socks

I think that's a valid point - all things considered, what could there be but need and who better to handle than those most equipped with "spiritual" awareness and knowledge? I get what you're going for here. In practical application though it would matter, but that goes to actually helping in that situation which is now long gone by the sounds of it. Getting that person to some legit help wouldn't have been rocket science either.

Interesting succinct description of the situation and dilemma. Thanks. Was he performing scarification or actual cutting for the sake of cutting? IMO neither are healthy but the former can be tied into different forms of belief rituals and the like and have some internal as well as external meaning. The latter could be a pathology resulting from depression or other form of mental disorder. No expert here, but cutting's also done in advanced forms of drug use and addiction too and is a bad sign - did he use drugs? Truth to tell you may have been wisest to pass on that one, but you've got a better fix on what was going on. I don't doubt for a second that the average Wayfer would be ill-equipped to deal with someone like that in most cases. But seeing the need and turning away from it isn't the answer either. Had "we" had a broader view of helping people and how to use the tools available, I'm sure more could have been done.

Hey there DWBH. Happy Saturday. You've got a scarey memory. I remember about 1/2 of what you posted, although it came back quickly as I read. Seems I do remember reading online a few years ago (in his website) that Dr. D was also a part of some "apostolic leadership" group of I guess self-proclaimed apostles, that aspired to some form of assumed leadership role in the Christian world. Does that ring a bell? I just remember it sounded very "heavy" and "important" and moderately farcical, and I couldn't tell from a single word what they actually aspired to do other than give advice and postulate on the Grand Scheme of Spiritual Things. And stuff.

I'm just looking for a baseline here, eXXe. What's the most basic, universal and helpful ingredient that would leaven the whole biscuit? Another word for honesty in my vocab is "authentic". Real. The "real deal". When something's real, it speaks for itself. It may not be understood but it simply is what it is, no more no less. I could start a whizbang gang of do-gooders and have a governing board to make sure we stay on course. One filled with lying back stabbing SOB's. The basic integrity of the system isn't solely in the system. Integrity has to be in the components that form the system. What you need is just some people who are committed to being honest and who will help each other stay honest. Everyone needs some help now and then. Help is good. But there has to be a respect for it. In theory Christianity has a very sound foundation - Christ. Why go to the trouble to build around it, why not use it? There's Christian ministries and churches today who act like it's an insult if someone dares question what they do - "we're doing the Lord's work! We answer to a higher authority! You have no right to make demands of us, that's making demands of God Himself! We'll answer questions when we're good and ready and if the Lord says so!" B-llshi-. God searches the hearts of all and knows the beginning and the end of our days. We barely know which foot gets what shoe on any given morning and think it's Payday if we get a prayer answered. A reality check is much needed, IMO. Much needed.

Absolutely, jeffsjo - it's one of the characteristics most notable about Jesus in the gospels. He was honest about who He was and what He was doing. If someone didn't believe, understand or care was another matter. That's "transparency" - honesty doesn't cloud transparency, it fulfills it. Honesty doesn't restrict accountablity, it defines it. To be honest one doesn't require another to do something they would never do or that is wrong. Nor does it undervalue or disrespect anyone or anything - it gives the correct authentic amounts of both. Ultimately nearly everything else will come and go but in the end - what? If there's truth, can it be any less than the honest truth? No "legitmate" work of God will be impeded by honesty. The only "illlegitimate" work that would be undermined by honesty is one that has something to hide. :)

