shazdancer

Oldies, "The narcissist is the guru at the center of the cult." Well, Wierwille certainly was the MOG at the center of his organization. He chose people to be on his BOT that would be his yes-men. He taught his staff, clergy, and corps to jump without asking how high, and that a suggestion was tantamount to an order. LCM was the same, but without a BOT to back him to the hilt. If he wasn't at the center of YOUR life, then fine. That's not what the article is talking about. Is this the paragraph that has your panties in a knot? Now remember, the article is actually about how a narcissistic head of a FAMILY is like a cult leader. Here's how I saw that section of the article in relation to TWI. "involuntary members," like the CHILDREN "twilight zone" -- a make-believe reality, a web of lies "persecutory delusions, 'enemies,' mythical narratives" -- the trilateral commission, the commies, the government, the deprogrammers, the press, all out to get us; the law of believing. don't speak things out loud or the devil will hear it and steal it, etc. "apocalyptic scenarios" -- greasespots by midnight (that was LCM's statement) Sorry if you took it wrong, Oldies, but it was never my intent to say that we were all zombies without a brain in our heads. I was 15 when I first took PFAL. Wierwille was not at the center of my personal life, either. He stepped directly into the center of my life by making a pretty arbitrary decision about where I was to live, many years later. It was ultimately my decision to follow his advice or not. As far as he was concerned, his word was God's Word on the subject. I followed it. It was wrong. When I told him so, respectfully, he insulted me. Buh bye, Vic. His decision cost him little. It cost me a lot. But like I said, it was my decision to make. God help those who had made deeper commitments, figuring they were serving God by serving such a narcissist. Shaz

Hey Bramble and Radar, Could those "bless letters" be LCM's equivalent of VP's "From Birth to the Corps" papers, a way to figure out who would be easy to be victimized (er,"blessed") by his Moginess? Regards, Shaz

Dear Oldies, Count yourself ahead, in that Wierwille didn't need any more from you than what you supplied. I was never approached by Wierwille for sexual favors. It just might be that I wasn't the type that he was attracted to, or that my "From Birth to the Corps" paper wasn't very traumatic, but having a tattoed, hard-drinking New Yawkuh for a spouse probably didn't hurt, either. (Mike's depiction of Wierwille as having "an abundance of brawn" notwithstanding!) Wierwille said "it's the Word, peepul," but he loved the attention, the protocol, the MOG status. One time at Rome City, he said wistfully, "I wish I could just come and go here, without fanfare." Yet he was the first to insist on the whole "mint on the pillow" conduct. When I gently brought that up with him, one on one, respectfully, he blew me off. I do not go around bemoaning some kind of "victim" status, neither because of Wierwille or anyone else. Once I am aware of the situation, the con, I have the freedom to do something about it. In the case of TWI, I left. I think the best revenge is a life well-lived. I did not become a greasespot by midnight. Regards, Shaz

Dear sox, I totally agree, there was so much talent in the rank and file, especially in the Family Corps, where the average age was older than in the regular Corps, that every year could have had its own unique Corps program, learning off of true experts in different fields. It took a silly incident to bring it home to me that the Corps coordinators were not operating "all nine all the time," but were flying by the seats of their pantaloons at times. Toward mid-winter, everyone was getting colds (and I think we were all getting a little funky!). So I said to D**** M******* that my mom used to air out our place, open all the windows, and give the house a good cleaning in the winter, seemed to freshen everything up. Well, D**** said, "That's a GREAT idea!" and the decree went out for that afternoon. Gee, I musta been sooooo spiritual... Regards, Shaz

Dear Sunesis, You said... Whoa, who said that? And what did he see that prompted the remark? Enquiring minds want to know ;)-->Regards, Shaz

