WordWolf

I'm sure that this platitude will be of GREAT comfort to the next innocent, young, idealistic person who's molested, raped, or pressured into an abortion by a person claiming to represent God. "Well, now you know for next time. Next time, be more careful." That's going to go SO far in their healing process. (Reminds me of "the Old Philosopher".) If it's directed to those who suffered in twi and have escaped and are looking back, then I think the natural response would be "no sh*!" Of COURSE they know NOW not to trust people like that no matter what....

You might want to review the "Registry Keys" thread. We talked a lot of security and stuff there.

"third-aid". twi term. The idea was that, before any medical attention was given like an aspirin, you would pray, then ask someone else to pray (steps 1 and 2). This has nothing to do with the 100% reimbursements the bot/bod has for LARGE amounts of medical attention.

"third-aid". twi term. The idea was that, before any medical attention was given like an aspirin, you would pray, then ask someone else to pray (steps 1 and 2). This has nothing to do with the 100% reimbursements the bot/bod has for LARGE amounts of medical attention.

Then download all the Windows critical updates, AdAware, Spybot (now on 1.3) firewall, antivirus, and update them all. Remember to run the scans and updates periodically.

Well, when I was in, I gave up attendance at a big collegiate invitational with my team. When I was in, I also gave up TWI for "The Word". That's how I saw it, and I would have left alone if nobody else did.

Oldies -- if I were to hold you at gunpoint, and say something like "your money, or your life", you would have a choice. If I were to hold you at gunpoint and say something like "step into speeding traffic, or else", you would have a choice. And if I were to handcuff you, and toss you into a lake saying "sink, or swim", again you would have a choice. The two "constants" in these hypothetical situations are the fact that either way you suffer harm, but _you have a choice_. You say that a "choice" was offered to those women, yet I see it as a choice that is as "desirable" as the ones I am postulating here, for you. --> If I were to be confronted by "church" authority for being a lying, drunk, thief that needs to "clean up his act" before resuming fellowship with that church, that would be a "choice" I could live with. That is NOT the case that Rascal, and others have stated here. The "choice" offered to them was indeed a "choice", but either way they went would be a lose/lose situation, therefore not a _viable choice_ at all. They were told to "sink or swim", and given the coercion that twi used to protect those in the upper echelons, it was the same as if a gun were held to their heads. Now I am curious as to why you got kicked out, since you stated you did not live up to the standards expected. Hmmmm??? I am guessing that whatever you did, it did not include the murder of an innocent life, so I guess that makes you less of a sinner, eh? I wasn't going to say anything here, but I hate to see you ride rough-shod over Rascal, and spout ignorant, hurtful words that are in no way Godly, or edifying. I said it in another thread about lcm, but these words can apply to you too, if you do not repent from these attacks. And that is--- "Your words are coming from the south end of a north bound horse." God, and Jesus Christ are in the business of forgiveness. Sign up today. :)-->

Sorry to respond so late, I never check in here.... As of 1999/2000, she was in Manhattan. I haven't been in touch with her in recent years.

Personally, I think it would be a big help if the directors had at least had a quick read-thru of the whole series before directing the current movie. Based on the scene with Lucius Malfoy at the end of the 2nd movie, I'm certain somebody who's at least read thru book 4 (5 probably wasn't out during filming) was working on it, possibly the director. From what I've heard, the 3rd movie glosses over the scenes involving the Marauder's Map-where it came from, and Fred and George's comments about it, and why another character knows how to work it as well. I am, however, looking forward to seeing the first scene with a boggart in it. ============= Trefor, all my commentary was off-the-cuff. I probably blew the spelling of some names, too, but I didn't care enough to check. I keep blanking at the name of the rail station the Hogwarts Express departs from. (It arrives at Hogsmeade, but that's not in the movies yet, I'll bet.) I should have remembered the name of the King's Cross Rail Station for another reason. It was a Benny Hill episode when he was a game show host trying to sabotage one contestant. (A "name that tune" show.) The clue: "This song reminds us of a monkey on a fast train." The contestant says he can name it in one note. The pianist plays the note, mouthing "Ali Baba on the Moon." Contestant: "Ali Baba on the moon." Announcer: "No, it's 'I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas.' " Contestant: *flustered* "Hey...that's got nothing to do with a.... where does the train 'come in'?" Announcer: "King's Cross." Contestant: "..and what about the monkey?" Announcer: "That's where you come in." ======================================== Those of you who haven't seen them yet, I recommend catching the online flash cartoons of the "Potter Puppet Pals." Part I: "Bothering Snape." Part II: "Trouble at Hogwarts." The premise is-what would Harry Potter look like, if it was performed by insane puppeteers? There's also one somewhere involving Harry, Dumbledore, and the Mirror of Erised from the first movie/book, but it's not as funny.

