Oakspear

A Lifetime of Christian Service. Assume for the sake of argument that Christian = TWI to the producers of this brochure (no big assumption IMHO) To "go forth to serve in areas of concern,interest,and need.", with the further information that "Where they serve depends upon their desire, ability and the needs of the ministry." does not, either within the context of Wayworld, or in a common sense reading exclude: Serving on staff Serving as a twig coordinator while going to school ...while building a career or business Not having an "official" position, but still leading by supporting the designated branch or limb leader Any other number of life choices that involved serving in a less than full time capacity Keep in mind that except for a brief period in the 90's, the Way Corps were expected to have a "secular" job. TWI usually didn't pay a salary. Even when they did, there was no guarantee that the next assignment would include a salary as well.

In 2000 or 2001 our region coordinator, Tom H****cks "taught" at a STS. He had to have his teaching written up in advance, then he had to do a run-through teaching in front of at least one of the Trusteees. Only then would he be allowed to teach.

satorisatori is the worst leader.

Do you not understand irony? Sarcasm? Slams? :wacko:

As one of the pagans, I can vouch for brother wolf. Things that go bump in the night? :blink:

Enjoy your weekend. It's a beautiful day here! Don't want you to do any digging. That brochure would be interesting to look at though. I still think that their stated intent was very different than how it all turned out.

Well, TWI equated "Christian" with TWI, so by saying that the Way Corps prepared you for a "Lifetime of Christian Service", they meant (and there was no mystery about it) "A Lifetime of TWI Service". However...their definition of "service" was where the bait & switch lie. A slogan (which is all that "A Lifetime of Christian Service" is) is not a contract, is not a description, is in no way complete. It's as vague and ephemeral as "Word Over The World" - which was never defined either.

Oldies: Since you're using Wiccans & Pagans to make your point, most of those groups do not have a set of doctrines that everybody must follow (some do, but most don't) - and, other than you, nobody is bringing up taking over a pulpit and teaching, or agressively pushing contrary views. That's your strawman. You get some agreement on the point that isn't being debated and declare victory. the issue in TWI was that you couldn't go to coffee with another wayfer and express a non-approved opinion on a subject that TWI had taken a position on without the Inquisition showing up at your door.

White Dove: Since I no longer have those brochures, is there anywhere that spells out in more detail in writing what was expected of the Way Corps? After all, the definition of "lifetime" isn't at issue here, but that of "Christian service". If these brochures state that "Christian service" means that Way Corps grads would be required to have their families uprooted every 3 - 5 years, provide unlimited free labor, etc. I'd come over to your side All kidding aside, if you have some of the info from inside that brochure, I believe it would be germane to this discussion. And I don't believe one can dismiss opinions, impressions, and verbal assurances. After all, many of us trusted what our leaders told us implicitly (if not, why join the way Corps?)

So...if you stopped taking assignments, but still served the body of Christ, or even TWI, by providing support, living the Christian life, teaching, helping out, or any number of ways that one could serve without accepting assignments...you were no longer participating in a "lifestime of Christian service"?

We all answer to satori! mwahahahahaha!

The old white Corps brochure says "A Lifetime of Christian" on the front, but like with so many other Way things, they sent out contradictory messages. The definition of "a lifetime of Christian service" was spun to make it appear most attractive, but there was plenty of information out there suggesting that "a lifetime of Christian service" did not include voluntary servitude.

"Nobody" is an exaggeration, but it is his name. (Or at least an English transliteration of a Greek version of the Aramaic shortening of his Hebrew name)

Of course you do. In the bubble that you apparently lived in, many of the bad things mentioned here didn't happen. You and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on this, Oldies. Many people stick with organizations where they don't agree with everything taught, and are tolerated, as long as they don't try to teach "from the pulpit". There are many other organizations where the level of tolerance is about where TWI's is. You and I obviously have different experiences and observations with different groups. Our experience with TWI was different as well. In addition to leaving during different time periods, you left when you'd had enough, where I had a "believing" wife and children to consider. I'm glad you brought that up, Oldiesman. I've been thinking about bringing that up myself, but didn't want to "preach" or tout my beliefs. I cannot speak for any Wiccan or Pagan groups other than the one that I associate with, but you would be allowed to "share...all about the accuracy and integrity of the ineffable greatness of God's Word" as much as you wanted to to the others. That's no guarantee, however, that anyone would listen to you or take you seriously. You might be engaged in debate about your beliefs, you might be ignored, some might consider incorporating what you said into their own belief systems, or you might be mocked by the ignorant and/or rude.

Well, ckmkeon, you say you believe this or that, but appear completely unwilling or incapable of discussing why. These forums are for discussion doncha know? Maybe you should let your "dad" post again, so that we can get "his" take on things.

Nobody is suggesting that TWI somehow magically prevented people from speaking out loud if it went against da word o' Vic; who would want to continue to speak up if they were black-balled, bullied, etc.? That's the point: not that your vocal cords seized up.

