LowlyLollyPoppy

To all: Re: the MN case, I have reached no reconcilliation. I don't justify that for which he is convicted. So do (should) all catholics renouce their faith as a result of Cardinal Law's flaws? I won't answer. You supply your own. If guilty as charged and convicted, then, MN's actions are definitly a blemish on the TWI ministry. Does revelation that it isn't divinely perfect diminish my recognition of TWI's positive benifits in my life? No, not at all. TWI is a worldely entity, open to worldy infulences and weaknesses, not only from field ministers, but from HQ staff. No transgression by MN or some other would surprise me or deter me from my chosen track. FWIW, I condemn the alledged activites for which MN was charged/convicted. If guilty, he should pay for his transgressions per the terms of the laws of our land. The above does not affect my view or support of TWI, FWIW. Caruso

Since there appears to be no means to edit a post, please accept my appologies for typos, etc. Please read the above post for it's communicative intent, and forgive the obvious mispellings, etc. LLP

The reason there is no new "news" is because there is no new "news". Those predicting TWI's imminent demise were premature. Those who shout about declining numbers use information that is outdated by at least the number of years they have been out of TWI. TWI isn't on the brink of collapse, so there is no new news on that front to report. TWI doesn't require micro-reporting of our whereabouts, so there is no news on that issue, either. We are encouraged to tithe, but not badgered to do wo, so, no news there, either. New members continue to appear at my fellowship, none have left - that's not news, either, I guess. Outreach activtivies are available, but not mandatory. Most in my fellowhsip are responsible citizens, hold real jobs - tradesmen, professionals, etc. We make fellowship as oft as possible, miss when we must. Some have work schedules that make attendance at all functions impossilbe. Leadership is atuned to this and respects our individual needs - no pressure to be there at all functions. ABS is offered as an opportunity - not an obligation. Go GSBN threats in my fellowship. From my perspective, TWI is as advertised. Nothing newsworthy to the GSC of late. We just keep on doing what we portend to do - study God's word, try to move that word, and persist in our determination to support the prevalance of that Word. Nothing newsworthy here for GSC, that I can see. When I first chose to associate with TWI, I came here (well, actually, to Waydale) to verify my intentions. There was a mixture of objectivity and outright scorn. I did not then, and do not now discount the experiences/perceptions of those posters opposed to TWI, but, have always measured their points of view against my own experience. This is not exciting news to those who, for whatever reasons, would seek to discredit TWI, but, for me, it has been a welcome resource for uplifting guidance. My experience is 100% positive. Perhaps I experience TWI in some exclusive enclave where all is rosy. Could be, but, I judge my experience only by my experience. Assuming that all the negative comments concerning the organization expressed here are true, I can only surmize that the organization, in my time, has changed for the better. In a world where good news is boring news, I know that the above is less than newsworthy. However, I continue to reap the rewards. Respectfully, LLP

Linda Z: You wrote: "Thanks for posting LLP. I appreciate hearing your point of view, and I'm glad you're here." Sometimes we get so involved "working" over our differences, we forget to take a step back and bask in the comfort of those areas where there is no disagreement. I should have acknowledged your post sooner. Thanks for your kind words, I'm glad you're here, too. LLP

Thanks, Abigail. LLP

Shaz: "She tried to tell them. They dismissed her. " I understand and comprehended this point that See Me made. My question (well one of them) is whether these opportunities MN had to be alone with children was part of some TWI sanctioned function. It seems not in keeping with his role (as I knew it) that he would have had numerous occasions to be alone with children. This question, IMO, goes to the heart of whether TWI knew of his criminal behavior and either sanctioned it, or through negligence, failed to act appropriately in shutting down the criminal activity and protecting the children. Thanks for your post. Respectfully, LLP