I hear you, Uncle Hairy. 1. Power over others, masquerading as Godly authority. 2. Adultery masquerading as freedom in Christ 3. Temper tantrums over trivial matters masquerading as attention to detail 4. Verbal abuse masquerading as righteous anger 5. Summarily dropping former "friends" masquerading as "shaking the dust off" or mark and avoid 6. Paranoia masquerading as "the household." 7. Lying by omission masquerading as the "lock box." 8. No guilt masquerading as "no condemnation in Christ." (By the way, at the risk of being a one-note singer, all the above traits are typical of the narcissistic personality, others just use different reasons to justify their behaviors.) Most of this was taught by example. Didn't we want to be like the Man of God? Shoot, people even started talking like VP, laughing like him. And those that were abusers to begin with certainly found an outlet. I think there were two things at work. One is that the abusers wanted to escape criticism, and be allowed to abuse with impunity. The other is that the abusers wanted others to do it with them. It takes the sting out of guilt to know that others did it, too. And it takes the sting out of disapproval. I see children do this all the time. When one wants to be naughty, he often looks around for someone else to be naughty with. When I correct them, they just look at each other and grin. So escape disapproval when you can, and make sure you're not alone if you can't. And yell "freedom in Christ" and "no condemnation" if anyone catches you, so you can blame the whistleblower for being "judgmental." Regards, Shaz

Dear Oldies, No, I don't think of TWI followers as "zombies." I think most of us just wanted to love God and each other, and wanted answers to life. We were convinced that we had found the answers in Wierwille's message. We loved him for that. He abused many of us for that. It was hard to withdraw, because we loved. Regards, Shaz

Dear templelady, I think it's a legitimate concern of people who have been affected by narcissists: "What is it in me that I attract (or am attracted to) these people?" Some people were raised in such a way that they were used to narcissistic behavior from others (as imbus said). Some were raised to deny their feelings. (And didn't TWI try to instill that in us also?) Some are narcissistic themselves, and want to claim their place in the sun by being associated with greatness. I have also spoken to many people who took up with narcissists who are clearly giving, tender-hearted people. It is said that narcissists search out such people, who will put up with and excuse their abuses longer than most. The narcissist needs a giver to take from. But when the giver gets too close, the narcissist will reject them with a coldness that is startling. How do we prevent hooking up with these guys/gals in the future? Learn to recognize the red flags. And have the guts to tell anyone who is trampling on your privacy, feelings, or inner self to back off. Regards, Shaz

Dear Tom, Like you, I have a problem with the "I wouldn't want a homo teaching my children" argument. If he was a professional, you would never know if he was homosexual or not, because sex would just never come up! I also would not want my child taught by a hetero who says, "Boy, lemme tell you about the piece I got last night...." He should be fired, for his conduct, not his orientation. Dear laleo, Sorry, I will try and make it clear one more time; otherwise, just chalk it up to my Lyme brain being unable to put it together for you. I am trying to say that a child may feel like an outsider for only having only one legal parent, for not having wedding pictures to look at, for having no space on the FAFSA (to use a silly example) other than "mother" and "father." I don't know if that is the same as not "fairing well." As a single parent, I have seen my children feel the awkwardness of not being in a mommy-daddy intact home, even though there is an awful lot of it nowadays. Is it such a bad thing to wish that at least a little of this be ameliorated for children born into a relationship that was not of their own choice? I am also thinking simply that two level-headed parents are better than one, and marriage gives them each equal legal say, divorced or not. I also don't know that the "natural process of bonding...Psych 101" concerns bonding to parents of both sexes -- I thought they bonded to the people who were THERE for them! Do they bond differently to each parent? Yes, because each parent is a different person. Do they all bond one way to a mother, and one way to a father? No, because each parent is a different person. Does the child suffer biologically (as opposed to culturally) if she does not have a parent of each sex, but has two parents of the same sex? I'm not so sure about that -- but I doubt it. Regards, Shaz

Hi, everybody! If this link doesn't make you sit up and make the connection between VPW/LCM and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I don't know what else will: Cult of the Narcissist Check it out -- it is worth it. And I did NOT tell him about The Way International. Regards, Shaz

