Oakspear

This post and the last post were posted by Reikilady. Sharing the Internet at our new place where my daughter, Tom, and I (Susie/Reikilady) live!!!

Wow....Just two weeks and Tom and I will be married!!! Glad to hear that Donner and bowtwi will be able to attend.

Al says that they're 'wiccas', not wiccans, and he's always right.

Right or wrong, Wierwille was a master at getting people to believe in him. In my opinion, he did this because he could document enough of what he was teaching, especially when it differed from what the mainstream churches were teaching. Most of us were then so incensed at the "lies" of the churches that we grew up in, and dazzled by Vic's seeming proficiency with the bible, that we stopped checking for ourselves and accepted what Wierwille taught us, even when it didn't make sense. We convinced ourselves to "hold it in abeyance", sure that Wierwille had the answers and we were missing it.

Donner & Bowtwi: looking forward to seeing you two again. --> (Scout Finch - still comin'?) For those who had to back out: we'll miss you guys and gals. Oakmom says that she is looking forward to meeting some GSers.

You can probably find bible verses to back up a lot of what Wierwille taught, so I guess some of it was correct. But there are so many areas where Christians disagree, even when there apparently is scripture to back up differing opinions. So, whether a lot of TWI doctrine is "correct" is in the eye of the beholder. There are also plenty of places where Wierwille (and later Martindale) distorted definitions to make words, and therefore verses, say what they wanted them to say that TWI doctrine becomes an overgrown mess that takes more than a cursory "working of the Word" to untangle.

Wierwille couldn't even read a poem and get the meter right, and we were supposed to believe he wrote one? :P-->

I get all my TWI news on GS these days. Come to think of it, when I was in I got most of my TWI news on GS

Personally, I like to fling lemons, rather than throwing tomatoes. Much more refined

That was a great example of civilly disagreeing.dmiller and I seldom agree on any doctrinal issues, but we always treat each other with respect. Get a clue Al!

Does Goey know you're cuddling with Kris Kristofferson?

This has been an interesting discussion, but I'm going to be off-line for a few days so I can move. Or am I? ; - )

freakin' mimes

Another thought (or maybe the same thought that was expressed pages ago and I missed!) about speaking tongues: If there is such a thing as "genuine" speaking in tongues in the church, which I am not convinced one way or another, I am convinced that most folks in TWI weren't doing it. Speaking in tongues in the modern era has been largely an ecstatic experience: somebody "gets the spirit" and usually speaks in a highly emotional manner. Right or wrong Wierwille sought to make the experience "decent and in order" and devoid of emotion, to reduce it to a formula, to frame it within a pre-set list of steps to be called upon at any time to perform. Is speaking in tongues as an emotional or ecstatic response to the presence of God necessarily indecent or out of order? So many people that I saw, especially in the nineties, had no desire to speak in tongues, and weren't "feeling" anything, but were doing what was expected of them. Children of grads often fell into this group, doing what their parents expected of them. There were many people, one of my own children included, who said the exact same thing every time that they spoke in tongues. I would sometimes silently subvocalize what they were saying, and hit it dead on every time. Or others would repeat the same half dozen, or even two or three, syllables over and over. Genuine? May-be...doubt it though.

Lies too

I've noticed, Allan, that you often clarify your use of Wiccan (thanks for correcting your previous misusage, by the way) with the word "witch" in parentheses.Are you doing this to cast a negative light on Wiccans, or do you think that Wiccans = Witches? Not all Wiccans prefer to use the term "witch" to describe themselves, and there are witches who have nothing to do with Wicca.

There's a small minority of posters here who define post-TWI "truth" as the exact amount of TWI-doctrine that they themselves have retained. The TWI doctrine that they have kept is "obviously" the truth Anyone who holds on to TWI teachings that they have not retained is foolish and waybrained. Anyone who rejects TWI dogma that they have held on to is "rejecting the Word". TWI, when they were first in was godly, and they learned lots of profitable things. They got out at the exact time things were going bad. Anyone who stayed in a minute past that time was foolish. Every ex wayfer here has had to make sense of their TWI experience in their own way. Some have made few adjustments other than hanging out with a different "twig", and sending their money to a different post office box. Others have re-examined what was taught in light of mainstream Christianity. Still others have gone "outside the Pale" completely to become Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, agnostics or atheists. Each has gone down the post-TWI path that seemed best for them. To decide for another which of those paths is valid is arrogant. Part of the post-TWI "decompression" is questioning what we believed before. So much of what we were taught was presented as "thus saith the Lord". Most of us need a little more that that these days. Questioning the beliefs and doctrines is not an attack on the individual who believes it. Nothing wrong with "defending the faith" either, but I've noticed that its often done in a defensive manner. You want to speak in tongues? Fine. You believe that they are everything that Wierwille taught? Also fine. But these are DISCUSSION forums. So they'll be some DISCUSSION about various aspects of TWI doctrine.

How about Mr. Wheat?

Naw, most of it I trace back to Wal-Mart

Read what's written: Why would you think that's a threat?People who don't know what they're talking about, while they have a right to speak, would better serve themselves, as well as everyone else if they would keep their mouths shut

um...that's because the Ford was a CAR!!!

Who's stopping you or anyone else from posting your opinion? Not me.But I'll call a spade a spade, as you seem to have no problem doing...buckwheat

Huh? If tongues as practiced by TWI are not the same as that practiced by the First Century Christians as described in the bible, that does not necessarily mean that there is a "real deal" - biblical speaking in tongues may just have passed it's expiration date!

Goey and WordWolf are doing the heavy lifting of injecting logic into this discussion...thanks gents! It's not possible to prove that tongues as practiced today are genuine or false, unless you point to a difference in how they are practiced today and how they were practiced in the biblical accounts. If someone is faking it, you can't prove it, although the faker surely knows. It is possible, by way of suggestion, to make sounds that sound like speaking an unknown language, and even the person speaking would not know the difference. It all comes down to faith. One wants to be convinced that the unintelligable babbling is "the wonderful works of God". No evidence to the contrary will be believed, no alternate possibilities will be entertained. Cessationist theologians believe that tongues ceased based on their understanding of the bible, they just come to a different conclusion than those that believe tongues are still possible and needful in the church. Speaking in tongues is not unique to Christians, making sounds that you don't understand is not unheard of and is not the "proof" that we were told it was

According to Born Again to Serve by Mrs. Wierwille, there was a Board of Directors made up of PFAL grads from around the country in the mid-fifties. This board was disbanded by Wierwille in favor of the three-man Board of Trustees because they argued with Wierwille too much.