I never heard the "fruit" thing. Might it have been a local expression only?

I never heard the "fruit" thing. Might it have been a local expression only?

In '89, I thought the "tip of the iceberg" was ALL the problems. So, I thought that some of the top people could fix it. About 1 month later, I got the letter from hq saying that the people I thought would fix everything had just been fired for being evil. That's when I knew it was almost hopeless, and made plans to exit.

Who said they'd ADMIT anything? They'd just make up some bs excuse like they ALWAYS do that makes it look like they meant this all along....

Here's some of the names and some background on the school... Harry lives (summers, anyway) with the Dursleys on Privet Drive- Uncle Vernon, Aunt Petunia, cousin Dudley. (Did I switch the aunts' names?) Diagon Alley: the wizard's bazaar, where you can buy cool stuff. The Hogwarts Express: the train that goes to Hogwarts. It leaves from Platform 9 3/4. Hogwarts is a 7-year school. Harry starts his first year at the beginning of the first movie/book. Students are required to wear the school uniform (robes),and keep track of their wands at all times. They are allowed to bring a toad, cat or owl-most of them want owls, since mail travels by owl among wizards. Professor Albus Dumbledore is the School's Headmaster. He's been there a very long time, serving as the Transfigurations teacher under the previous headmaster, Dippet. Professor Minerva McGonagal is the Transfigurations teacher, and head of Gryffindor House. Professor Severus Snape is the Potions teacher, and head of Slytherin House. Professor Flitwick is the Charms teacher, and head of Ravenclaw House. (I think.) Professor Sprout is the Herbology/plants teacher, and head of Hufflepuff House. Madame Pomfrey is the school nurse/doctor. Argus Filch is the porter. Mrs Norris is his cat. Rubeus Hagrid is Keeper of Keys and Grounds. Professor Sybil Trelawney is the Divination teacher. (Kind-of.) Students at Hogwarts are sorted into 4 Houses. Gryffindor is known for bravery. Slytherin is known for cunning. Ravenclaw is known for intelligence. Hufflepuff is known for loyalty. Families usually (but not always) end up in the same House. (All the Weaselys are/were Gryffindors.) The Houses are named for the 4 wizards who founded the school: Godric Gryffindor, Salazar Slytherin, Rowena Ravenclaw, Helga Hufflepuff. Students are accountable to their Houses, and their assets and shortcomings can cause their House to gain or lose points against the other Houses. Most of their time is usually spent with others of their House. Fred and George Weasley, the Weasley twins, are known for great skill at practical jokes and have handy skills like lockpicking. They're probably one of the two cleverest groups of tricksters ever to attend Hogwarts. Harry Potter's closest friends are: Hermione Granger (Gryffindor), a smart girl born of a non-wizarding family ("Muggles"), Ron Weasley (Gryffindor), a loyal friend fond of the Chudley Cannons Quidditch team (think the Cubbies) and not at all fond of spiders, Hagrid, the huge groundskeeper, and (surprise!) Dumbledore. Harry Potter's "enemies" are: Lord Voldemort,the evil wizard, Draco Malfoy (Slytherin), and his friends, Crabbe and Goyle, and Lucius Malfoy, Draco's dad, who's rich and well-connected. Anyone seeking to gain favour in Voldemort's good graces (even if he IS dead) would seek to "finish the job" he started with Harry, thus killing him. Sirius Black is one of the most notorious prisoners in Azkaban Prison, the wizard prison. His capture included an incident involving the death of over a dozen people, and earned Peter Pettigrew a posthumous commendation. (His family was given his finger, which is all of him that could be recovered.)

Mostly the micromanagement. That, and twi's tendency to encourage elitism and superiority complexes for leaders at all levels.