Another way to view these ideas, and others that could surely be added to the list- Ask the question "is there anything wrong with them". Does anyone suffer or lose or come up with less because of these kinds of actions? That list again - Be Transparent Be Accountable Advocate Freedom Provide Member Protections Value Respect for Non-Members Provide Informed Consent I might add another - "Be honest". That's probably too simple to include in a list of tips on running a tip-top organization but honestly - doesn't it seem like one of the hardest things for people to be and do, period? Just be honest. Be as open and upfront when we're wrong as we are when we're right. Now that's not right, even for a second. Assuming no alterior motives here, that's just not right. Jesus and the gospel records in their day and time - the Roman government cared little about Jesus and don't get involved in the narrative until forced to. So, look at society today in a place like the U.S.A. - we play a much different game in American Christianity than Jesus did I think. When asked about paying taxes to Caesar Jesus responds, render to him what's His. Render to God's what's His. He also said once that you can't serve greed and God, or serve two masters. Jesus is recorded as taking care of those who followed Him - yet when he's said to have been approached by a Roman Centurion seeking help for someone, Jesus responds as graciously as for one who is with Him. The soldier leaves, never to be heard from again. My p'rnt - to live in this world responsibly should be served by our beliefs. We can function responsibly in our society as easily as Jesus did, if we remember - we aren't Jesus and we're not doing the same thing that Jesus did. We're not. It's simple. If our beliefs are good, good should be the outcome. God sends rain and everyone gets wet, His sun wakes everyone up. We tend to want to divide and cripple those who disagree or don't appear to be in our lock step version of The Truth As We See It Today. God doesn't work that way. Certain things, including Savior Jesus Christ are for all. We deny, God gives. We should do more as God does. There is Absolute Truth and it's a Truth of God, not us. So we can rest, assured that whatever Truth is in us and comes out of us, it's not of our making. (If and when anything "legitimate" comes around it's so often so quiet as to barely be heard of, because it's not funded by millions in donations or staged and televised. Much like the little ol' blind guy that Jesus healed and that wandered off still rubbing his eyes and probably thinking "clouds! whoa! rocks!" he was of little interest to anyone once they were done with him and that record stands as a grand proverb to the ability of human nature to take even the best of things and rub them in the dirt. But - he could still see. And Someone did still care. )

Dilbert or Dylan, Jim. I know I'm driftin' but... I don't know if the Christianity of today will give anyone a break or a chance to even take a breath but to the extent we can, we do make our choices and live with them, for better or worse. Hopefully better, if only a little. That's the way it goes it seems, and as long it's going we're in good shape. Stop the go and something's wrong, y'know? What any of us really think in this vast boundless expanse of conscious space that seems to reside inside the few square inches of brain stuff and it's interial mass we carry around may only be able to be called "mine" or "ours" in the same way I call the earth, moon and stars "mine" when I admire them and wonder what the H is out there, really. So I dunno. Is "thinking" I or anyone else can control my thoughts an honorable deed or a prideful conceit? If the latter, we may all be the punchline of a grand celestial joke we'll never get. ("Knock knock"...."Who's there?"...."Aaargh! You always ask the same question, don't you - oh never mind! hahahaaha!" Control, choose...I think I do, but then what else would I think? Perhaps as Dylan wrote we do choose, because ultimately we have to. It's ingrained in the wood. Remove the grain and what dya got? We do what we can, the best we can, because It's all we can do. Stop the do and something's very wrong y'know? Control, choice... "When winter came, I just wanted to go. But deep in the desert, I longed for the snow". (Orleans, but if David had played a Strat...)

"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord..."

No prob, I'm not criticizing anyone for bringing it back up, it just amazed me for a second to see that year. Seems a long time ago now. Tzaia, Momentus might be found cross searching the terms "money sucking tics" and "self help hell". Whoever the head STFI is, I'm sure they're a real stand up guy. Not wanting anyone who would make a word association with an acronym makes sense I suppose. It may not serve their purposes to have people who would look at a word and try to understand what it meant and what it stood for.

Ham, I just had a picture in mind of - never mind. Too gross. 2003 - it's just scarey. Gas was less than a couple bucks.