Evan: I appreciate your post, but, confess, I really don't understand your point. The either/or scenario I was trying to paint was: Scenario 1) MN insisted from the onset of the charges that he was innocent, the charges totally false. In that situation, if leadrship believed him innocent, I can more easily justify their support of him. Most Republicans offered Richard Nixon their staunch report until the evidence against the former president had become so overwhelming that they finally could not in good conscience continue to offer their support. 2) In contrast, if the evidence against MN made it clear from the onset of the charges that he had committed this crime, and, in full knowledge of his guilt, TWI opposed the accuser and offered support to MN so that he could beat the charges, well, my mind cannot justify that in any case. 2a) Knowing that MN was guilty, but repentant, I could see offering him support in light of his sin, counselling that he should summon the strength to confess, face the legal ramifications, do the time, repent, repent, repent, and then, reform, and begin rebuilding his life. I could see this form of support. There would be, of course, no opposition to the victim's claim in such a scenario. Even convicted, cold-blooded murderers are entitled to this level of support. I'm just thinking with my typing fingers in all of this, Evan. As Abigail has correctly surmised, I am struggling personally with all of this, and need to figure out, for my own peace of mind if I can, just what role TWI played in all of this. I know MN relocated, but I don't see any evidence that TWI relocated him (plenty of posts alledging that TWI relocated him to keep him out of trouble, but no real evidence, so far). Coordinators and such move all the time. I assume that most are not on the run, and trust that none are being relocated by TWI to escape responsibility for sexual attrocities. Whether or not my trust has been misplaced is one of the issues I'm trying to figure out. Thanks for your post. Sorry if my original message was not clear enough. Respectfully, LLP

“THINK ABOUT IT INNIES!” ROR: Wheels a-turnin’ here. LLP

But this all seems to be beside the point. In this case, a man did sexually assault a child, possibly many children. The whistle was blown on his activities, but TWI's response was to support the molester.” Shaz: I posted a reply on the thread initiated by “See Me” that probes the issue of TWI’s response. I doubt that See Me is currently in position to reply, but trust that we will one day have some answers – they (the answers) are very important to me. Respectfully, LLP

To Bob: “- When did TWI know what Mark was doing? - What was their response? - Did they relocate him after knowing what he did to the girl, and leave him in a position to abuse other children? - What is TWI's doctrine on the subject? TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them. Their actions are in direct contradiction of their public doctrines and teachings and past actions in dealing with wrong doing in their leadership, further implicating them.” I continue to be concerned over the issues raised by MN’s conviction, and have been reviewing this thread for further enlightenment. In re-reading the above that you posted, I realized that there is some good food for thought here. I can’t answer any of the questions you pose . . . . perhaps factual answers will be forthcoming in the future. “TWI has been silent on the issue. In my mind, their silence is implicating them.” You might want to consider the possibility that TWI’s silence, for the moment and immediate future, at least, may be based on advice from counsel to refrain from public debate in light of pending litigation before concluding any implication in their current decision to be silent on the issue. I cannot speak to their silence prior to the filing of charges since I’m not conversant with the details – gosh, I don’t even know when the original complaint was filed. Thanks for your post. Respectfully, LLP

See me: My prayers are also with you and Suzie’s child and all your family. I also pray for Mark (that he should set right this terrible thing that must be wrong inside him) and his family (what pain and devastation his children must have felt, still feel as this scenario played out). “(YES, YES, YES - he is HIGHLY supported by the Branch and state leadership - they packed his house up when he was arrested and visited him in jail and encouraged him on the phone etc...) He is in the ministry to this day.” As a believer, I find the above statement troubling. I appreciate that, in light of pending litigation, you may or may not be able to answer the questions it raises in my mind, but, to the extent you are able, could you more specifically characterize the nature of this support? I mean, was it that leadership believed statements being made by MN that he was innocent of the charges – and so they supported him against what they would have perceived to be an unjust attack? Or was the evidence more overwhelming – so that any TWI support might be construed as their attempt to simply condone known and proven child abuse? Would you say they were trying to offer a helping hand to a guilty but repentant sinner, or simply protecting him, evidence be damned, because he is part of the household? The first, in light of the ultimate conviction, might most generously be construed as misguided leadership, the second, well, I can’t see how anyone in any well-meaning organization could oppose the victim and support the accused if the evidence against the accused was that strong. I’d also be curious to know how MN came to be alone with your child (and others if there are more cases pending). Did the opportunity present itself as part of some TWI sanctioned function? In the years during which my family interacted with MN, I cannot recall any occasions when, as a result of some TWI function, I was required or encouraged to leave my children alone with him. In reading the press release, it appears that the abuse occurred over some period of time. Nothing in my experience would have allowed opportunity over some period of time as part of some regularly occurring TWI function. I’ve read about these long class sessions in Indiana where class attendees left their children in the care of others for relatively long portions of the day, but am in the dark about what sort of circumstances would have offered him opportunity at the local level (where I presume the crimes and alleged crimes (those where legal action is still pending) took place). Obviously, I am trying to reconcile what I know (or perhaps “know”) about TWI as a believer with what is suggested by what I have learned (or perhaps “learned”) from reading about this case. Again, I understand and appreciate that you (and your counsel) may not be comfortable with disclosing additional information at this time. Answer if you will when you feel you can. Know that this believer’s prayers will always be with you, your family, and all involved for a just outcome and healing where it is needed. Respectfully and with humility, LLP