Oh, I dunno, Oldiesman.... Most Christian organizations lean a bit towards the "ounce of prevention" point of view.... So, if you were going into the corpse or were in the corpse (or the relative equivalent thereof) they'd be pretty clear on "NO FOOLING AROUND!", not "NO PREGNANCIES!". I mean, if Christians are taught and expected to adhere to Biblical standards- and their teachers and instructors set the example- there will BE no fooling around (sex). Or, at least, it will be majorly discouraged, which will cut the numbers down. With no fooling around, there's no risk of pregnancy. This saves everyone all the stress, money issues and problems connected with even CONSIDERING abortions. Instead, an efficient little system operated very quietly, taking women to get abortions, counselling them to get them, and moving on. If rationalizations and situational ethics hadn't become the order of the day, (and leadership hadn't set the example in abusing their offices for sex) then unwanted pregnancies would have been far rarer. Now, that leaves us with married couples, who, we presume, ARE fooling around. In the US, in the 20th century, avoiding pregnancy is NOT a big mystery. If a couple doesn't want to have kids, then can easily (except for exceptions) avoid having them. Let's say a married couple did want a kid, and the wife got pregnant. Why counsel her to abort the baby (or future baby) rather than carry to term? The reasons seem to center around the convenience of the organization rather than anything else. Further, if someone left the corpse, there was SUCH a stigma painted on them BY corpse. So, abort this baby, or be kicked out of the corpse and be stigmatized. That's not a sound choice, but it was the ONLY choice offered too many people in the corpse. Did they have a choice? By definition, yes. It was a trick question with 2 bad options, but they could have picked either.

I took the liberty of looking up criticisms of twi back then, and the criticisms were so poorly done that they only increased my confidence in the organization. twi claimed that other Christians were sloppy and unprofessional, and here came their critics, as sloppy and unprofessional as I might have imagined. I saw a footnote about the weapons charge-and its explanation-in one place, and a few others that made it sound like people patrolled grounds with rifles at the ready. I saw claims of coercion-but I hadn't seen any back home nor in brief visits to hq. I saw doctrinal criticisms that were sloppy enough to refute myself at the time. Mostly, I saw wildly-misinformed opinion in print. I read that the pfal class that I had scraped up $40 for was $200 (even in recently-released books.) I read that pfal students were not allowed to take notes-but my syllabus is COVERED with them. I read complaints about doctrinal differences "when we know they're wrong"-but with no explanation, or a bad explanation, as to WHY we know they're wrong. I concluded that if that was the BEST criticism they could come up with, twi must have something to it. This confirmed what I already thought. My favourite criticism was in the Life Magazine story, "The Groovy Christians of Rye", on the wows in Rye, NY. One paragraph about people underlining things in their Bible was followed by a comment by a local. "Sometimes, I almost wish they'd go back to smoking a little dope. I mean, drugs I can understand, but this? This is weird." This reminded me of a line from one of Tom Burke's songs: "He's stopped snorting coke and now he's reading the Bible, he's my little lamb who's strayed from the fold..." Wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't the inspiration for the line, even. So, the negatives I heard were poorly organized, and often misinformation.

I miss always having a simple answer to any question. (Growing up sucks that way, sometimes.) I miss the ROA phenomenon of meeting total strangers who had no titles whatsoever and just wanted to bless the HECK out of each other. (That was almost completely gone by '89, right after lcm drew his line in the sand.)

I, for one, am eagerly awaiting the third movie's arrival on tv. Cindy, feel free to start a thread in this forum on theories on the books thru 3. (Otherwise, we'll spoil all the upcoming surprises.) Myself, I think book/movie 1 foreshadows the entire series, especially the opening scene, which is STILL being explained in book 5 (and 6?). I also think that the movies occasionally skip momentary incidents that were important to the stories. Why not include the Sorting Hat's song in the first movie? For those of you who never read the book, the Sorting Hat sings a different song each year just before the sorting begins. Among other things, it briefly explains the four Hogwarts Houses. (The movies are REALLY giving Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff a raw deal.) How about the Weasley brothers mocking rumours Harry is the heir of Slytherin in the second book? They took to marching in front of him in the hallways, intoning dirgefully, "Make way for the Heir of Slytherin...seriously evil wizard coming thru.."

I like it here. I also like it other places I don't visit with you guys. Including under other screen-names. :)--> So, sometimes, yes, but if twi was swallowed up by a hole in the earth, and the GSC was deleted by Paw the next day as he retired to Tibet with the shirt proceeds and a truck of mac and cheese, my heart would go on. :)-->

Feel free to add those first 5 to the other thread, George....

