Mark Clarke

TWI = Teaching While Intoxicated.

Just a point of clarification... When you say Rev. WC, are you talking about W@lt3r C#mm!ns? I thought he left back in the early 90's.

From what I've heard (which admittedly isn't much), CFF is also pretty big on continuing the Wierwille legacy. I agree the chances are virtually nil that any of them will turn around. There's really nothing else to do BUT pray for them! As Krysilis said, at some point, we must let it all go.

Exactly! That's why many of us got involved, IMO.

It's really not about that. It's about these men using the penis as a weapon. These women didn't necessarily find either of them attractive or within their standards of the kind of man to go for. And don't forget... they were brainwashed into thinking that they were serving God by meeting the Man'O'God's needs.

TWO SONGS CALLED "SHADES OF GRAY (or GREY)" -- One by the Monkees: (By Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil) When the world and I were young, Just yesterday. Life was such a simple game, A child could play. It was easy then to tell right from wrong. Easy then to tell weak from strong. When a man should stand and fight, Or just go along. But today there is no day or night Today there is no dark or light. Today there is no black or white, Only shades of gray. I remember when the answers seemed so clear We had never lived with doubt or tasted fear. It was easy then to tell truth from lies Selling out from compromise Who to love and who to hate, The foolish from the wise. But today there is no day or night Today there is no dark or light. Today there is no black or white, Only shades of gray. [instumental interlude] It was easy then to know what was fair When to keep and when to share. How much to protect your heart And how much to care. But today there is no day or night Today there is no dark or light. Today there is no black or white, Only shades of gray. Only shades of gray. ...and the other by Billy Joel: Some things were perfectly clear, seen with the vision of youth No doubts and nothing to fear, I claimed the corner on truth These days it's harder to say I know what I'm fighting for My faith is falling away I'm not that sure anymore Shades of grey wherever I go The more I find out the less that I know Black and white is how it should be But shades of grey are the colors I see Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view Fight 'til the other man falls Kill him before he kills you These days the edges are blurred, I'm old and tired of war I hear the other man's words I'm not that sure anymore Shades of grey are all that I find When I look to the enemy line Black and white was so easy for me But shades of grey are the colors I see Now with the wisdom of years I try to reason things out And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for I won't be righteous again I'm not that sure anymore Shades of grey are all that I find when I look to the enemy line There ain't no rainbows shining on me Shades of grey are the colours I see Shades of grey wherever I go The more I find out the less that I know There ain't no rainbows shining on me Shades of grey are the colors I see

If there had been real spiritual perception and awareness, they would have realized that even Jesus knew NOT everything was black and white. Some problems were caused by demons, and others weren't. Some actions were right for some people, but wrong for others, depending on the heart with which they did them. God always looks at the heart. Even in the political arena, not everything is black and white. Many of us were brainwashed into thinking that to be Christian automatically meant being right-wing Republicans. Prior to that (in my teens) I had thought of myself as more on the left. Nowadays I realize neither side has the answers. I'm not just middle-of-the-road, I'm OFF-ROAD!

Krysilis........no, obviously that's NOT going to happen........but it DOES singularly point to the fact that, as president of twi, any sense of spiritual integrity is not forthcoming. You never know... Paul killed people before he got turned around. Not that I'm expecting it, mind you, but it wouldn't hurt to pray for all those people. We're even supposed to pray for our enemies.

TWI didn't coin the phrase "mark and avoid." It's in the Bible. They just misused it. Rom. 16:17 says, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." They interpreted it to mean, shun anybody that disagrees with you or doesn't follow your policies. But actually, if you think about it, "them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine" describes TWI more than the people they kicked out. They are the ones causing the division, IMO. We should take note of it and avoid them. As for what's current, I don't know much about what TWI does now under RR, but I do know that the thought patterns and practices started by VPW are still alive and kicking in many (though not all) of the offshoots. That's a big reason why it's important to point out these things. Too many people still view VPW as a revered saint, and I believe they have a right to know the truth about him. You said, "I don't understand what's so healing about looking at the same experiences, no matter how bad, and continually facing them from the exact perspective each time." The healing is, firstly, in getting to the point where you can talk about it. It often takes years. Then, it's healing to share with others who have similar experiences, without being challenged and told they're just whining, or they brought it on themselves, or they're not telling the truth. Also, they find it healing to try to help others who may also be struggling with those past experiences. I don't think most of the posters here only want people who agree with them, but they don't want people who unfairly question the first hand testimonies of people who were hurt. (That's what had been happening with WD.)

