wanted to be just like Craig? It has about the same emotional and intellectual impact as a Celebrex commercial and the spiritual value of an Our Lady of Fatima Merry Christmas Snow Globe............ Accept no substitutes for "no". It was a washed out waste of time that didn't survive, for good reason. No - the best comparison is that it had the same impact of Craig Martindale onstage that year at the ROA, illustrating the word "kratos", where he had his "trainer", Dupe, holding a big piece of wood that he then was supposed to karate chop in half with a single slice of his all powerful hand. Except he didn't, he bruised his hand and beat on that poor board two or three times until finally even Dupe looked embarrassed. it wasn't exactly Karate Kid, put it that way. (anyone else remember that?)