Dear laleo, You said... Likewise, can you point me to the research that indicates that the child is not faring well because of an "innate desire in the child to connect to an adult of each gender?" We simply don't know. What we have already allowed, however, is to have a single parent give birth or adopt.I am more than aware of the emotional problems that children have when their parents divorce. The stress involved is second only to the death of a parent. In the exit counseling session I went through in 2001, it was re-iterated, but emphasized that if one of the partners was abusive, then divorce was preferred over children suffering with abuse and tension. If the divorce happens, then it is preferred to have two loving parents who can put aside their differences and put the children's needs first. That is what I was talking about. Two reasonable people with equal legal say, discussing what would be in the best interest of the child. I think two people would be preferable over one. And I speak as a single parent. And I daresay, there are many children of adoption and gay families (or who have grandparents for parents, or other untraditional arrangement) who do just fine, and do not feel a pressing need to find their birth parents. Regards, Shaaz

Dear dmiller, You're right, it's coercion. Something that the government does all the time with organizations to which they grant money. "Play by our rules or we won't fund you." So if the Pleasantville Little Theater wants to give a membership discount to married straight couples but not gay marrieds, then the Midwest Arts Council might decide not to fund their projects. So as I said, it would be in Pleasantville Theater's best interest to allow gay marrieds the same benefits, or deny them to all marrieds, equally. Dear LongGone, Yes, civil marriage is not a religious institution, at least not yet! I would put to you that, when it comes to defining why marriage should be denied to same sex couples, that most people begin to trot out definitions of marriage that are religious, as in... Q: Why can't gays get married? A: Because marriage is for a man and a woman. Q: Who says so? A: God, the Bible, my pastor, Adam and Eve, etc. *** A: We can't let gay marriage into the laws of the land Q: Why not? A: Look what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, look at the book of Romans, look at Corinthians... LongGone, you have asked for some statements about what gay marriage is good for... I think I made a couple of such statements above. (Forgive me, I am on meds for Lyme, and maybe my mind is more out there than I think.) I said that gay marriage might be good for the gay community, encouraging monogamy. I said that gay marriage might be good for children, removing stigma and ensuring parental rights of two people in caring for the minor child. I said that if there are arguments against gay marriage, then those arguments will probably pertain to civil marriage between straight couples as well. If you are looking for more than what I posted to consider having a "reasoned discussion" with, then perhaps you should simply state your own views, and let the discussion begin.Regards, Shaz

I hear you, Hairy, about the bait and switch tactic being used. I went in for a TWO-year commitment (Recognized). Then after graduation, when a LC tried to do an evaluation on me, without even knowing me, and I told him I was not going to submit to an evaluation, he said,"Doctor never wanted there to be a Recognized Corps." Tough, fella, maybe he didn't want it, but I WAS one! And I have to admit, there were times when I looked at some of the elder Corps I was working with, and thought, "what 'natural leadership ability' do YOU have?" In hindsight, they were probably more worried about which people would become a liability (witness the disbanding of the Senior Corps), and could reject such people by talking about "leadership ability." Ex, I don't think it is bitterness, just telling it like it was, as I saw/see it. Yes, I met some great people. Learned a little Bible. Got my college degree finished. Learned a couple of life skills. But where it was headed -- to a lifetime of giving up your will to an organization -- was not where I was interested in going. Regards, Shaz