"STFI" just sounds in the mind like, well, something male. I think it's been brought up before and observed as hmmm, an odd acronym. Didn't anyone at CES catch the "stiffy" soundalike connection? Maybe it was too hard to bring up - no, make that difficult to bring up. Have you gotten the latest STFI Newsletter? No, what's up? I know, it's childish and nonsensical and boorishly rude to make such a connection. Indicative of a small mind, so to speak, metaphorically speaking. I'm sure that all of STFI's plans and movements are big. But still, on the far end of the extreme of considerations someone must have blinked and smiled. Or maybe not. Guess not, by all appearances. Yet, there is sits like a duck - STFI. This thread's got some hair on it. 2003!

Appreciate the historical perspective Ron G and all. Does anyone know when or where this was presented the first time? It's a new one to me but a lot of things are new to me. (fortunately in some cases, not so in others. Not sure where this one falls so I've pended for future pondering). Since this person did some checkin', I wondered who got the check on that one. I'm not sure how much that piece of information would help anyone, but then this is the Way we're talking about so it's always interesting to get some insight into their little world view and see what's hot and what's not. If we tallied up all of the little bits and pieces of tangential type information that made it's way into Way teachings and classes it would probably make a nice little stack of stuff.

Can anyone elaborate on this?

Mike (and all) I think waysider hits a point that really sets the table for this discussion - Christianity is defined by how it views Jesus in the past - perfect, sinless, always did the will of God, etc. etc. These are the things we read about or have been taught, and it's upon that knowledge of who He was that Christianity bases it's entire platform for understanding who He now is. Looking back at the gospels from here, we see presented a person who always did the right thing, right time, etc. He was "the son of God". At that time that wasn't known in it's entirety because He was living it with the people who followed Him and would believe in Him as someone unique. The qualities that made Jesus who He was (as those who make Him who He is) were becoming known. In that light I think it's clear to say that the qualities of His life, actions, integrity, etc. etc. appear to have made such a clear and powerful impact that in just a few short years He accrued a reputation that ascribed the highest standards of moral, ethical and religious behavior possible and that in fact set a new and higher standard for those following. Still, there were those who questioned his actions while He was alive, and examined what He did and why closely. Not all agreed. Those who lived at that time had to see and come to know Him, to evaluate Him. Point - actions speak louder than words.

Speaking of WAP, if you read the link page from jJ's link that started this thread, this appears - I'm copying assuming it's okay to do that, if not say so. But - looking this over, I think some good points are made and the logic applied to the WAP's "lawgic" is appropos - see what you think... ----------------------------- The Law of Abundant Sharing of Time and Talents TWI requires its followers to give more than one-seventh of their time in-service to TWI. WAP bases this solely on the law of the Sabbath in Exodus 20: WAP claims: "Under the law, Old Testament believers were required to give one-seventh of their time and talent. This logic is based on the commandment 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy' (Exodus 20:8). One day out of seven was given in total, uninterrupted allegiance to God Therefore; abundant sharing of our time and talent in service to God would be beyond that one-seventh. This level of service is dynamically available for the believer who endeavors to faithfully live the standards of the Church Epistles." (The Spiritual Abundance of Sharing [sAAS], WAP syllabus p. 129) This "logic" is totally illogical from a Biblical perspective. Although TWI claims this is a standard (law) of the Church epistles, it quotes only an OT verse (Exodus 20:8) as proof, even though Exodus was not written to them. The Sabbath observance was distinctly a day of rest when work was not to be done. TWI turns this on its head, making the Sabbath a rationale for working more than one-seventh of one's time. Most of the kind of service TWI requires of its followers is prohibited by the Sabbath law. TWI turns a OT practice meant to relieve people's burdens into a burden. According to WAP, if believers do not share more than one-seventh of their time, they will not obtain spiritual benefits. TWI also warns them that if they do not serve more than one-seventh of their time, then the enemy, the Devil, will "steal the time and talent a believer has to give" (SAAS p. 129). ------------------------ Apparently they've nailed down their legalistic desire to control people with this one - it pretty much sets up a member to be required to work for them one day of the week or it's equivalent, otherwise known as "a day of rest" to everyone else - if they're going to be "faithful". All they need is a timecard system.

