Mark Clarke

Really? is that your story and your sticking to it? Because I thought you learned it from another poster? Why keep baiting an argument (especially when you object to being accused of that)? Why don't you just correct them if they are wrong? I ask again: WERE you a WOW? WERE you in the Corps? WERE you at HQ? WHAT IS your basis of knowledge about these matters?

Unnecessarily condescending, but I'll let it go. I'm not implying anything, I just stated a fact. I didn't believe the allegations at first. But I was convinced. No, I listened to both sides of the story. One side said VP was a scumbag because he had sex with all of those women. The other side said it wasn't a big deal because in the Bible adultery is really referring to idolatry, not literal sex. Furthermore, that side said that he had needs that had to be met, because of various physical conditions that Mrs. W had, even though in his own Christian Family and Sex class he said that in such cases a man "ought to learn how to masturbate." Not once did I ever hear any of the top leadership who were involved deny that it happened. Only that it wasn't a big deal because we are "above the law" and "doctor" taught us what was acceptable among people who were spiritually mature enough to handle it. Sorry, but if you reread the posts (slowly, if you like ;) ) you'll see that many posters have pointed out to you that this is not a court, and this is not about legality or due process, yet you keep repeating these and other related phrases. There will never be due process since VPW is dead. The whole reason for discussing this at all has nothing to do with due process or VP's rights. It has to do with acknowledging some evil things that happened in the name of God, so that anyone who would otherwise be deceived by the lies that were propounded would know the truth. To continue to cast doubts on those who were hurt merely continues to propagate the lies, even if your intention is to speak up for "truth and justice." You keep saying there is "zero evidence" but how do you account for the fact that there are eyewitnesses who saw it happen in many cases, others who knew it was happening and excused it, many of whom offer their testimonies, and "zero evidence" to disprove or discredit their testimony? We're not talking about just "one person's word," we're talking about MANY testimonies that all corroborate the claims. Even in a court, the goal is to prove "beyond reasonable doubt." Maybe there is not sufficient "hard evidence" to convict in court, but how much evidence do you require before you'll admit that harm was done in the name of God, and anyone following him has the right to know the truth. As you know, the justice system is not perfect, and there are many instances where the innocent have been punished, and the guilty have gotten away with their crimes. That's why we keep saying we're not talking about courts or due process. We're talking about speaking forth the truth about a man who too many continue to lie about, in the hopes that some people will avoid getting hurt by people who follow his practices - and there are those who do that. You keep harping on VP's rights. What about the rights of those who were taken advantage of? What about the rights of those who know what happened to them or what they saw or heard, but were made out to be crazy, or possessed, or liars? What about the rights of those who were/are seeking answers and being fed the lies that so many of us were? Do they not have the "right" to know the truth about this man? Why do their rights mean less to you than those of a dead man who will not be affected one way or the other by any of these discussions?

You are indeed very fortunate. I had similar experiences in my time with The Way. I did not witness the abuse first hand, and had a pretty good time and met some great people. My biggest complaint was that when I was an assistant twig coordinator, the coordinator lambasted me for everything I did until I felt like I could do nothing right. I think that the most pervasive evil in TWI was the wrong doctrines they taught. Nevertheless, there were things that went on "behind closed doors" that most of us knew little or nothing about. But it is more than just hearsay now. Top leaders who were involved have admitted that it went on. They never tried to deny it. They used wrong TWI doctrines (like being above the law) to justify the actions of themselves and others, including VP. Why do you think John Shoenheit's Adultery paper caused such a stir? I didn't believe any of it at first either. The first account I ever heard about VP's sexual abuse, I was told that the person who wrote about it was possessed, and I believed it. But as I read more and more first hand accounts, I had to start to wonder, could there be something to this after all? Obviously, there will never be a trial or a legal verdict, since he's dead. So we have to ask ourselves, what would be convincing testimony? To me, the NUMBER of first hand accounts, combined with the top leadership who were involved admitting it, makes it more than plausible. I'd say we can conclude "beyond a reasonable doubt" that VPW sexually abused women who trusted him as a man of God. You say there is not enough evidence. How many of the accounts have you read? Do you know of any evidence that disproves those accounts? If you are genuinely interested in The Truth, then check out those testimonies. Some are at John Juedes' site: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_suits-sex.htm and some are here in various places. (This is why we need one section to put them together in.) If you genuinely care about truth and justice, rather than continue to say "there isn't enough evidence" you'll seek out the truth by listening to what those involved have to say. That's what I did, and that's what convinced me of what kind of man VPW was. I would not have seen it based on my limited experience with him in person.