Dear LongGone, Okay then, I'll take a stab at it, using my two examples cited above. 1.) Maybe if the state made marriage available to same sex couples, it would send a message to the gay community that a stable relationship is to be desired over a transient one, as married people have certain rights and privileges under tax and other laws that non-married couples do not have (I speak as a non-married person in a long-standing heterosexual relationship). It might help stem the tide of extremism and promiscuity among some (frustration breeds contempt), and statistics of the number of married gay couples could certainly paint a more accurate picture of what is going on in the gay community. 2.) Children (yes, there are plenty of children in same sex families, through insemination and adoption) would become part of the mainstream more easily, as both parents would be able to participate fully in decisions affecting the child, and would be legal parents of the child even in the event of a divorce (unless parental rights were given up). The child would be able to enjoy the same satisfaction in belonging that the children of heterosexual couples enjoy. And I thought of one more benefit... 3.) Cultural and recreational institutions that are non-profit would be encouraged (by threat of losing funding dollars from government sources) to extend to gay married couples the same privileges granted straight couples -- family discounts, for example. If you are going to argue that many of these privileges can be arrived at by other means, then I might suggest then that civil marriage be abolished for everyone, and all couples use all those "other means" to secure their privileges. Because, after all, if we are to allow the government to get into the institution of marriage, then define that institution in religious terms, then aren't we establishing a religion? I am not an activist for gay rights by any means, and I may have absolutely mis-defined what the gay marriage agenda is about, but just thinking it through by myself, I can see no non-religious reason that gay marriage would ruin anything for anyone else. IMHO, Shaz

Hi, all, I generally don't get into these discussions, because I find people tend to trot out variations of the "it's just so wrong because I think it's gross" genre. So excuse me for not keeping up with all the threads on this. LongGone, what is the "state's interest in domestic unions" for heterosexuals? Would it not be to promote committed relationships regardless of religious affiliation, and stability for children? There are probably other good reasons to have civil marriage for straight couples as well. I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well. One of the arguments against homosexuality has been that gays are promiscuous and spread disease (something that the straight community is equally good at, btw). What better way can the state promote monogamy than by allowing for gay marriage? Regards, Shaz

Oldies, A stray dog goes up to the baker. The baker gives him a bun, and then kicks him. The next day, the dog goes to the delicatessen man. The deli man is kind to him, and gives him a choice piece of meat and strokes his fur. The following day, it is back to the baker for some day-old rolls and a kick. This goes on for quite some time. The question is: how many days should the dog keep going back to the baker, before he gives up on him? The deeper question is: what if the dog had not met the deli man -- when should he leave the baker and go looking for something better? Should he bite the evil hand that feeds him, or lick it in forgiveness? Or should he just go away and never come back, and teach the other dogs to steer clear? I hope you'll forgive my little parable, but I think it gets to the heart of being loyal to people who misused their authority, be it VP, Don, or Craig. You don't have to respond to it. Just think about it, please. Regards, Shaz

Oldies, It was a long time ago. I only wrote it so that you could start to understand that things were pretty heartless at the BOT level, from very early on. Including Don. But I'm sure he was a real nice guy... who didn't have the male parts to ask his dad to talk to me. Shaz

Wow, Oldies, if that is true then it means that through MOST of the heyday of TWI, VP never even bothered to sign his own name to the originals of all those mass mailings. Such an ego that he couldn't even be bothered. Pretty sad. Regards, Shaz

Dear UncleHairy, Whether VPW taught his leaders his sexual practices, or simply included some who already were adulterers, the result's the same. He didn't fire RP when it became known that he was a loose cannon, did he? Dear Oldies, You said... SOME TWI women might have SOME pull with their own husbands, but that should not be equated with having pull with TWI leadership. When my 1st hubby decided to drink at ROA '80, we were both promptly fired from Staff and told to relocate to AZ. This "assignment" came from VP himself, who spoke only to my husband, while hubby was drunk. The next day, I asked to talk to VPW about it. I was stopped by Don W., and told that "Dad" had decreed it, so I would be blessed if I did it. It didn't even phase him when I said with tears that my parents would be separated from their first grandchild by such a move.I got HIM into TWI. I never had a drunk day in my life. Women, power? Puh-leez! And BTW, just so you understand how "spiritual" that decision was, it bombed. We were told we were going to AZ to be close to the new LC, and introductions were made at the Rock. Well, once we got there, the LC quickly blew us off, then didn't last 6 months there himself. There was no contact from the BOT. I was abandoned with a drinking husband and a baby. The "Corps household" was a sham. You also spoke about how, had you known, you would have brought the accusations to Don W. and expected that you would have received an honest explanation. Do you not know that Don also was involved in adultery? And after reading my story above, do you still think that Don wouldn't have whitewashed the whole thing to you? You were scammed, Oldies. We all were. Shaz

