Rocky

Your intended meaning was unclear. Please clarify.

Well, that right there tells us a lot about the experience we had in TWI.

What????

Hoping for a good outcome for you.

Perhaps all because -- even though he saw it in the scripture -- he failed at the two greatest commandments. Didn't he define that kind of thing as idolatry? It's probably also tied directly (btwn any given person's ears) to failure to maintain humility.

Vivid description of a livid eruption of ego. A monumental lack of poise. A person not overwhelmed with insecurity might have regained the moment and reset the desired mood simply by laughing it off.

Oh, thanks WW. Hopefully Mark S will ratify (or not) your interpretation.

I wonder what might have happened if Wierwille actually had loved people just because rather than for what they could do for him.

Do you have any evidence that anyone in the 21st Century actually KNOWS whether the devil did appear literally as a dragon anywhere to anyone?

Please clarify the question.

I just read that 40-year old letter again. What struck me (slapped me in the face) this time was that Wierwille said, "I love you for who you are." Oooops, that's not it, instead he actually wrote, "I love you for the privilege and responsibility you have." What was that "privilege?" As he taught (indoctrinated) H.I.S. way corpse, the privilege was having been called to be "doulos." Literally a slave. One who no longer has freedom to make her/his own life choices. Of course, in the indoctrination, it was slave to God. In practice, it was slave to Wierwille and his successors. The reward for the slave? To serve the earthly master on the basis of a bass-ackward interpretation of what leadership is supposed to be... and what Wierwille and successors could con you into believing you'd get at the "Bema." When you stood before God for rewards in heaven. Not unlike the mythical 70 virgins another religion promised for heinous acts of terrorism.

If Adam was Eve's "husband" (and Eve was Adam's "wife") who performed the wedding ceremony? I pose that as a serious question. To me, the Judeo-Christian creation story is just that, a story. In my comment from July 4, maybe I was using the wrong words but I was trying to say that I believe the creation story is not something we can get "a more accurate" understanding of the dynamics involved (because it wasn't the creation science, it was a STORY) by studying the Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic words. It was a freakin' story for God's sake. It was meant, not altogether unlike Greek or Roman or Norse mythology to convey concepts in terms humankind could understand. Wierwille was a con man, he wasn't a messenger from God.

1) Ryan Holiday recently wrote a book, "Ego is the Enemy," which is jam packed with insight and historical records which expand on the concept of pride causing people to fail. 2) Rosalie had the dirt on Loy. Even if he had tried to oust her, he was infinitely more vulnerable. 3) To me, your theory on how Martindale developed his mania regarding homosexuality seems inherently plausible. But not everyone agrees.

Indeed. In terms of scholarship, this particular "theory," that Adam was the real serpent, completely misses the notion of that narrative actually being a creation story. I don't buy the original understanding as having literal aspects that could reasonably be parsed in a manner like the bastardization of biblical study into which we were indoctrinated by twi. It seems to me that in order to even approach taking seriously that Adam was the real serpent one has to buy into the idea that humanity was so freaking incompetent at recording it's creation myths/stories, that it would miss figuring out who Adam really was. That's extremely implausible.

I'm pretty sure Lloyd reads GSC from time to time. Maybe he'll see his name on the front page with this thread.

There is possibility that if you let us know who spoke at your sister's funeral, people here might have some idea about the background for his group. Like Waysider, I offer my condolences on the loss of your sister. I lost my brother to heart disease when he was 36, so I have some idea how traumatic this has been for you and your family.

Here's one a friend mentioned last night... Martin Lucifer King Jr. How terribly manipulative was that? Build up walls to keep cult members from honoring or even recognizing the good in and of one of the most significant historical figures of our (well, for Boomers anyway) lifetime.

What did you see pop up on your phone? Something about a Dave Patterson?

From the story linked in my previous comment: However much they might dislike Scientology, its jargon is their native tongue. Some even say it’s a relief to talk without code-switching, or worrying that they’re talking gibberish. There’s a reason why the language is so central to the belief system, and so hard to shake. According to psychiatrist and thought-reform expert Robert Jay Lifton, new lexicons are common in cults — and often essential. He calls the practice “loading the language,” and includes it as one of eight core features of high-demand groups. When the group breaks to smoke, I ask Shelton for a second opinion. Forget the question of emotional repression for a second. If there are words for these feelings already, why not use them? “It makes us feel special and unique,” he jokes. “If we used regular English words, then anyone could do this!” But he agrees with Lifton’s idea of cult idioms as thought-terminating cliches. “It gets people thinking in the cult leader’s system,” he says. “It literally makes it harder to think outside the box.” Dr. Matthews agrees, pointing out that many high-demand groups have jargon around emotional repression. Some fundamentalist Christian cults use the phrase “keep sweet,” she says, meaning “stop whining, stop complaining.” She adds, “Jargon like that rewires the brain.”