Doojable, What techniques did the child psychologist recommend? T-Bone, The "Toxic Tangents" would be a great name for a rock group!

Just wondering, Belle, what does he say about Harry Potter that you disagree with?

That doesn't take much!

I'm glad you mentioned that. We all agree that the kind of over-use of the "rod of correction" described here is abusive and harmful. I'd like to ask those of you with children how you do administer discipline (or did, if they are grown), since I have no experience in this area, not having children of my own. I have heard teachings about the verses that refer to the "rod of correction" so I'm curious as to how you understand them, and how they may have been misunderstood. For the record, the teachings I heard (which apparently weren't typical) stressed that you DON'T beat them in anger or with the intention of causing pain, but just use the rod as a way of getting their attention. And I also heard it said that the rod was more a symbol of authority than a weapon (the word for "rod" was the same word elsewhere translated "scepter"). They said you should get to the point where you don't even need to use it, but just warning them about it ("Do I have to get the spoon?") would motivate them to obey. As I said, I've never had the occasion to put those teachings into practice. Anyone's comments on your understanding of the "rod of correction," or ways of disciplining kids that you have found to be beneficial and successful, would be of interest. (I hope this isn't too far off the subject of this thread. If it is, feel free to move it to a new thread.)

No it isn't. ...This is:

It is frustrating that we even have to go into this much detail about the legalities of libel when that was NEVER THE POINT. The point was whether the testimonies of people involved should be considered, in light of speaking up for the truth, against the false image of VPW that still prevails. WhiteDove kept bringing up the court of law stuff (even though several people pointed out that this is not a court of law), and now here we are discussing the law in detail. It looks like he succeeded in derailing the original point again.

Does he say that? I thought he was claiming that "there is not enough evidence to make a judgment either way." (Not that I agree with him, mind you.)

I thought it was Pharaoh's daughter when she found baby Moses, because she drew a prophet from a rush on the bank.

How do you get holy water? You boil the hell out of it.

Wow! Every time I think I'd heard it all, I hear another testimony that amazes me. I knew that TWI parents could be overly strict, but letting their leadership do the "dirty work" is just nuts. What the hell were they thinking? Especially if it was a leader that you'd never met before. Did they ever give you a reason (or excuse) why they didn't just punish you themselves? Thanks for having the courage to tell your story.

Having posted all that, I will say that while it proves that in a court of law, the truth of the allegations can be used as a defense against libel, the point is still that this is not a court of law. I posted this in response to WD on the "We Are Not Going To Get Along" thread: So far he has not responded.

WD posted this in another thread: However, the rest of those citations should be considered. The following is from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17263: Idaho Libeling either the living or the dead is a crime. Idaho Code § 18-4801 (2005). “Every person who wilfully, and with a malicious intent to injure another, publishes, or procures to be published, any libel, is punishable by fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.” Id. at 18-4802. Truth is a defense, which is to be determined by the jury. Id. at 18-4803. “An injurious publication is presumed to have been malicious if no justifiable motive for making it is shown.” Id. at 18-4804. It is not necessary that anyone actually have read or seen the libel. Id. at 18-4805. Each author, editor and proprietor of libelous material is liable. Id. at 18-4806. “True and fair” reports of public proceedings are not libelous, except upon a showing of malice. Id. at 18-4807. Colorado “(1) A person who shall knowingly publish or disseminate, either by written instrument, sign, pictures, or the like, any statement or object tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, or to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, commits criminal libel. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living. (3) Criminal libel is a class 6 felony.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005) Truth is an absolute defense to a libel action. A defendant is not required to prove the truth of the entire statement, only the truth in the substance of the statement. Gomba v. McLaughlin, 504 P.2d 337 (Colo. 1972). Kansas “(a) Criminal defamation is communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, information, knowing the information to be false and with actual malice, tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule; tending to deprive such person of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance; or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends. (b) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true. Also, the following is from the Ohio code, VP's old stomping grounds (http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2739): 2739.02 Defenses in actions for libel or slander. In an action for a libel or a slander, the defendant may allege and prove the truth of the matter charged as defamatory. Proof of the truth thereof shall be a complete defense. In all such actions any mitigating circumstances may be proved to reduce damages. Effective Date: 10-01-1953