Dear Oldies, The first two signatures appear to be by the same person. Remember, no one signs their name exactly the same way twice, but the slant, pressure, and general pattern of the letters will be similar. Also, the first signature reminds me of the way Wierwille signed his mass-mailed letters and Way Mag articles. So I would guess that the first 2 signatures are his. The third one is very different -- different pressure, different slant, much more loopy letters, whereas the first two are much more boxy. That's your staff person signature, I'd bet. Regards, Shaz

This comment is so true... I used to have an old Geneva Bible, dating back to 1613. It had some Psalms set to music notation in the back of the book, and in the introduction said how everyone should promote these instead of those baser songs "that corrupt our youth." They were talking about madrigals.Nothing changes, Shaz

I dunno Mark, but ya gotta love an animal that had the perfect response to the junk that was being generated in the CFS class. Kiss my ! :D--> Shaz

Dear Catcup, I remember at one point VP had expressed dismay with Twig leaders going around teaching their own stuff. He didn't want anyone going off on a tangent. So he redefined research as "re-searching" that which had already been done. We were to get out the books and Way Mag and teach them in our Twigs. Later it became mandatory to review the written materials instead of preparing a teaching. Do your Twiggies need info on eternal life? Sorry, we're on Chapter 3 in the blue book this week. Real personal. Must meet a lot of needs. So of course TWI today does research. They all spend time "re-searching" what they already read and heard 20 times. Such a vital ministry. Regards, Shaz

Dear Catcup, If what we think about LCM is correct, that he has narcissistic/sociopathic traits, then what happened to him at the time of the POP is what is called a narcissistic injury. Narcissists actually have BIG self-esteem issues. They are a big walking hurt. They decide that they will not let anybody hurt them so deeply ever again, and craft a false Self, desperately seeking people to admire that Self, convincing themselves that they are important, because they are admired. But it is the false Self that is admired, and narcissists tend to resent the very people they set up to admire them, especially those that are closest to them. In a narcissistic injury, a person or circumstance cuts through the facade and causes the narcissist to doubt his validity. One of the few times a Narcissist will seek help is when this happens to him, as in a divorce or job loss or other major life trauma. But once the immediate trauma is past, the narcissist will again shore up his mental boundaries, often belittling the therapist or doctor who tried to help him. In Craig, from what you have said, it is easy to see that he was looking for admiration for his false Self, the MOGFODAT. Who was the star of the ballet? He was. Who was to stand in the gap? He was. Who was bringing the household into the promised land of the prevailing Word (gag me)? He was. Who got the Word over the world? He did, if you believe what he said. He got wounded by the death of Wierwille and the subsequent accusations of G**r. But he came back stronger than ever. That is, until the BOD could no longer cover for him. Regards, Shaz (Edited to fix the grammar and spelling a bit!) [This message was edited by shazdancer on March 25, 2004 at 5:08.]

Dear ex10, I agree that VPW ran off just about anybody with the charisma to replace him. He chose Craig for being a tushy-kisser. But I think Craig also had a huge envy problem. He wanted to be the MOGFODAT, not just the next president of TWI. So he replaced the classes (WAP), the programs (Way Disciples, new Corps principles), published his own books, and even changed the vocabulary ("prevailing," ugh!). His ultimate ego trip, perhaps even more than having all eyes on him at the ballet, was the loyalty oath. Unfortunately, it backfired, and showed him that very few people were ready to put him on that MOG pedestal. Regards, Shaz