Perhaps incompletely stated. You could have all the thought, independent or otherwise, that you wanted, as long as you kept your mouth shut about. And you could express these thoughts, as long as they were something "neutral" like your favorite baseball team. Melodramatic? Hardly. Simply stated hyperbolically to make a point. Sorry that you weren't able to understand that. Ridiculous? Nope. Quite in line with a lot of people's experiences. Not yours apparently, but that doesn't make mine "ridiculous". Any insights not approved from on high were suspect. Even talking about them in non-teaching situations got you on the road to mark and avoid. Nice strawman! But I'm not talking about teaching, I'm talking about discussion, talking, having insights, etc. Of course you're not going to have someone in a Catholic pulpit teaching doctrine contrary to the Catholic church, but catholics who don't buy into it 100% don't have to worry about talking about it at the pub. A Catholic can totally disbelive in the trinity, yet go to church every Sunday and never be harrassed. In Wayworld, how long do you think someone would last if they even casually mentioned that the trinity might be truth? This subject has come up repeatedly on GS. There are several reasons that people stayed when they didn't agree with teachings, weren't "blessed", saw abuses, etc: Thought they could change the "error" that they saw more effectively from within Spouse or other family member "in" that they were unwilling to leave without Bought into the lie that they would be a "Grease Spot by midnight" others that have been put forth on this site Yeah, he did tell us to research the scriptures and make them our own. But what happened in the real world was that we were to work the scriptures and make Wierwille's conclusions our own. How many people were absolutely convinced that the first word in the bible was "God" despite any evidense to the contrary? Or that "an old document" stated that illegitimate kids got their bar-mitzvah at 12 instead of 13? Or based their "research" on Wierwillian definitions of words that could not be supported? I don't know about you, but I got into TWI so that I could read and understand the bible, not so I would just take another guy's word for what it said. Many people, including me, thought that Wierwille was teaching us a method of making the bible our own, and sheparding us along in that endeavor, when it turned out that he was expecting to be obeyed just as blindly as the pope.

There is a big difference between freedom of speech or expression and freedom from criticism. In TWI dissenting opinions were not allowed, the toleration for them was greater the farther back in time you go, but by the 90's there was none. Here, you can say pretty much whatever you want. What you do not have is immunity from attack, or the expectation that anyone will agree with you. Long live Grease Spot!

Gee, the guy who consistantly bashes the Mormons gets witnessed to by Mormons...what a coincidence! Yeah, ditto what templelady said allan. If you conducted yourself in public the way you do on these forums, I imagine that the exchange was a bit different than you describe. And btw, no "teeth-gnashing" from anybody going on here, allan. While I find the reflexive, unthinking condemnation of anyone who holds to even a part of PFAL as ridiculous, your labeling of anyone who condemns Wierwille for his actions or criticizes his teachings as inaccurate as a "Wierwille-hater" is equally unthinking and equally ridiculous. Just my opinion, of course. have a lucky day Oh yeah, I've come across less than a handful of churches over the years who belive that 4 were crucified with Jesus. They were all independent, non-denominational. The first one was in New York and employed street-corner preachers who utilzied Bullinger's books.

not everybody in the "room" is married Galen

Of course you don't. Uh huh. No, it went beyond that. It was a demand to fall into line on much more than "biblical truth", it was a demand to supress any independent thought, and to "hold in abeyance" any insights on the bible and God that differed from the dictates of the fake doctor. and if a participant wasn't as brainwashed as the other participants, why not just get marked and avoided. Of course you don't Sure. While Wierwille did teach some bible, he also expected us to take his word on points that could not be documented in the bible. During the Martindale reign wayfers were expected to conform to his ideas of housekeeping, car maintenance, and grooming or be subject to "confrontation" Way "believers" were expected to serve leadership in non-biblical ways. I just did. This board is full of other examples. It is different in degree, I'll grant you that. And by the way, I don't like the things that have been posted about your sister either. HOWEVER... If you assumed that using my wife or her business as examples in your ongoing defense of Wierwille and his cult was okay, think again. It is not. Many of us post personal information. It is a reasonable expectation that that information won't be used as a rhetorical point. I really don't care if you agree or even understand. I am asking you to not do it again.

:blink:

the Highlander & his missus loved to "confront" my wife when I wasn't around too.

well, it was a regular 2-wheeled bike with a sidecar...so I guess a total of 3 wheels...

One could argue that the condemnation, while not explicit, was implied due to who the children of those two daughters were: Moab and Ammon...two long time enemies of Israel. And if you're talking about David and Bathsheba, she wasn't a concubine, she was another guy's wife. The only other one I can think of that you may be referring to is Abigail, who also was not his concubine. She married David after her husband Nabal (?) was killed. Is there someone else that you're referring to?