Wordwolf: You wrote: “Hindsight is 20/20. The Catholic Church was not "obviously" a haven for child molesters. If they were, then "obviously" the police and the courts would have been having a field day with them for years. Most people were surprised and shocked when the news of the scandals in the RCC broke. Most people didn't say "I knew it all along."” So, how does what you wrote about the RCC not apply to TWI? Was TWI so obviously a haven for child molesters, and, if so, why were not the police and courts equally having a field day with TWI over the years? Wordwolf: I cited your words (enclosed within quotation marks) above in my previous post, and posed the question above. For full context, reread my previous post. I didn’t see a response from you – perhaps I missed it, perhaps you don’t care to reply – doesn’t matter, but I’d be interested in your response. “Please cite EXACTLY what caused the impression I was making a double-standard...or admit it was simply the way you read the posts.” I have already done that, and further conceded that “exoneration” was probably not the right term to describe your position. Your words from a previous post that you quoted in your most current message: “Presuming equal numbers of both, would you then seek to excuse the organizations that harbored these perversions just because they might have been widespread? Do you forgive them for covering up their evil deeds because they werent the only ones?” ”[Here I hammered my position that they should be treated equally, and both equally severely.]” I don’t see anything in your words “presuming . . .” that advocates equally severe anything. Rather, you are trying to amplify the statements I have made to paint me into a position I have never advocated. You write: “[Other than a nebulous statement that "the organization should bear responsibility", what SPECIFIC measures do you think should be done with the RCC and twi? I already gave my general guidelines for action, let's hear yours-or do both organizations go on their merry ways?]” I have stated that I cannot speak intimately to the claim of wide-spread sexual child abuse in TWI, and I also stated that I’m not an expert in this area. Any organization should bear appropriate responsibility for any illegal activity that occurred in a measure equal to the degree to which they condoned or facilitated said activity. I can’t be more specific than that since I am not directly involved. My reference to moving forward doesn’t presume that organizations “go on their merry ways” but, rather that they make appropriate changes/improvements in the way they do things moving forward to minimize the opportunity for repeated illegal activity. “and you're suggesting I said to close them down” - Here’s what I said: “I find unrealistic the notion that the RCC should somehow be disbanded by some government enforcement agency over this issue. Disbandment of TWI over the same issues seems equally unrealistic to me.” I did not attribute the “notion” to you or anyone else. Oooo, nasty WordWolf doesn't want to hear points of view other than his own-he eschews "balanced" discussion. Slapping that label on my comments in no way alters their substance, and claiming yours are "balanced" AGAIN STILL doesn't make them so The balance I’m referring to, WordWolf, is the community benefit that results when opposing views are freely exchanged on this or other BB’S. It’s not a matter of whether my comments are “balanced” and yours are or are not. It’s the balance that results when the weight of your argument offsets the weight of mine, and our combined effort at polite dialog compliments that of all the other posters on the board, whether they be pro- or anti-TWI. I’m slapping no labels, WordWolf, but I do take exception to comments that tend to portray me as less than sincere. You said: “Fine. I dont believe you, since it seems clear to me that you can't view this subject with "balance". I called all the perpetrators evil, and you threw up this smokescreen in response, claiming I excused the perverts in the RCC. That was blatant MISrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, I don't believe you're here to provide fairness OR balance” Keywords such as “smokescreen” “misrepresentation,” and flat-out statements that you don’t believe that I’m here to provide “fairness” (your interjection, not part of my original statement) or balance tend to make you appear to be attacking me personally, and I read them in that light – and I do take exception to those comments. It hearkens back to the days when throngs on this board accused me of being a troll. It’s wasn’t true then, and your suggestion that I have some other motive for posting here other than to discuss the topic of this thread is not true, either. “Now, as to accusing me of duplicity, you just did above, with your "hearsay" charge” I did not accuse you of duplicity, and the term hearsay is not a dirty word. It only speaks to the legal strength of any given set of facts. Either you are repeating what you saw first hand, or you are repeating hearsay. It’s as simple as that. I didn’t charge you with anything. “I'll give you this-you have added more style to your posts. You're also refraining from making baldly false statements. That is also an improvement. However, you're still interpreting events so as to re-cast twi in the best possible light, and its dissenters in the worst possible light. That's not intellectually honest. If I wanted to, I could do the same, but I prefer to take a certain pride in the integrity of my posts “ I’m not in school, here, WordWolf, nor am I making any conscious effort to stylize my posts. I’ve never made baldly false statements, so refraining from them does not represent any improvement on my part. I’m not trying to “re-cast TWI” and have stated that my comments are not an attempt to defend TWI. I’ve been very careful to point out that I respect the views of the anti-TWI posters on this board, and refute your allegation of intellectual dishonesty. Finally, “BTW, LLP, please make it easy visually to tell when you're quoting me and when you're speaking for yourself, for the benefit of those playing along at home” I follow a time-tested practice of enclosing your statements in quotations. You post as you please, I’ll do the same. The comment about “those playing along at home” would seem to indicate that you view this exchange as some sort of game. I do not. Abigail, thank you for your advice . . . and to all, I apologize for having allowed such a pointed two-way exchange to have somewhat derailed such a valuable thread. Respectfully, LLP