I was just feeling silly, Oaks. How often is that gonna happen? The VPster - hopefully he was nicer to these "guest speakers" in the earlier years than he was later on. After PFAL was off and running there were scant few "guests". And anyone he did have in, he'd have some opportunity to rip 'em a new one over something. Some aspect of what they did that wasn't "right on" with the Word and that re established himself as the Truth Compass or something. It's just the way he was, an aspect of his personality IMO more than anything else - he wouldn't be challenged and really took exception to anyone that would seem to usurp his position of leadership. When Wayfers would ooh and aah too much over something. You could set your clock by it - within 24 hours - they'd be all screwed up, possessed, and workin' for the devil. I got used to it and just kept my own counsel on it. K.C. Pillai and a few others were exceptions. VPW definitely had a warm spot for K.C. Few others. By the sounds of it they hit it off and K.C. had the right mix of personality and value that VPW didn't burn that bridge. But anyone who was in the Way through the 60's and 70's knows he could cut his nose off to spite his leg - he simply didn't play well with others.

IMHO it's missing the point to leap up, point a finger at John (or anyone esle) and shout "Aha! You said he had all the truth, he only said that he had most truth. C'mon...Wierwille wasn't exactly referring us to other churches in our areas armed with PFAL now was he? Of course not. You hopefully understand that wasn't my p'ernt. VPW clearly wanted everyone to join the Way Ministry, and claimed to have the tightest grip on "truth" that was available. I know it's important to some of the people here to get the who/what/where/when/what time nailed down. Have fun.

Hmm...I feel kind of silly mentioning this, but as a kind of checkpoint - the "gas pump" story goes that God "told" VPW that "He" would teach him the "Word" as it hadn't been known for x000 number of years, if "he" VPW, would "teach" it. To say he knew, or had or whatever "all the truth", I think in this de-bait consider this - that it was a continuous process in being delivered. Again, it's kind of silly to me to be trying to determine whether he knew all, said he knew all, or only knew some and when he knew some - sorry, it just seems a pointless topic. What's most important I think is that VPW felt if anyone would or could know anything of "the truth", it was him, because he contended that he was completing his part of the bargain so to speak, so it was "logical" to suggest that God would do likewise. From a gas pump standpoint. People came, people went, usually p.o.'d but they made whatever contribution he felt they did to the cause. PFAL the Film was a checkpoint of sorts, in that it milestoned the "teaching" up to that point and put into place what he always called and referred to as the basics of the "accuracy" of the "Word". He never changed or adjusted any of the session topics or points of PFAL over the years. In 1977, after that effort to film his live presentation at Ball State University he said he just didn't feel it could be redone satisfactorily. Clearly, this presented some problems he chose to ignore, but that's the way that went. My p'ernt is this - PFAL was the sum and substance of "all the truth" that he suggested anyone needed to know. That it wasn't "all the truth" on all topics, subjects and questions is obvious I think, but I'm sure that he felt it was the basic material to work from that would consistently and reliably direct any future efforts to continue down the road to "all the truth". He also said in many informal settings, and some formal ones like the SNS's that he didn't feel he or anyone would ever capture it "all" but, keep workin' kids, etc. etc.etc. On the Princeton thing - I think that's an argument others take him to task over, but I never heard him imply that PTS was "Princeton University". Others often make immediate note that "it's not THE Princeton, that's a lie", but I don't think a lie is told until someone tells it and I don't think he ever passed it off as such. Now, hopefully that's adds sufficient illumination and information that a Love Offering of substantial amount will be seen as the only appropriate response. Please address all Pay Pals and/or checks to "socksneedsmymoneymorethanmetocontinuehisimportantwork@aint_I_blessed.com. You'll also be added to our regular mailing list to receive the highly read "Updates and News You Never Knew Till Now", which will include an end of the year independent audit of all moneys, gifts, offerings, merchandise and stuff received for the previous year. You'll be thrilled to see how much love has been shared, I know I have been, but please don't let someone else do your loving for you, there's always room for more. Trust me.

