Oakspear

It was obvious that Wierwille got some of his material from Bullinger, but it was not generally lifted word-for-word. Possibly because Bullinger's 19th century writing style was hard for many people to read. I assumed that the "not taught since the First Century" stuff was "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and other books and classes. When I started hearing that Wierwille came up with his doctrine independently of Bullinger, I found it hard to believe, and assumed that those who said it did not know what they were talking about.

and THAT, my friend, is the "natural" source of the oxygen!

jwbm: Different song, but not a bad one!

"Weakness Brings Down Strength" is another example of Martindale or Wierwille making some statement as if there was no other possible way it could be, and declaring it to be TRUTH. Does "weakness" ASWAYS bring down, or corrupt "strength"? They would give examples like rot in a fruit taking over the whole fruit, which would be true IN THAT CASE, but why assume that SOME examples of weakness bringing down strength would mean that ALL weakness would bring down ALL strength? I think it depends. They used this statement to keep us isolated from non-Way people, claiming that they're weakness would corrupt our strength. If this was true, then how could witnessing ever work? How could whole cities in the Book of Acts turn away from their old beliefs (weakness by the TWI definition) to following Paul (strength)?

Martindale was one of the idiots who was saying that the Louie, Louie lyrics were evil, or dirty or both. I'd hear Way Corps people parrot it, and then ask them what the words actually were. They never knew. The way I heard it, the classic Kingsman version is hard to understand for two reasons: it was recorded in one take, so some of the words were kind of mumbled over, and everything was recorded by one boom microphone, the singer having to shout UPWARDS to be heard.

Good point about the studying: when did he do it? Another point: how many times was Wierwille "ready to chuck the whole thing"? Right before the supposed "snow on the gas pumps" incident he was ready to throw in the towel until God talked to him. That was 1942, after he had been a minister for only one year. What year was it when he went to Tulsa and spoke in tongues for the first time? 1951? After nine years of "God teaching him the Word like it hadn't been taught since the First Century" he was ready to quit again, because he wasn't seeing results. And where did the lady who told him to teach about the abundant life (Rosalind Rinker?), rather tha negatives, come in?

As I recall, Martindale referred back to Bullinger's "Witness of the Stars" when talking about the riddle of the sphinx

John, maybe it's because in retrospect, the fruit in Wierwille's life did not indicate anything godly. And why blame the devil when he obviously had free will.

This may be a good time to remind folks of "The WayGB". On the night I was confronted by TH & company, they had printouts of several of my posts as Twyil. They compared some of the things that I was posting to things that I brought up to my "leadership" and saw enough similarities to investigate.

When we are deceived, a valid argument can be made that we are still responsible for being decieved,and with what we do with the deception. Everyone "owns" their own actions. Sure, I can see it...makes sense...logical. I don't totally buy it myself, but it's not a wacky proposition by any means. BUT the deceivers are responsible for deceiving, indeed for the very attempt, whether people fall for it or not. Independent of the response to the deception, trying to deceive is grounds enough for mistrusting the deceiver and re-examining all that was taught by him. Some posters seem to be saying that it was alright for Wierwille and company to deceive, since no one forced us to be deceived, to believe a word of it. The emphasis is wrong, in my opinion, taking it off the deceiver, turning it into a kind of caveat emptor. Heck, I know enough about self defense to prevent most people from punching me in the face, as long as I'm awake. If I drop my guard, or am compalcent, and get decked anyway, my assailant still gets busted. The judge isn't going to say "Tom is responsible, since he allowed himself to get hit"

Okay, some of you guys don't think plagiarism is wrong, or feel that it's justified, great, but it's still plagiarism. Some of you feel that the off the cuff mentioning of great men that Wierwille said he learned from is a substitute for attribution, great. I did not hear about the plagiarism until I was in my last year in TWI. But I really think that if I had known about it early on, it would have made a big difference for me. Here's why: I never thought VP was perfect. I never thought that everything that came out of his mouth was god-breathed. But I did tend to give him the benefit of the doubt in areas that I didn't quite understand, because he successfully portrayed himself as a godly researcher. If I had known about the plagiarism within the first few years of joining up, I doubt that I would have given him that benefit, and would have put up with a lot less.