Wordwolf: You wrote: “Hindsight is 20/20. The Catholic Church was not "obviously" a haven for child molesters. If they were, then "obviously" the police and the courts would have been having a field day with them for years. Most people were surprised and shocked when the news of the scandals in the RCC broke. Most people didn't say "I knew it all along."” So, how does what you wrote about the RCC not apply to TWI? Was TWI so obviously a haven for child molesters, and, if so, why were not the police and courts equally having a field day with TWI over the years? I can only assume that, in the absence of such “field days” that there was no such obvious knowledge of TWI as a haven for child molesters. My use of the term exoneration is probably inappropriate in characterizing your statement quoted above, but it is that statement to which I referred. You did make a distinction between the propensity of TWI to harbor molesters that, to me, in a way favors the RCC. I question why? That’s all. “Presuming equal numbers of both, would you then seek to excuse the organizations that harbored these perversions just because they might have been widespread? Do you forgive them for covering up their evil deeds because they werent the only ones?” I didn’t presume equal numbers of both – I stated clearly that, owing to the shear size of the RCC, that there were probably many more cases there. With respect to forgiveness, Christians everywhere are charged to forgive as we are forgiven. With respect to accountability, however, I would hold the perpetrators accountable, and am no more inclined to blame the RCC than I am to blame TWI. Let’s blame the perpetrators and hold them accountable. Those who are shown to have shirked their leadership responsibilities should also be held accountable, personally. To the extent that they were acting as agents of their respective organization, then, the organization should also bear responsibility. IMO, that’s how it should work. I’m not excusing anyone or any organization. But, I’m not condemning any organization either. I find unrealistic the notion that the RCC should somehow be disbanded by some government enforcement agency over this issue. Disbandment of TWI over the same issues seems equally unrealistic to me. “Only someone trying to find ways to get twi off the hook would even suspect I was trying to let the RCC off the hook” I only responded to what I read in your post. I don’t suspect you of anything, and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, neither organization needs my defense. I’m not trying to get anyone or any organization “off the hook.” “I'm agreeing with a number of eyewitness accounts in concluding this, in case you're wondering...” Translation: you are relying upon hearsay, plain and simple. Cite one instance where you have first person, direct eyewitness evidence of the accounts upon which you base your argument. “I disagree with you as to what constitutes "appropriate action". In BOTH cases, I think the response to the organizations was FAR too lenient.” Please see my statement above concerning accountability. What, exactly, would you have proposed as appropriate legal action (official, government legal action, if you will) against the RCC and TWI? “If twi was what it presented itself to be, then there would be no Greasespot Cafe, there would be no ruined lives, no court cases, no criminal proceedings” Show me any large organization that doesn’t suffer from these problems. These are people problems, and will be inherent in any organization that consists of people. That, in this particular case, TWI fell short of what it presents itself to be goes without saying. Taken in context, my statement refers to how TWI (or any organization, for that matter) will respond in correcting discovered weaknesses moving forward. “So, you'd prefer to wait until there's another scandal before seeking reforms? How about adding some oversight and safeguards, how about decrypting some of the secrecy and codes of silence instead?” How do you read that into my post? I said that they (TWI, RCC, you name it) should live or die (as in cease to exist) in measure to what