One more for the road, exrated. The best thing I ever did was choose abstinence from substances that play tiddly winks with my brain cells. Back way back when oh yes. A months worth of my personal supply would have kept our registered members at GS very high for a year. I tell the story today of one of my dealers, "suppliers" who took me aside one visit and talked to me about "lightening up". Classic customer service. It only made sense, losing a customer's no good, no mo' dough, y'know? At that time shots and shooters and a steady glass of whatever was a good way to keep my mind straight and mellow, a way to swing back into focus, get braced up for the journey back to "normal". Booze was like an alcoholic Health Drink, comparitively, although I'm sure my liver would have complained if it thought it could be heard over my screamin' cerebral cortex. Finally all that went south, by choice. And that was that. In the Way I toyed with drink again, but it didn't last. It just seemed pointless. If it's not working, what's the point? That's a bad place to be when bad is all you've got. I had learned to fully enjoy and appreciate being "me", bumps and scars included. I resented the filter it produced between me, myself and I and everyone else. We liked to see the whites of the eyes. Shawn Mullins sang it well - "At the dark end of the bar, what a beautiful wreck you are..." Thus the wisdom "you have to learn to laugh at yourself. You might as well. Everyone else is." I guess I just got tired of being someone else's story, the day after. Two drink limit - best advice you can follow, as long as that's not too much.

That's true, exerciser. True.

Funny Chas Sir! Yes SIR! Agree with all the wizenhimers who have said it was a good rule, the right thing to do, and had little or nothing to do with trying to control people's money. I'm a light drinker, 1 or 2 if we're out and I feel like it. Home, not much at all. I've kept myself to a 2 drink limit with very few exceptions and like it. Plus, after all the people I've seen make fools of themselves keeping to the alternate "5 drink and counting" limit, I have less to remember. Or forget.

The Way did, many times, johnj. This may have been already noted but yes, it was stated, "taught" that way. I can't speak for what was presented after I left, in '89 so it may have changed drastically after that. The idea of it "working" - that tithing and sharing "abundantly" over the 10% tithe was key to a person's well being and success - was taught as a result of doing it. There's actually two basic concepts that the earlier CSBP presented - tithing and "giving". Tithing as an Old Testament practice to honor God from a person's "first fruits" by offering 10 % of it to honor God, and giving as taught by Jesus Christ, "as you give so shall you receive". Tithing then being a formal practice or ritual performed as a basic recognition of God's blessings and providence. Giving as a practice of sharing with others in any form. The Way's interpretation of tithing was very rudimentary but at one time at least it was a matter of personal choice, meaning that no one "had" to or was denied access to the normal activities of the Way like fellowships and informal activities. Classes of cours cost money, the teaching ministry had a price tag to it. VPW always made fun of other organizations and only begrudgingly respected those who prospered like the Mormons, crediting it to the regular practice of tithing and sharing to their church. It wasn's rocket science or advanced spirituality (although that was promoted), it was really just recognizing the results of a group of people who all grouped together in common support of their church. (I remember at one time a year where the fellowship I held turned out to be "#2" in "abundant sharing" collected, out of an Area where there were about 20 fellowships active. The #1 fellowship that tab'd in for that same year was composed of people who owned businesses and had fairly successful professional careers. This was reported to me at the start of the following year, as a kind of "way to go!" piece of information. At the same time it was very telling - our fellowship was small, 8 regular attendees throughout the year and there wasn't large, regular amounts of money collected, by any means. What this told me, and I talked to the Area Coordinator about it - was that it was clear that everyone didn't give regularly to the Way. Not that that was a bad thing - it was simply a fact by all appearances. The only thing our fellowship did was give consistently, but we in fact didn't "tithe" out of strict obligation. There was a period where myself and another couple didn't for a month or two because at the time both of our families were doing well to pay the bills. So we were very flexible with it, while still trying to do what we thought to be "the right thing". Fast forward about 3 years and the Limb Coordinator reported that that state had hit the "million dollar" mark for the previous year. I don't, didn't have access to the records but I knew the growth for those previous few years throughout the state had been consistent and steady. My guesstimate at the time was that the increase in numbers, coupled with some level of consistency on the part of a certain percentage of the active members accounted for the increases reported. But I seriously doubt it was due in that state to everyone tithing and giving to the Way because I knew people in our own Area who simply didn't at all. I only mention all of this because I "think" that later, after so many people left the Way in the late 80's, the Trustees, LCM specifically, must have seen the income to the Way go way way down, and very quickly. It appears he realized that the large numbers would no longer produce a segment of regular, consistent tithers to the Way and those who remained weren't enough to make do. So he hammered down on the rule of practice for tithing and made it compulsory for "standing believers" in the "household". Basically in his mind, no "freeloaders". Add to that the debacle of putting all Way Corps on salary, and it's no wonder Howard Allen was reported as saying they nearly ran out of money at one point. (the reported cause he stepped down from Trustee level position and "retired")