Excie, I understand why you didn't say anything. It is the same reason we didn't say anything if we saw something different in the Bible than what Official Way Doctrine taught. We were taught to think that if you don't see what they see, you're just not spiritual enough, you're not mature enough, or you just don't "get it." Part of the way they taught this mindset was by making an example of the few that did speak up. The sudden disappearance of them, with whispers of, "You remember her... she got possessed when she considered someone's lie about Doctor." I didn't suffer the abuse you and others did, but I remember thinking things were wrong with certain doctrinal logic, but figuring I just didn't understand. Rather than be kicked out of God's Household, I held my tongue and waited till I grew up and understood better. And I believe many in your case probably thought in a similar way. It's like the old story of the Emperor's New Clothes. People could see he was naked, but were afraid to speak up because they were told that only people who were stupid and unfit for their jobs couldn't see the clothes. It took a child who had nothing to lose to speak up and call attention to the truth. Thanks for being one of the "children" who spoke up and said, "But he has nothing on!" This is why it's so important for people who experienced things to speak up about it. The argument has never been about legal rights in a court of law, IMO. It's been about speaking up for the truth of what happened.

Just my 2 cents... I got the impression that Jeff was saying CG was qualified to comment on what VPW did and did not do, not that he was qualified to teach the truth of the Word or anything like that. Also, CG's "high horse" was certainly one of his own making. That perfectly describes his attitude at the time, even though he wasn't the savior of the ministry that he wanted people to think he was.

A swift rebuke could either be kind or unkind, so the kindness should still be a factor in order to keep from escalating hostilities. For example, say a poster writes something along the lines of, "I don't believe that person's testimony is true. There's no evidence supporting it." (I know this is not exactly what WD said, I'm just using it as an example.) An unkind response would be something like, "Who are you to judge? Were you there? You probably worship the ground VP walks on, so you're just as blind and stupid as anyone still in TWI!" A kind response that would still rebuke the first post would be something like, "You have a right to accept or reject anyone's testimony. I would have to wonder, what reason would you have for not believing it? Is there evidence to the contrary that you know of? If you have serious doubts about the veracity of the testimony, please don't derail this thread, as it was started as an opportunity for XXX to tell their story, but start another thread to discuss it." Some characteristics of posts that will escalate hostilities no matter which side of a debate uses them, include name-calling, insinuations about the intelligence of the poster, presumption to judge the other's motives, associating what the poster said with something else which they did not say, and attitudes of, "If you misunderstood me, that's YOUR problem, not mine." Characteristics of posts that challenge without being unkind include, asking the poster the reasons WHY they feel or believe the way they do, pointing out inconsistancies gently without assuming they are lying, causing trouble, or just stupid (even if they are any of those :) ), asking gently for clarification, and generally being polite even if you disagree with a person's viewpoint. Saying, "Can you see how your post may have been taken this way?" is always preferable to "You're so full of sh!t your eyes are brown!!!" As always, the key is consideration, and the Golden Rule. How would you feel if someone wrote that to you? Always be aware of how your post MAY be interpreted - reading it over before hitting the Add Reply button helps a lot. If everyone followed these guidelines there'd be less hostility. Of course, I realize that everyone would follow these guidelines if we lived in a perfect world, but we don't. However we can do our best, and if someone comes along who is rude, we should point that out and not "respond in kind." As I understand it, "spare the rod, spoil the child" is referring to the rod of correction which a parent uses with his/her child. It is a symbol of authority ("rod" is the same word as "scepter") more than a weapon. That's why a parent can use even the warning of the rod to get the child's attention (cp. the modern, "Do I have to get the wooden spoon?"). However this is all in the context of disciplining a child over which you have authority. I suppose warnings to continually unruly posters, and the threat of whatever discipline can be used in this context (suspention or banning?) can be applied by administrators, but in the general fray of the posts, we should always strive for understanding and kindness as much as possible.

It may have been garbage but it was OUR UNIQUE COMBINATION OF GARBAGE. Nobody else put together that garbage quite the way VP did (since the first century!). To quote the late George Carlin, "If you nail together two things that have never been nailed together before, some shmuck will buy it from you!"