WordWolf

"This is a serious call for help!" "They don't look like Presbyterians to me."

Let's not leave it there....finish the thought. Did that guy really originate the concept/term, or was it handed to him? Was Mr "Greatest Revelation In Two Millenia", Mr "Miraculous Snow Follows Me Around", Mr "So Spiritual I Can Screen Pornography And Not Be Corrupted", Mr "Stand When I Enter The Room", Mr "Wear a Tux to Interview Me", was he actually surprised when this song was done? Or had he deliberately set the stage for it himself? Remember his protege- He had the nerve to appear surprised when someone suggested that HE play the lead in the musical production HE was pushing. (Satan's Alley/AOS) Does anyone think, even for a moment, that he EVER seriously entertained the option of having someone ELSE play the lead? lcm was the un-subtle, blindingly-obvious ripoff of vpw all his days. I say he saw vpw do it, and just carried on his "legacy".

"When you get rich and famous, we'll come exploit you."

Actually, a lot of us have learned a lot here over the years. Some of what was learned was factual, some of it was conceptual, insight or ideological. Have you been participating in messageboards elsewhere where people had zero interest in either being factual, correct, or "right" in some way? I've been on a number of boards, and-so far-that's been true of none of them.

"Give me a break!" That's from "Weird Science", when Lisa went clothes-shopping. Haven't seen that thing since the 80s, I think... but I saw it a few times back then. :)

Depends on what you say, the time availability of the posters, and what mood they're in when you're posting. That's the same all over cyberspace, actually. If you're new in cyberspace, I'd direct you HERE. What prompted me to reply, actually was the assertion that the young folks who joined twi had the MOST passion for God of all the people out there. In reality, those who joined during the Jesus People movement were recruited out of a BUNCH of young people with a zeal for God. Other groups saw them join, as well. Further, young people in GENERAL can seem very excitable regarding the things of God. Just take a look at ANY group of Christians where young people are present. I've seen a number, and ALL of them had kids with "a passion for God". You can walk into any of them locally, or- heck, it's the information age- you can check online even, and not even leave your chair. But I did agree with about 1/2 what you said, you didn't like that? Disagreement is not only ALLOWED here, but EXPECTED. Compared to the old "thinking is forbidden" twi, I consider this an improvement.

No. So far, Radar personally said that cg "was seated at the desk on the auditorium stage, a loaded handgun within his reach." Then again, it's possible that different people are referring to different meetings on different dates. This one Radar mentioned was April 23, 1986, the public release of the PoP paper. THAT meeting, cg was armed. He wasn't the only one, either. "Outside the executive back entrance to the auditorium, Don Wierwille was being physically detained by a HEAVILY ARMED member of the Twi safety department." "Don was held OUTSIDE the back entrance by armed guard to insure the fact that he would not go onstage and interrupt the reading of the paper."

Hello. I recommend getting out a bit more. When I was in college, I ran into a number of zealots all connected with their various groups, all "having a passion for God." I considered them all deficient in knowledge, but, if anything, they had more passion. Asking God and seeking intimacy with Him, I'd agree, yields betterresults than just trying an intellectual approach. I disagree that emotion has to be "directed" for that. I'd agree with all this.

That certainly isn't reflected so far by you posting in a kind and civil fashion, let alone a "loving" one. If you're "thinking the very best" of me, your words TO me will reflect that. I met cg. I had time to interact with him. I scrutinized him and observed him diligently, looking for signs of improper response, etc. I found none. That was MY personal experience. Now, then, MY personal experience counts for something, but it's the AGGREGATE of personal experiences that count for MORE. So, when I heard that a number of people had spent a lot MORE time with cg than I did, in situations where he did not control all the variables, and that their experiences were VERY different from mine, did I say "no, you all must be liars and thinking evil of him?" No, I added what THEY knew to what I knew. I said that he presented himself different ways to different people. Now, then, you're taking the report you have of TWO people-which, by definition, is limited to what the two people saw and heard- and completely disregarding the eyewitness reports who were where they were not, and saw what they did not, and heard what they did not. Do you realize how silly this is? Let's say you lived in Texas, and had kids. You hired Pogo the Clown to entertain at some of their birthday parties. No problem, everyone was entertained. Besides, the guy in the suit was a nice guy-he'd been in the Boy Scouts when younger, and was in the Jaycees as an adult-as well as the Chi Rho Club and other community service organizations. According to a number of people, he's a nice guy. HOWEVER, this guy, John Wayne Gacy Jr, killed 33 boys and adolescent males, (after torturing and raping them) and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. When faced with his one surviving victim-who escaped handcuffs and identified him for the police- Gacy said "You're the only one that ever got out of these and got them on me." He also said later "The only thing they can get me for is running a funeral parlor without a license." So, just because a few people who saw him casually thought he was a nice guy, did NOT mean he WAS a nice guy. Just because your parents saw vpw and cg-AT A DISTANCE and under conditions controlled by vpw and cg- does NOT mean they know all their is to know about them. For all they know, either or both is guilty of murder, or rape.