they do (as in reforms, corrections, call it what you will) moving forward. Nothing in my post suggested that I would prefer to wait until there is another scandal. Point out to me what you read that caused you to draw that conclusion. ” I say you have no comprehension of what it was like for children on-campus if you think it was just as difficult for them to be molested or abused there as at a public school” And before you said the above, I said: “I cannot comment on your description of a TWI epidemic in this area, since I have not been witness to it” I’m trying to be open and honest, WW, can you not see that? “Compare that to children on-grounds-where you have no idea what happens when your child is out of your sight” Not unlike daycare, boyscouts, choir/band camps, before/after school tutoring, you name it. It’s a challenge all parents face to balance opportunity against retrospection in the interest of their children. But by the grace of God, my children have not been victims. I stay vigilant, I trust God, but, in the end, the credit for my success thus far should be credited not to my competence, but to the grace of God. You state that I have no idea what happens “on-grounds” and I say you and many other have no idea what happens wherever it happens. That’s the big problem with child molestation. “Fine. I dont believe you, since it seems clear to me that you can't view this subject with "balance". I called all the perpetrators evil, and you threw up this smokescreen in response, claiming I excused the perverts in the RCC. That was blatant MISrepresentation of what I said. Therefore, I don't believe you're here to provide fairness OR balance.” I characterized your statement (accurately or not) as an attempt to partially exonerate the RCC in contrast to your characterization of TWI as an organizational sanctuary for perpetrators of this crime. I didn’t accuse you of excusing or attempting to excuse perverts of any persuasion. The only blatancy involved is your failure to comprehend what I wrote. Go back and reread for further edification. One of the criticisms I have always held of this board and Waydale before is that open debate tends to get stifled by claims that anyone who is not openly anti-TWI gets “shouted” off the board by those claiming that there must be some ulterior motive for any statement posted by believers. If the majority of anti/ex-TWI posters here would simply prefer to bask in their anti-TWI views in absence of comments from current believers, just say so, and we believers who care to stay balanced will retreat to our lurking holes and refrain from further contribution. No matter how strongly I disagree with your point of view, WordWolf, I do not read into your statements what isn’t there, and I do not accuse you of duplicity in your posts. I take you at your word that you post what you believe because you honestly believe it. Why do you accuse me otherwise? Abigail: You state: “Mom A, a wise woman in my opinion, left TWI” From the information you provided, I would agree that Mom A was quite wise. As a child, I, too, was the victim of some “experimentation” by some of my older cousins. We weren’t part of TWI or any big organization, just simple country folk. The conditions in our extended family put me at risk (parents worked during the day, leaving me and my cousins under the supervision of a grandparent who’s attention was less than adequate). My parents don’t know to this day about these episodes. Fortunately, I wasn’t left with bruises (physical or otherwise) and am all the wiser to what can happen when kids (of any but especially of unequal ages) are left unsupervised. My cousins ran roughshod over me and my sister, and, if presented with undisputable evidence, their parents always managed to invent some justification for their wicked actions. In the case you cite, I suspect that Mother B’s motives were two-fold, 1) to protect the standing of her family within TWI, and 2) to protect her child. The tougher decision on her part would have probably born healthier long-term fruit. Been there (as a victim though not as part of TWI). Thanks for your post. Respectfully, LLP