Then correct them if they are wrong. WERE you a WOW? WERE you in the Corps? WERE you at HQ? WHAT IS your basis of knowledge about these matters?

I like Rocky's edit to P-Mosh's post. Even if they are belligerent, we should still be nice to them, since responding in kind only escalates the hostilities. "A soft answer turneth away wrath" is not just a nice saying to put on the fridge. It works. (I agree with eveything else P-Mosh said, too)

Proverbs 15:1 "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger." Lighten up, people!

"Oz never did give nothing to the Tinman That he didn't, didn't already have." --America

I hadn't heard about that. When did she say this?

What evidence do you have that Elton threw a fit? Isn't that just hearsay? :D

The back and forth arguments over what constitutes rape, what constitutes abuse, what constitutes bad behavior, which bad behaviors should have what consequences, etc., all serve to demonstrate the fact that rules and laws can never cover all bases. That is why Jesus said that instead of the old Mosaic Law, we should follow the Law of Love, aka the Golden Rule. Waysider said, a couple of pages back, "Stop and ask yourself, 'Is this how I would want someone to treat ME?'" If everyone on this forum did that, there'd be a lot less arguing. Granted, it is in poor taste to question the truthfulness of someone telling their first hand account. So the consensus pretty much seems to be that it should be done on a separate thread if at all. Why is it still being argued about? Some posters have a different view of things. Do we stop and ask WHY do they have that view, or do we judge their heart and motives? That goes for EITHER side of ANY argument. Maybe what I'm saying is idealistic and won't happen. Why? Because of human nature, which is basically selfish. I guess some things aren't going to change until Christ comes back to rule the world in righteousness. I hope we can at least try though. [PS - would anyone else be in favor of a special forum to collect all the first hand accounts, just so they can be easily found and referenced?]

I'd like to see a new forum that focuses on first hand abuse stories. Not to hide them but to collect them all in one place. That way any one who's still in TWI, or anyone who hasn't heard about the abuse, can find it easily. A few people mentioned in other threads that so-and-so said they had told their story but they couldn't find it, even with the search engine. I would like to be able to point people who genuinely want to know the truth to one location where they could read all the first hand testimonies. I know there are a few on John Juedes' site, but several other people here have mentioned that they have given their accounts, and it would be great to be able to find them all together. Then perhaps we could have a second new forum - "The other side of the other side of the story" - where VP/TWI apologists, defenders, and doubters of the firsthand testimonies can post their opinions. That way the ones who post their stories don't have to get confronted by the questioners and doubters. Within this second new forum, we could have direct confrontation or perhaps just have a section for each side to post their opinions without directly confronting each other. As an example of how it could work, there are two websites about the creation/evolution debate, one is called talkorigins.org and it presents scientific articles from an evolutionist perspective, and the other is called trueorigin.org and it presents scientific articles from a creationist perspective. They often refer to each other's articles, and provide rebuttals, but they are two separate sites that don't directly confront each other. In either case, I would really like to see the first hand accounts collected somewhere so that they can be easily found and referred to. And not only first hand accounts of the abuse, but first hand accounts by former leaders who knew of what happened and maybe even were involved one way or another, as well as other testimonies (such as the roommates, etc. that knew what was going on) that might prove to the doubters that all was not as it appeared in TWI. I know some people still won't be convinced, but a lot of us were skeptical at first but found we couldn't discount so many corroborating testimonies.

I agree with Oenophile. The worst thing about being in a cult or cult-like group is that you are not supposed to consider other viewpoints. I love T-bone's "signature" and have quoted it on a number of occasions: In TWI we were either not told of other viewpoints, or told what the other viewpoints were in a way that misrepresented them. Rather than presenting valid arguments to prove their points, they would simply mock the other viewpoint. Similar tactics were used in the offshoot group I was with for a while. Not only did they misrepresent and mock other religious beliefs, they also misrepresented other groups that had similar beliefs but disagreed on a few points. Sadly, most of the followers of this offshoot took the leader's word for what the "others" were into, and followed him in his denunciation of those others. I decided to go to the source and ask the "others" what they were into, and that's how I found out that the leader was misrepresenting them. When it comes to doctrine, if two people or groups have different opinions, it is vital to go to each one and find out what they really believe AND WHY (this is easier than it used to be, due to the internet). Do NOT take one group's word for what another group believes, as it is almost always misrepresented, whether intentionally or not. Consider both sides of an issue, and see which one makes a better argument. When I started doing that, it usually wasn't too hard to see where one side's logic broke down while another side's held up. And if both sides make an equally valid case, it's OK to say, "I don't know for sure." The majority of important issues in the Bible are pretty easy to see this way, and the stuff I say "I don't know" about is not as important and definitely not worth dividing with fellow Christians over.