yah, that's some cranky pants Wayfer there, TLB! I don't know, Chas, maybe that's what "sight unseen" means! I'm sorry you got winged like that Thomas, I'm sure it was disconcerting and Talksoup did the right thing by banning that kind of behavior, at least as it would result from their public blog. Geez o' Pete. Those Wayfers got pretty teed off there, for a sec. I can't find the blog anymore, maybe it distappeared. ? Funny though - there seemed to be less interest amongst the pro-Wafyfers in taking Talksoup or the host to task than in challenging the people who posted there who are non-Wayfers. I guess it's okay to make fun of the Way's efforts to communicate via song *kak* and dance *glaff* and parody the Voice of God telling them to literally STOP doing what they're doing...than it is to speak out about the Way as a former member. Interesting. Very interesting. I dunno - if I was an innocent bystander I'd wonder what the glafuffel was really goin' on behind those spiffy curtains.

Looks like their blog slowed down about 9/19. I liked reading it "as is", to get a read on the voice of the average web viewer. These comments from some genius were as funny as the video though: cults dont change leadership you idiot oh and dont just make up **** that you think is true cause you think it sounds good... there was no sexual abuse, YOU get real kid. Craig had consensual affairs with two women and that was handled in court and he isnt there anymore... Dr. W had been dead for years and in no was had affairs or even came close to sexually abusing anyone. Get your **** together man... and grow up its 2008 That person has obviously been fed the Way Line and has a very limited view and understanding of the Way's history. He/she/it appears to be separating VPW out from LCM's "affairs" and lawsuits blah blah blah. It's funny how Wayfers are so often willing to just bury Craig, just leave him hanging out to dry ... but can't see, don't know or don't want to anything else beyond or before him. It's easier to ignore everything else and dump it all on Craig, making him the magnet for everything that was "wrong". That way - get rid of Craig and "they're all gone now" - problem solved. Sad. But still, kinda funny in it's own way.

It's on the Wayfer site HERE Tzaia- couple minutes in. Keep in mind their reference to "shredding" was tongue in cheek, although the solo itself is decent enough, and ends with a series of hammer-ons on open string. The end starts to get a head of steam going but of course they have to ham it up. None of this really sounds that good, so don't blame me if your hubbie isn't "blessed". :blink: (I don't know what his range is, but he could check out Guthrie Govan's stuff on youtube for basic shredding 101 fer free. He does some funny facials on , which sort of puts the topic to bed from about 1:20 on ) Actually he gets it back up for cookies and milk and does even better faces.