Always glad to see you around, Goey. ======== In other news.... I noticed this thread was started BY CKmKeon, specifically asking us which was the worst leader. He included vpw and cg, as well as Pope Benedict XVI. When the Pope didn't get a flood of votes, CK got mad. He also recently said, in a different thread, "I will defent Rev. Geer and VPW till by fingers turn to bone. They are both men of God that have or is doing God's will." So, I'm curious what the purpose of this thread was. Was it to confirm that the rest of us consider the head of the RCC a worse leader than vpw or cg? Was it to serve as a platform to put that forth? What?

Brandishing, as defined in Section 924 © (4) of Title 18, US Code... "..the term 'brandish' means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person." Eyewitnesses said-depending on the eyewitness- that they saw cg either-and this may depend on the specific meeting as well as their visibility from their location- that he either wore a pistol visibly, or (several said this) that he took out a pistol and placed it on the podium- IIRC, that was BEFORE getting into his speech at all. In other words, that was a tacit statement of "I have no intention of brooking dissent. I have a loaded firearm here and am prepared to use it to remain in control at this podium." If you doubt that's not the EXACT meaning he intended to convey, then pose the following hypothetical to someone you trust... "A man steps forward, to address an organization's staff. They have been told attendance at this meeting is mandatory. Many suspect he will tell something they do not wish to hear. He reaches the podium. Before beginning, he takes out a pistol and places it on the podium. Question 1: Did he intend to send a message to his audience by placing a pistol on the podium? Question 2: What message did he intend to convey to his audience by placing a pistol on the podium (if he intended to convey one)?"

That would explain a lot. Someone puts that forth in the corps or something, then the entire corps (as a body, with exceptions of course) starts promulgating it as if this is what it actually means, then I hear it when someone puts forth that INSTEAD of people researching, they made a COUNTERoffer that they should be reading the collaterals instead. As Raf put it at the time, it's the difference between "re-SEARCHING" and "re-READING." It also fits neatly into the package of "we don't really need to do anything like thinking-vpw did all our thinking for us. Now we just need to regurgitate and promulgate what HE taught."

Well, Oakspear AND Templelady gave 2 different answers, either of which should be sufficient. Second of all, your answer to date was as follows: First, you ignored the question for several days, even when it was posed several times. Second, you answered a question by saying "How you you know it's not right?" Which is not an ANSWER, it's an EVASION. Third, as soon as they answered your evasion, you CHANGED THE SUBJECT and insulted another group. Is this going to be the sum total of your answer? Espouse an unproven theology, pretend it holds up to scrutiny, when challenged, pretend the challenger has to answer rather than you, then change the subject when proven wrong? I mean, you could always post now and TRY to defend your theology, or actually think it over and-gasp!-conclude it was WRONG and CHANGE your theology when proven wrong! Imagine that! You can IMPROVE and CHANGE YOUR MIND!

That's not a "Re-SEARCH" Dept, that's a "Re-READ" and "Re-GURGITATE" Dept. Then again, as early as 1990, even some of the escapees were recommending "Re-READ" over "Re-SEARCH", so this should come as no surprise. The student is encouraged to NEVER touch REAL research tools unless looking to legitimize the position already arrived at by the group. In other words, what twi accused denominations of doing. No, it's reREADING.In research, you get to take diverse sources, and come up with new insights that DIVERGE from them. In its crudest form, one might say that the discussions we had analyzing the Blue Book and TW:LiL were research, since we took sources and examined them and were free to diverge when necessary. "They call us 'brainwashers'? We got a nation of sheep! Brainwashees! Most people wouldn't know an original thought if it fell on them!" lcm was rather repetitive. Comes from having limited INflow of information and ideas. This limited his OUTflow. Since he kept talking, that meant he was repetitive. Since he was above improvement/refinement/correction, that meant he was repetitively sloppy and unimproved, as well. Translation:the tapes we already taught, the books we already wrote, the magazines we already wrote. The student learns to use what we already taught/wrote. It's called repetition. Translation: He then has to take what we already taught/wrote and apply it to hypothetical situations, showing he's sufficiently memorized OUR approach to things so as to prevent a truly novel solution we haven't vetted. "I'll be a better minister once I've memorized all their print materials!I feel so blessed!"

Bully for you. Those good times you had were at the expense of bad times inflicted on others. I don't begrudge you good times, but they don't negate the suffering. Since that's not "all without exception", that must mean "all with a distinction". The distinction being, apparently, all the people as he imagines them...