It is difficult for me to believe, because it was kept so quiet. Had some of these folks been so "convinced" as one might say, it probably would have been more verbalized, more taught, more established. The fact that these elite kept it quiet, tells me something. Logically, they didn't want this information to get out, because they knew something was wrong with it. Actually, it tells me that they were certain OTHER PEOPLE WOULD THINK IT WAS WRONG. Then it becomes a matter of "well, people whom aren't spiritually-mature enough should not hear about it, since they wouldn't understand, and it would damage their believing. Let's not put a stumblingblock before them. Let them eat their herbs, and we'll eat our meat." I have a suspicion that's EXACTLY the "argument" that was used.

Just as a footnote to that, lcm's famous saying about the tithe ("tenth") is that 10 percent is the bare minimum, and without it, "GOD WON'T EVEN SPIT IN YOUR DIRECTION." I was already out when he started that, so I never got to ask if this was supposed to be some sort of goal-God spitting in our direction. I STILL think it's a good question. But now it's all sweetness and light at twi. If you believe that, meet me in Manhattan. I have this lovely bridge to sell you that leads from it to Brooklyn.

Refiner, In all honesty, You DIDN'T specify in this thread that you were talking about why you stayed so long in YOUR ex-group (JW's) rather than twi. So, someone reading ONLY this thread would clearly read it as you saying you were involved in twi, and left later. Some of us were involved in other threads where you made that clear. Not EVERYBODY follows those threads. Please review your posts briefly to help avoid innocent misunderstandings. On the other hand, the GSC has had a long tradition (longer than the GSC, really) of having WayGB and infiltraitors from twi show up, lie, attempt to gain the confidence of people here, and attempt to derail threads or learn secrets of our personal lives. Paranoia's part of the game here, since spying and duplicity are part of the game here. People have learned to be paranoid. (Me, I'm nobody twi should care about, identity-wise, but few here know my name, and few know my face-and those have met me in person. Others here DO have twi searching for them.) So, look forward to a little paranoia here. We worked hard for it, we owe it to ourselves, and we refuse to deprive ourselves of it, even for you. ;)-->