Not that any GSC readers (unless perhaps they are newly escaped from the fundamentalist cult that is TWI) necessarily still believe or understand this particular manipulation of language to be unique to TWI, but a friend of mine just yesterday had an article posted to rollingstone.com. She (Ashley Sanders) wrote the story last year on escapees from Scientology. The first paragraph reads, Scientologists have special words for the people gathered at a sleek Airbnb townhouse on a mild day in September. They’re irrational, or “banky.” They’re putting off bad vibes, or being “downtone.” They’re full of negative energy, or “chargey,” and they won’t contain it — they won’t “get their TRs in.” But the people sprawling on the living room’s vinyl wraparound couch don’t use those words to describe themselves anymore. Growing up in Scientology, they say they were constantly told to be stoic. Now that they’ve left, they’re tired of jargon about repressing emotion. Instead, they’re looking for new words to describe themselves—new ways to express the psychological consequences of their upbringing—and they’ve traveled all the way to Brooklyn to tell their stories. They’ve already landed on one new way to think about themselves—a phrase that helps illuminate why it’s so hard for them feel things. They call themselves the Children of Scientology. Psychologists call them SGAs, or Second Generation Adults. Aren't tribal idiosyncrasies special?

Ah HA... I thought it might have something to do with cannabis.

For the record, the book has not changed my world view that much, or my political views at all. But it has made me more able to move with confidence toward my goals.

Many of us who long ago recognized the evil in the TWI viewed, for a time, maybe long time, maybe short time, The Way AS the obstacle. An obstacle that distracted us sometimes for decades, sometimes less. On this forum (specifically "About the Way" forum) there are stories of wasted years that Victor Wierwille "stole from us." For me, it's been more than three decades (33 years, more or less) since I "copped out" or rather escaped the cult. That's no longer how I choose to look at the situation. That's not to say that I was (we were) wrong in viewing that reality in that way. Wierwille sold us a myth. A story. A cult. A subculture. And yes, a family of sorts. I long ago shed WayBrain. BUT now, I no longer look back and regret my time being part of that dysfunctional subculture. GOOD things happened after I left twi. But so did things we traditionally consider bad. Difficult things. Obstacles. Challenges. The transition to acceptance of and growth into the new perspective took years. The obstacles became the path to achievement, accomplishment and growth. They often weren't pleasant. As (included in the book above) Ben Franklin said (probably more than once), what hurts, instructs. Rather than ramble on, I'll just say that I've found the book tremendously insightful and inspiring. Obviously, I highly recommend the book to you. Maybe you can find it in your local public library. I obtained it from Amazon (Kindle version) for $1.99. I subscribe to a daily email that Amazon sends out with books at special low prices, often $1.99. Beats the hell out of paying $100 for a class (or hundreds to thousands for variations on PFLAP or Momentus) these days. And your life is YOURS to live as you see fit. There's no group to join but it will likely provide great insights for self-determination.

Do you know why you can't access the video?

It's all about TWIs tribal idiosyncrasies. We've also discussed the notion of "belonging" in relation to twi. That's inherently tied into tribalism. The word "tribe" can be defined to mean an extended kin group or clan with a common ancestor, or can also be described as a group with shared interests, lifestyles and habits. The proverb "birds of a feather flock together" describes homophily,[3] the human tendency to form friendship networks with people of similar occupations, interests, and habits.[4] Some tribes can be located in geographically proximate areas, like villages or bands, though telecommunications enables groups of people to form digital tribes using tools like social networking websites. In terms of conformity,[5] tribalism has been defined as a "subjectivity" or "way of being" social frame in which communities are bound socially beyond immediate birth ties by the dominance of various modalities of face-to-face and object integration.[6] Ontologically, tribalism is oriented around the valences of analogy, genealogy and mythology. That means that customary tribes have their social foundations in some variation of these tribal orientations, while often taking on traditional practices (e.g. Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), and modern practices, including monetary exchange, mobile communications, and modern education. Tribalism implies the possession of a strong cultural or ethnic identity that separates one member of a group from the members of another group. Based on strong relations of proximity and kinship, members of a tribe tend to possess a strong feeling of identity. Objectively, for a customary tribal society to form there needs to be ongoing customary organization, enquiry and exchange. However, intense feelings of common identity can lead people to feel tribally connected.[10] The distinction between these two definitions for tribalism, objective and subjective, is an important one because while tribal societies have been pushed to the edges of the Western world, tribalism, by the second definition, is arguably undiminished. A few writers have postulated that the human brain is hard-wired towards tribalism by its evolutionary advantages, but that claim is usually linked to equating original questions of sociality with tribalism.[11] Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in human evolution.