Posted by Abigail: “ Do you think the victims in this case weren't trusting God?” I did not mean to imply that the victims were not trusting God. My point is that one needs to trust God rather than rely on some organization or institution. No matter how much I value what I get out of TWI, I will not blindly rely solely upon TWI instead of looking to my own personal relationship with God as the ultimate measure of good and evil in every situation. Could this have happened to one of my children? I would like to think not, but remain meekly thankful that, but by the grace of God, it has not. I know a believer who is pregnant and unmarried. I know she was counseled that abortion was one option available to her, but that option simply didn’t feel right to her, so she chose not to follow that advice and will carry the child to term. I don’t want to derail the thread by debating the abortion issue. My point is that she listened (to God, I believe) and was able to determine what course to take. The issue of sexual child abuse and the conditions that allow it to occur are both far too complex to simply blame the victim’s family for not having trusted God or for not being attentive or watchful enough over their children. Frankly, I think it too complex an issue for most of us to give more than our opinion. I’m certainly no expert on the subject . . . but as certainly as I know that God exists, I know that the issue is greater than, and in no way exclusive to TWI. I can’t prove this, it’s just one of those things I just “know.” Does that make any sense? Respectfully, LLP

Well, Shaz, I respect your view, but we will have to agree to disagree over our respective positions on this issue. I agree with your characterization of sexual predators – and most manage to seek out the child-compromising environments you describe, no matter what the organization. Pick up a paper and you will see that TWI has no monopoly on child molestation. You’ll find cases in the boyscouts, soccer clubs, summer camps, churches, schools, you name it. All those organizations assume that they have safeguards in place until some molester exposes the system weaknesses. I cannot comment on your description of a TWI epidemic in this area, since I have not been witness to it. If there is/was an epidemic, then, I would expect that it would be exposed at some point – time will tell. All the money and power in the Catholic Church could not hide their problem forever. The number of Catholic cases probably far outweighs what went on in TWI, but, then, on the other hand, the Catholic Church is far larger than TWI has ever been. I think, no matter how strongly you may disagree with me concerning TWI’s culpability as an organization, that we obviously agree that this problem (sexual abuse of children) is devastating to all it touches. ‘wannabe’, thanks for an objective post (well, it is objective to me). Wordwolf – your attempt to partially exonerate the Catholic Church represents to me a certain double standard. Clearly, there were Catholic officials who covered up the abuse in their system – and, as you seem to assert that similar cover-ups occurred in TWI, it follows, then, that you can no more exonerate the Catholics than condemn TWI, since those in both “systems” who might have been repulsed by these evil acts obviously were not aware, or they would have taken some action. When informed, government entities apparently took appropriate action on both fronts. If TWI is what it represents itself to be (to me), then, it has no need of my defense. I’m sure many, viewing the Catholic Church from a perspective similar to mine would say the same of that organization. I say, let both organization live (or die) according to what they do moving forward. We can take legal action against actions in the past, but an organizations life blood moves in real time. Also, Wordwolf, your assertion that schools offer few opportunities to such predators only indicates that you are unfamiliar with that environment and what it offers to one who has this disease. There are plenty of opportunities and excuses available to a predator to keep a student after school, or meet him/her before school. In such situations, parents will be glassy-eyed with the “extra” attention being afforded the unfortunate victim, while the “teacher” will find him/herself alone to abuse the victim. It happens more often than you could imagine. I know of one instance where the perpetrator was caught because he videotaped his crimes, then showed the videos to acquaintances who turned him into the authorities. I know full well that this is an anti-twi board, and expect some push-back when posting what must appear as some sort of TWI-defensive post. Whether you believe me or not, I do not post here in defense of TWI, but, rather, in defense of some balance with regard to this very important issue. Child abusers can be very patient in making their choice of victims/situations. That’s why this crime can occur anywhere, usually in situations where it is least expected. I do feel betrayed by MN . . . so far, however, I am not ready to enjoin all of TWI in that betrayal. My view, of course, is not 20/20, but I take some solace in the fact that I at least try to keep my eyes open all the time. That’s one of the reasons I continue to visit this forum. Y’all ain’t perfect, but I don’t at all discount that which I read here. Let us all, no matter our convictions, unite for wholesomeness. Respectfully, LLP