Well, "officially," twi never publicly taught that fornication and adultery were permitted. The Christian Family & Sex class officially said it was wrong, but did not spend significant amounts of time on it. That class was too busy covering things like slang terms for body parts, and showing stills from some Swedish import film or something. Most of that class really wasn't about anything but sex, but this name was stuck on it anyway. It was STILL the only class I was embarassed to say the name of, even when I was in. So, if you listened to tapes, or read books, you'd think twi was officially against it. If you read and listened a lot closer, you'd have had some questions about the peculiar phrasing of certain things. For example, "sin" was redefined as "broken fellowship." As Raf points out, "broken fellowship" is a CONSEQUENCE of sin, not the sin itself. However, thus redefined, sin sounds a lot less important. Further, sin in general is softened further with the "no condemnation" stuff, which was taken to mean exactly what it was MEANT to mean-if you do something wrong, but don't condemn yourself, hey, God's cool like that. Jesus paid the price for the sin already, so, everything's jake. So, yes, it was a "ministry" that only those "spiritually mature enough to handle it" were allowed to partake of. According to a number of eyewitnesses, willing participants, unwilling participants, victims, and drugged people, this was most common directly at hq. The original ranks of people were drawn from both coasts during the Jesus People movement, when "free love" was going around. Some of us think that was INTENTIONAL-that Christians who had been thinking sex was ok to pass around like a pack of cigarettes were the primary target of the founders of twi (especially the Founder). Others think this was a fringe benefit he discovered early on, and decided to take advantage of. What did this mean in a practical sense? The average Joe Believer had no idea this was happening. People who had made committments to join the way corpse or work on grounds as staff, making the ministry their lives, were sorted into 3 categories: A) those not spiritual enough to handle it B) those spiritual enough to be let in on it C) those spiritual enough to be on the receiving end So, years after some incidents, there have been many Christians who love God who put together the odd behaviour of some of the higher-ups and some young women on staff who had mysterious nervous breakdowns, or left the grounds suddenly. Some Christians at the time were told by the victims and had a hard time accepting that supposed leaders of God's people could treat their flock like disposable goods, and some refused to believe the victims on that basis. Some STILL don't believe all the people who've come forth. The concept of "cognitive dissonance" can be seen here. It can be monstrously difficult to go from respecting someone as God's rep on earth to believing he'd rape a Christian woman, and some can't do it. On grounds, that was the work of a small cabal. Some have pointed out that the "From Birth to the Corps" autobiographies required for all way corpse applicants were most likely used to help sort the corps. "Oh, you were raped as a teenager, and now have trouble trusting men? Honey, all you need is the right man to show you how beautiful sex can be.." The "right men" in these cases were married men, usually, and had no compunctions about orchestrating an elaborate scenario where the woman had no idea what was planned, and had no idea she was about to be drugged. There are other incidents that involve women sleeping and receiving (lambano) an unpleasant surprise as a guy decided to help himself. Some of these occurred at hq, and some of them occurred on the road. What made it work so well was that this cabal covered for each other. There were WOMEN in this cabal, also-helping procure other women and facilitate their little surprises. Thus, a woman might tell another that a certain leader (vpw, lcm whoever) wanted to meet with her to discuss, oh, let's say, movement of The Word in her hometown. Then she'd lead her off to an RV or other comfortably appointed, yet isolated location, where the mog or moglet was waiting. Then comes a few minutes of chat about the movement of The Word in her hometown. "Here, have some wine-I hate to drink alone." Then things proceed from there. I am personally baffled as to how some women could knowingly help orchestrate this, but perhaps it's better my brain can't wrap itself around that one. BTW, it is certainly possible that some of the women were consenting to this- that they either enthusiastically endorsed their own seduction (making it a seduction rather than a molestation/rape scenario). Some women were so loyal that they trusted every word out of vpw or lcm's mouth, and if he just said this wasn't really a sin, then, by golly, it must not be. You've already read some of the words used to convince women this was acceptable to God. Some of us question just how "consentual" that can be, given the position of trust these men were in. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/not-an-affair.htm Women who weren't quite so enthusiastic to endorse their own molestation or rape often were quietly sent out of the corpse and off grounds, and effectively disappeared from twi, while stories of them being possessed or whatever covered the tracks of the cabal. A few seem to have committed suicide, which REALLY dropped them from sight. This worked until the internet came along.... Who was in on it? Well, MANY people have come forth about vpw. MANY people have come forth about lcm, who was fired for the multiple lawsuits. (He wasted money on lawyers, and committed the sin of getting caught.) At least one woman said that Uncle Harry's first action on meeting her IN PUBLIC AND STANDING NEXT TO VPW was to cop a feel off her. It's possible she was lying-I'm not prepared to accept that, especially since it fits the whole scenario too well. Men in power though that power entitled them to help themselves to the women. If you had sat thru pfal, you would have seen vpw mention the incident of Nathan the prophet confronting David about the incident with Bathsheba. (Had sex with her, then had her husband killed to cover his tracks.) vpw's explanation was..original, to say the least. He said that, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." This was a VERY peculiar statement. First off all, you will note it does NOT appear in Scripture. No Bible verse was cited for this, for there IS no verse for this. The Old Testament laws are very clear on adultery being a sin. There is NO verse saying the king is exempt from being charged for any sin he committed, nor excused from having sin imputed when he committed it. The concept was extra-Biblical. It's known as the "droit de seigneur" and has been used by pagan tyrants in many places in the world as a prerogative of their office. The Bible does NOT endorse it, nor does it endorse the treating of women as merchandise or without respect. Those who insist on vpw's innocence are unable to explain, using the Bible, WHY this claim was made, why this statement appears in his signature work. So, what happens when a paper-which SHOULD have been a "no duh" issue-comes up saying "the Bible says adultery is wrong?" Well, the highers-up who were "in the know" tried to hush it up. That's VERY peculiar behaviour for a Christian to have. It's also been said later, by some, that if they weren't an eyewitness to the alleged rapes/molestations/whatever, that they don't believe them, or they don't believe they were non-consentual, or that it was done intentionally, with the intent of "toughening the women up spiritually" or other things. Mind you, that's just from posts I've read HERE. So, there is some room for disagreement here. Almost all agree the Bible says adultery is wrong. A few think the incidents were almost all consentual. A few think they didn't happen. A few think that ALL leaders abuse their office, so this should be expected. Feel free to make up your own mind.