Well, I didn't see the need to embarass anyone on the OLD thread about this comment, but-seeing as someone felt the need to bring it up again, I'll address some of the inadequate claims now. (The rest can wait til later.) Regarding the Tulsa lie, the following was said: "Dr could have made a mistake on the time and date and that would settle it very easily. I don't see that this situation is critical for him to have been accurate. Then again, the weather report could have an error. That happens, to, you know. Then there are many other possibilities. Why bother? Unless you're hell-bent on finding excuses to not taking him seriously. I see this story as relatively insignificant." Where shall I start? It's obvious to me that this statement is hiding a deliberate attempt to avoid the reported facts of the event, even to the point of never having read about it in the FIRST PLACE. "Dr could have made a mistake on the time and date and that would settle it very easily." No, it wouldn't-mainly because he never REPORTED a time and date. He was DELIBERATELY VAGUE on the specific event he attended- notice its NAME was never given, the HOTEL NAME was missing, and so on? We have the city and the month. After someone did some research, they found the specific event, hotel and dates. THAT is where the exact dates come from- the official records of the event. So, the time/date thing does NOT allow vpw to squirm off the hook-despite his attempts to keep both vague and thus avoiding being questioned in the first place. "I don't see that this situation is critical for him to have been accurate." vpw himself said this was one of the 2 most important days in his LIFE. Yet he fabricated important details about it-fabrications which were uncovered. He demonstrated that he had no problem inventing snowstorms to make special events sound more holy. The SECOND most important day in his life had a manufactured snowstorm. And you expect me to believe his account of a snowstorm in his account of the MOST important day in his life? Few people have difficulty seeing the connection. "Then again, the weather report could have an error. That happens too, you know." We know. That's why TWO independent weather reports were consulted. No snowstorms for the entire MONTH. Not even a single flake for the timeframe in question. "Then there are many other possibilities." Like what? Alien invasion? There are no other possibilities. He lied. He was caught lying. He CHANGED his lie. "Why bother?" We want to know the truth. And a consistent, clear pattern appears- for those who wish to look.

Let's START with him at the podium visibly displaying a firearm. That was an obvious way to prevent opposing viewpoints from being presented. BTW, the legal term for it is "brandishing", and it IS a crime. As for judgemental, that goes to the content of what he said...

He made virtually the same statement on the Tape of the Month "the Mark of Quality" in the mid-80s. "The Jews of today are no more 'God's chosen people' than the Apaches." Odd how he kept singling out the Apaches in his statement. Never a European ethnic group, never another nation, always Apaches. That whole tape pretty much was "lcm on politics". It's worth listening to if you ever need to disabuse yourself of the notion that lcm knew what he was talking about. The man's entire education consisted of regular school thru college- where he was NOT a Political Science major, then being completely cut off from the outside world and being conditioned in twi, where the only consistent news sources were the Liberty Lobby and the John Birch Society. And he considered himself some sort of political analyst/commentator/expert.

Actually, the RC Church puts a lot more of that money back OUT locally than twi. Depending on the community you live in, the closest thing you may have to an emergency shelter might BE the local church. (That's been the case historically in developing or tiny communities.) I don't know what that's supposed to mean.There IS a difference, however, between not prosecuting a molester (which the RCC DID, which is wrong and vile), and EDUCATING a molester, telling them it's "ok if you can take it", or that "you'll need to loosen up sexually if you want to lead God's people", which was done in twi- BY VPW HIMSELF as well as others (those were DIRECT QUOTES FROM VPW). Both are evil acts, one is MORE evil. That's called "ritual". Some people like it. Some people hate it. Don't like it? Don't attend. BTW, if you'd attended an ROA under VPW, you would have seen keynote teachings where vpw said something and everyone was supposed to answer him. And there were a LOT of times you were expected to stand up, sit down, stand again, sit again... That's interesting.I grew up with a Roman Catholic Church. I served as an altar boy, and so I got to know all the rooms and corners and so on. I can see the entire layout of the church in my mind's eye, decades later. Where are these "5 crosses"? I've seen a maximum of TWO- one by the altar, one hanging from the ceiling. Most churches I've seen since then have ONE. (One by the altar.) Where are the other 4 crosses you've seen? Furthermore, is your theology THAT sensitive that you get physically ill when someone even SUGGESTS that there were 2 people that were crucified with Jesus in the account? (If so, you need to dial it down a notch or high blood pressure will get you before you're 30.) What are they supposedly lying about to keep donations? From what you're saying, if they agreed with you about 4 crucified vs 2 crucified, their donations would dry up. This does not make sense. Furthermore, Chewbacca was a wookiee, but he hung out on Endor with the Ewoks.

If you want plain English that attempts to be word-for-word accurate AND retains the italics for translator additions, you can't do better than the New American Standard Bible. If you want the feel of a KJV, I'd recommend New King James Version. If you want a paraphrase of the ideas, there's Bibles like "the Message", "the Amplified Bible" and "the Living Bible." (I don't trust them generally, but the language is often beautiful.) Some people like the NIV. Me, I think the NASB outclasses it for what I want in a Bible. If you want to sample them before buying, that's easy. Go to Bible Gateway and look up a few passages in different Bibles, then pick your favourite.