Perhaps, TWI is waiting to see what the Catholics will do, or perhaps Rev. Baker, or you name it. Point is, there are aberrant personalities in every walk of life, every organization. I don’t dispute postings from you who have had a bad experience in TWI. I am sorry your experience did not turn out differently, and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, I feel personally betrayed by the actions of the abuser in this case. My heart goes out to the abused, her family, and I also pray for the abuser and his family. What must have gone wrong in this person’s life that he acted in this manner? The question is rhetorical at this point, but, real in my mind, nonetheless. What must his family be thinking, feeling right now? And, yes, of course, how devastated, frustrated, and angry must the victims in this case be right about now? When something like this happens, it is truly sad for everyone involved – and, although Mark received the earthly justice he deserved (perhaps not harsh enough, who knows?), it will do little to assuage the hurt that he caused to his family and the family of the abused. Twi is no more the haven for sexual predators than any other organization – all the more reason that one should trust God to keep one on guard, no matter what vehicle is the means by which one seeks his or her walk. That this happened in TWI is no better (but no worse) than having it happen at school (I know of several cases involving teachers/students), at church (personally aware of a couple of ministers abusing children), in Amish country, you name it. It is not my place to condemn the church, the schools, the Amish, or TWI. In God’s eye, a sin is a sin – neither man nor his organizations (sanctioned by God or not) consist of perfect individuals. If it makes you feel better to blame this shameless act on TWI, go right ahead. In my house, we shall view this aberration through a lense of much wider angle. The man obviously has a problem that caused him to commit a crime. First order of business is that he needs to get straight with the law – do the time for his crime. I agree that he should be “warehoused” for the rest of his days on this earth. Then, he needs to get help to overcome this problem of his – that help needs to come from all available sources – lay, spiritual, ministerial, and professional – he should not leave a rock unturned in this regard. He also should not ever expect to be trusted alone in the presence of a child, and, unless he wants to use this crime as a springboard from which to launch a renewed career as a minister, I doubt he could ever be effective again. People have recovered from worse crimes to lead meaningful lives, but only by constantly admitting their frailties and working up from there. I continue to grieve for all involved in this matter, and will pray and believe for God to craft the most positive outcome. Respectfully, LLP

“Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?” Just call me a doubting Thomas. I think it’s great that this film has stirred up so much interest – and if this interest nets one new believer, then, it really doesn’t matter what any of us think about Mel’s motives. My opinion is no more or less whimsical than anyone else’s on this board – and probably no more or less jaded by my experience in and observations of the “biz” than are opinions expressed by outies concerning current conditions in TWI jaded by their experience in and observations of “that biz.” Mel’s personal investment in this venture may be unprecedented in Hollywood, I just don’t think that fact, in and of itself, is an indicator of his motive(s) per se. I can respect your opinion, however. Respectfully, LLP