It may have seemed like they were making fun of it at first because of the way the narrator used contemporary colloquial language. But I get the feeling it was done to make it seem more current and accessible. Beyond creation though, the main point of the skit was how each of us makes a part of the picture, but God organizes things into the whole, unified work. This is a good illustration of how the Body of Christ is supposed to work. We each have our part to do, and collectively we communicate Jesus to the world.

I don't buy VPW's claim (taken from Bullinger's Companion Bible) that Jesus was not crucified on a cross with a cross-piece. There is historical evidence that this was the normal means of Roman crucifixion. However, its use as a symbol has had various meanings, although its use as a Christian symbol is probably the most widespread. Check out the following entry from Symbols.com: http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/03/031.html So I think it's rather unlikely that God would design a molecule in that shape specifically for its symbolism, when it is only a Christian symbol in the western culture.

Well, if the lawless only do what's right when it's in a written law, I guess it's better than nothing. Either way, it's a good idea.

"Everything I need to know, I've learned from Iron Maiden" http://www.spazoutny.com/ironmaiden.htm

Remember... To a dog you're Family. To a cat you're Staff.

How did White Dove feel about Groucho's meatloaf? Was there sufficient documentation?

We all remember this classic from when we were kids, but Barenaked Ladies have taken it to a new level...

Excie, A "story" is not necessarily fiction. Merriam-Webster defines it as "an account of incidents or events" or "a statement regarding the facts pertinent to a situation in question." So you were correct in calling it a story. I remember they used to make a big deal about that in TWI. We weren't supposed to refer to "Bible stories" because that supposedly implied they weren't true. We were supposed to call them Bible "records" which always sounded kind of cold and clinical to me. A "fictional narrative" is only one of the "usages" of the word story. So I'm thankful to Kristen for telling her story.

The final frontier....

Couldn't we just make it a policy to ignore the Wierwille Apologists? Often they post things in hopes of baiting an argument. If such an argument would derail the topic of the thread, then don't take the bait. If they then continue to try to derail the thread, escpecially in a sensitive area like Kris Skedgell's interviews, the offensive posts can be deleted. If anyone really wants to take on the arguments of the Apologists, they can always start a new thread. Booting them from the site or from whole sections would just be playing into their hands. They could then accuse GSC of being as narrow minded and one-sided as TWI was.

I thought of the Led Zep song too. The title seemed an obvious reference. Anyway, I went through a "back to square one" scenario a few different times. I was raised Roman Catholic, then I became what was called a "Jesus Freak" in the early seventies. Then I got involved with TWI and was with them for almost 20 years. Each change was "back to square one" for me, and I gradually re-evaluated Way doctrines while involved in a couple of offshoots for another 10 years. Then I got kicked out of one of them and had to start over YET AGAIN. I started studying on my own, and learned a lot online, and I can now say that my beliefs are my own, and not based on what anybody told me I should believe. That's not to say I didn't learn from other people. It's important to see what other people are saying. One of the problems with TWI was that we were discouraged from considering other viewpoints. But once I got over the fear of looking at other beliefs and started considering them, I could see which were based on sound logic and which were not. But I would not have come to that understanding had I not checked out other viewpoints first hand, because often what we are told the "other guys" say is not actually what they say. I've written a longer, more detailed description of my journey on my website: http://godskingdomfirst.org/Seeking.htm. Since others are recommending different sources, I thought I'd put in my two cents worth. I have learned a great deal from Anthony Buzzard's site http://focusonthekingdom.org. Also Vince Finnegan's site (http://kingdomready.org) has a lot of good stuff by him and his son, as well as other people. They are light years from The Way doctrine. And you're welcome to check out the rest of my site too (http://godskingdomfirst.org).

American Trilogy was done in '73. It was on the ROA '73 album. (Although they certainly could have done it again in '76.)

No, I heard it from someone I used to work with, and he said it was an old one he heard many years ago.