Well, if you need help, I'm willing to point you to all the information. I'm sure it's all either on a message thread or in the documents on the main website already. Of course, the FIRST thing to know is, roughly when were they in? Back in the early 70s, things were fairly low-structured. By the late 70s, the first structures were put in place by vpw. By the early 80s, structures pretty much locked in everything. In 1985, vpw died, and things started to get REALLY weird. 1985-1988 was the "fog years", where lcm-vpw's successor- wandered around after "the Passing of the Patriarch" was read. 1989 was when lcm drew his "line in the sand", and demanded an oath of loyalty. 80% of the membership all left at once. The early 90s were a period of rebuilding, as lcm slowly replaced all vpw's classes and programs with his own. From 1994 onward lcm tied the noose tight, and membership became tantamount to slavery. That's just a rough sketch. Now, there's lots of threads that will give you some background. For a general overview, check out "Greasespot 101". That's got a thread to help familiarize yourself with many basic concept and terms. Now, I started a number of threads that might be of help, depending on what you're looking for. (I'm big on trying to assemble the history.) If you put in my name and search for threads with the title "Eyewitnesses", you'll see a variety of threads with some general information by people in the group during different timeframes. If you search for titles containing "wonderland" and my name, you'll get 2 other threads. "the way:living in wonderland" is a thread that explores the in-house book/advertisement, "the way:living in love." It also serves as a biography of vpw himself. (The last few pages include some drafts of a biography, compiled from the thread and a few sources.) "vp and me in wonderland" is a thread that explores the in-house book, "vp and me", written by lcm. It provides a look at lcm's life and training, a look at what vpw was like when he thought no one was looking, and life for the way corps. So, depending on what you're looking for, some of those will be of assistance. I'd at least read over the "Wayspeak and Greasespot-speak" so that you can get familiar with the lingo here. Feel free to pass along questions.

"First the Nazis came. First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me- and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemoller.

Was this the subject you wanted, Belle? I know someone at some point asked about suicide at hq... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/dr...-to-suicide.htm It might have been concerning the Passing of the Patriarch. I found a reference TO such a thread, but not the thread itself. But I CAN link to that document itself. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/pop1.htm

This event supposedly occurs in 1953. In 1971, vpw is speaking of it, and says "THERE WAS A BLIZZARD IN TULSA." He said he called the airport, the train station, the bus depot, and the airport AGAIN, and all 4 times, he was told all traffic was halted. "THE CITY WAS SNOWBOUND. I JUST COULDN'T GET OUT!" The reality of the situation was that the temperature during this supposed "BLIZZARD IN TULSA" hit 60 degrees Fahrenheit. However, vpw was always sure no one would check up on him, so he never bothered shoring up his story. The senselessness of the weather feeling like mild spring during his supposed "blizzard" never caught his attention-which it SHOULD if he was not mentally defective. The absence of snow or cool weather likewise never caught his attention. If he actually believed this story about the "blizzard", they would have. If he was just lying, then, obviously, contradictions to his story wouldn't draw his attention- he'd know there was no "blizzard." Later, a woman checks his story, and finds the facts completely contradict his story. So, she goes to him to discuss it. He looks her in the eye, and, without skipping a beat, NOW begins to tell a story about angels lying to him and making illusions of a snowstorm and manning phones all over the city of Tulsa. vpw then begins to mention at meetings-at least once in johniam's presence- that it "must've been an angel" on the phone talking to him. That means he now ADMITTED there was no actual snow (since he was now CAUGHT and could no longer claim that as he had IN PRINT). If he talked to normal people at any of those locations, it is obvious they would not have lied to him, nor been so incompetent to say there was a blizzard coming when the entire MONTH was forecast for MILD WEATHER. (It's statistically possible for one of them to go insane JUST as he got on the phone, but all 4 people he spoke to?) So, he claimed the voice he spoke to was an angel who then LIED to him-apparently at God's instruction. Among other things, this means that GOD ALMIGHTY CANNOT LIE, (Titus 1:2) but He has no problems sending his angels to do exactly that. So, one either can believe that vpw lied, or that 3-4 angels lied. Apparently, he also trimmed down his claim- since he told johniam about the airport ONLY, while IN PRINT he'd said he had also called the TRAIN STATION and BUS DEPOT. Now, vpw had no need to abandon his entire story-just add a few details for listeners to latch onto. That's because most people who heard this story WANTED to believe it, and vpw thought-correctly-that some people-even in the face of obvious reality-would STILL take his word over anything else. But, hey! Don't let ME interfere with your beliefs- as if I could.