OK, Mark. I hear you and see where you're coming from. LLP

Hi, Mark. I’m not going back to look up your post, either, but you said something about my comment concerning Mel’s motives for making the film as being downright mean-spirited. I don’t see anything mean-spirited about it. MG put up his own money to back a high-risk venture over which he had ultimate control with the potential to return very handsome profits – classic capitalism, nothing of which to be ashamed. Does the subject of this film somehow elevate Mel’s entrepreneurial quest above that of, say, someone who puts up his own money to build a factory or invent and bring to market some new fast food or a better mousetrap? You may feel it does. I do not. I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie. Most of us put up our own money to initiate a venture – and the dollars we offer to a project, whether we fund 100% or some lesser portion, can be significant for us. On the other hand, few of the businesspersons I know would risk their lifestyle on a single project, and, while I have no intimate knowledge of Mel’s financial resources, I suspect that his lifestyle was not imperiled by the 25 million he risked on this project. I also doubt he had to just plunk down 25 million as though he was betting on roulette or blackjack. Business (even show business) doesn’t work that way. "Lowly Lolly Poppy, do you think it is possible that Mel may actually have a heart felt passion for Jesus Christ?" Sure, Mark. It’s quite possible. I know many passionate Christians who are also passionate about business and bold in their investment practices. Those passions are not mutually exclusive. "In spite of this obvious mark on Mel's character." Why so cynical, Mark? I have expressed not one word of disrespect for Mel, his Catholic faith, his movie, or his intentions, and you certainly can’t accuse me of framing any alleged disrespect in the context of whether or not he has taken "PFAL or the WAP class or whatever "flavor of the month" class they have now at TWI." For all the bemoaning on this board that TWI robs its people of their power to think independently, outie folks here sure seem to get their panties all tied in knots when an innie dares to speak outside the context of TWI. My comments are mine – I have not, as one poster suggested, run my thoughts up the “Way Tree” for prior approval from leadership. There are many from TWI in my area who have seen this film and generally praised it for its accuracy and as a piece of good cinema. For many others, having seen the hype about the purported blood and guts, the desire to see this film is only lukewarm. Those perspectives are not unique to TWI. There is no right or wrong here. See the film if you want – elevate it and its producer to their rightful place aside your sacred tomes if you ascribe to them that much weightiness. For me, the film represents a project that, while risky, was well executed, and for which the producer is realizing a well-deserved return on investment. Respectfully, LLP

That was water piling up on you. Hope you wore ear plugs while singing in that bucket - otherwise, you will have suffered some hearing loss. Oh, and perhaps I was wrong on that point about you staying home all the time. It was an honest misteak - I rarely make them (honest or not). LOL - oops, I mean LLP

Well, PamSan, anyone who would make the comment you just did, obviously hasn’t been around. I can tell from your post that you, obviously, are a non-traveling type, your Milton-Bradleyish moniker notwithstanding. Get out of your rut, dare to step off the board, take a spin around the block, breathe deeply the (fresh??) air. It will clear your head. Then, apply the newly energized burst of logic that results to my profile. You’ll quickly surmise that I am the vagabond type – one who sings show tunes but doesn’t sing in the shower obviously doesn’t take showers – unless one is singing in the rain, but that was DVD’s moment in the sun. Wake up, PanSan! Get fresh! Free your cloistered logic! And, please, unless you’re willing to get out of the house and actually do something other than stay home all the time, don’t go prying into the deeper meanings of my very simple profile. It says exactly what it says (de Gualle of some people!!!). LLP

Cherished: Hard to take issue with anything expressed in your last post. One of the reasons I keep coming here is to maintain a broad perspective. We've pretty much worked to death poor old Mel (well, old, at least) and his motives, but, for me, it was a stimulating and profitable (no pun intended, LOL) exchange. I trust you share that feeling. Thanks for your post. LLP

Cherished, you obviously missed the key word in my previous post concerning identity – and then you contradict yourself. I asked you (or anyone here) to show me one innie posting who identifies him/herself. Plenty of folks identify themselves here, you say – citing Rafael as an example – and then, you excuse yourself from the same standard to which you would hold me because your hubby is still in. I do understand why you don’t feel comfortable using your real name, but I really don’t understand where you are coming from with respect to what you feel I should be doing, Cher – not that it matters. Folks have been posting anonymously all over the internet (not just at GS) from its earliest days. It is an accepted and perfectly legal practice except if one is using the tactic in the commission of a crime. I’m glad that your husband is finding life in TWI more to his liking, and I appreciate that you are willing to admit so in this post. Perhaps others here will find my description more credible as a result of your comment. I can understand your choice not to return to TWI – please try to understand that I choose to maintain my relationship for the positives it presently and has always offered me. I never experienced some of the negatives I hear related here at GS, and don’t feel I have to reconcile my experience to that of others, especially those who have chosen to leave. If you observe (from your husband or others) that changes (for the better) have occurred in TWI, it’s your choice to give them credit for making the change or to deride them for not making it sooner. It’s your choice to accept whatever reason they may give for making the change or to assume that the reason was to maintain/regain/increase the number of participants. Those choices are for each of us to make for ourselves. I’ll respect your choices, I promise. I’m not here to approve/disprove anyone else’s experience or perspective, only to express my own. Respectfully, LLP

My bad, EX. I really can be thick headed sometimes. LLP