G St. G: Hah! No explanations, and as far as I know, they still stick with Martindale's teachings. John Reynolds called me after I sent him a letter and told me that I should get together with TH, who would be teaching WayAP "live" in my city, and have him explain the doctrines I was having trouble with, since, according to Reynolds, TH would be "working the Word" in preparation for teaching the class. TH told me that he didn't need to work the Word; the Trustees backed the class, and that was good enough for him. During his teaching of the class he told me that, even though you couldn't scriptually back up Martindale's interpretation of Eve's temptation as a homosexual encounter with The Devil, it "must be" true because of what we know the Word says about homosexuality. It will be interesting to find out what's in the new class they're coming up with, or if they have quietly changed some of Martindale's crap.

Guilty!

Lianne: It was you who warned me about TH's deviousness and got me on my guard around him. Thanks!

In August, 2001, the Central Region Coordinator, who also Limb Coordinator for Missouri and Nebraska, also doubling as Kansas City Branch Coordinator (of which Lincoln Nebraska was considered an outlying area) called me on the phone to tell me that I was no longer welcome at Way functions. Several days before he, his wife and my fellowship coordinator confronted me about posting on Grease Spot. I didn't admit to anything, but countered with questions about Way doctrine that had not been answered despite repeated questioning. I ended the meeting by stating that either someone is going to have to explain it all to me, or the Trustees were going to have to back down from Martindale's teachings in WayAP. My objections with much of what was taught in WayAP was documented in a letter that I had written to then-Trustee John Reynolds months before. Inspired by Igotout's letter to Rosalie the year before. In the phone call RC/LC/BC Tom H told me that I was no longer welcome because I "didn't believe that the Trustees were leading the ministry in the right direction." Yeah. No .....

Most of us here at GS have rejected SOMETHING from our days in TWI. For some, it is physically leaving TWI, while retaining most of their core doctrines; for others it is as radical as no longer believing the bible. For most it is something in between. Something I have observed at GS is a tendency for many to view what THEY have rejected as "error", and what they have retained as "truth". Those who retain more of the old TWI than they did are foolishly holding on to cult teachings, while those who reject more than they do are throwing out the baby with the bathwater or looking on the frailties of men rather than the truth.

Many of us in TWI subscribed to the idea that we were a "people set apart" (not as Christians, but as "members" of TWI) and that we had special knowledge; that special knowledge was what made everything else worthwhile. This quote: "A man of the flesh, one that treated people so vilely cannot possibly be trusted to accuratly portray spiritual truths and issues." Does not say that this man NECESSARILY was wrong, but that he could not be trusted. Lack of trust in his words should lead to a re-examination of all that was taught by this man. Re-examination might lead to confirmation, or rejection.

White Dove: Regarding the quote that used to make your point: here it is in context: Wrong about what? That "we were special".

I had no problem when it was expressed as opinion, but when it was quoted as if it came straight from the lips of God...that was just annoying.

"Bring out your dead horses, *clang* bring out your dead horses *clang* bring out your dead horses" "Here you go" "I'm not a dead horse yet" "What" "Nothing" "He said he wasn't a dead horse"

Once again, no one is taking the position that the bible should be dumped just because the leadership is corrupt. You've made your point and triumphed over a nonexistant position.

we'll see you and the children formerly known as the chinettes in September

Yes WD, but I first heard it done by Chris Duarte

Search using groom's name: Thomas Joyce, State: Nebraska, date: September I just got there...try again!

I work in a grocery store and am responsible for processing and tracking all liability claims. Unless this is a mom & pop or independent owner/operator with no insurance, then it is the insurance company who you will be dealing with and who ultimately will be reimbursing you. Most insurance companies will pay without hesitation unless the store gives them reason to believe that there is fraud involved, in which case an investigator will be assigned. Get the name & number of the insurance company, as well as the claim number and name of the claim rep, or have them call you. Unless you are trying to get a settlement over and above the medical bills (loss of income, etc), then getting a lawyer involved, or even hinting that you are thinking of taking legal action will effectively cut off your communication with the store manager. Where I work, once "lawyer" is mentioned, or that there is intention to sue, we refer all questions to our corporate lawyer. Otherwise we submit the claim to the insurance company, who will generally pay without delay. There are bogus claims, but those are paid as well, unless fraud can be proved.