Oakspear

Geez, there were always rumors of famous people who got witnessed to, or "almost" took the class...Way urban legends :D--> TWI put out a flyer in the early 80's, Bob Donaldson was in it - the rodeo clown - a bunch of us went to see a rodeo in which he participated in Omaha in 1982. Jim Schoefeldt (sp?) who played hockey for the Buffalo Sabres and later coached the New Jersey Devils was in it as well. Tony Collins was also, if I remember correctly. I don't think that any of those "famous" folks stuck around for long, other than the musicians, most of whom were in Way Productions. My ex-wife, former fellowship coordinator and son all witnessed to the guy who is currently the Secretary of Agriculture, but he wasn't interested. :D-->

Obviously you've been deprogrammed from that insidious Oakspear cult I agree with the susceptibility to different levels of influence. People stayed or left for a variety of different reasons. People who stayed operated at varying levels of involvement and committment. They responded to pressure in a variety of ways. In my observation, wayfers weren't brainwashed, but their options were steadily narrowed. If you didn't believe the premise that the bible was the word of God, then nothing that was said made much sense, but if accepted that, you neded to be convinced that The Way had the correct interpretation of the bible. If you accepted that, and wanted to do God's will, then you limited yourself to either The Way, or being isolated from God. Once you were no longer convinced of any of the basic premises, then the hold was loosened. For instance, after Wierwille died, many folks decided that The Way was no longer following what the bible said, so the hold was loosened for those people. When the news of the lawsuits, and evidense that Way doctrine didn't hold up to close scutiny was made public, the a new group of people no longer were constrained by their belief that The Way was the sole source of bible truth. For some folks the personal relationships, the fellowship, was much more important than the teachings, for those people abusive behavior drove them out the door. I don't think that The Way had any absolute control over anyone, just that they stacked the deck and we didn't check the cards.

IMHO many of the deprogrammers took advantage of the fear that many parents had that their children would be drinking Kool-Aid in Guyana. Others had a sincere (although misguided) desire to free those that they saw as enslaved. Long before anyone knew about Wierwille's sexual abuses, and years before Martindale turned TWI into a fortress of paranoia, people feared The Way because it was different. Because it wasn't what they thought religion should be. Before there ever was a Waydale or a Greasespot Cafe, anti-Way literature focussed mainly on the doctrine, as if there couldn't be more than one view of what the bible was saying in the nation that gave us the First Ammendment. There was criticism of Wierwille's power and lifestyle, as if the heads of many denominations, most notably the Catholics didn't have power and a lavish lifestyle. People were horrified over the tithe, as if no other church in America received tithes. Parents worried about children who changed their behavior and put what they saw as their committment to God above family, community and other ties, as if committment was a bad thing, as if athletes, performers, and others didn't put their chosen path first; and as if constant criticism of what seemed to be the answer to their prayers wouldn't cause resentment and estrangement. Some folks can't see that not everything is the same as their own standards. They fear, they strike out. They send paid thugs to kidnap their children and attempt to brainwash them. What is the percentage of people who were "deprogrammed" compared to the total number of people who just walked out on their own? I'm guessing an insignificantly small one. The "brainwashing" couldn't have been too very effective, could it have?

Always nice to be appreciated Lifted :D-->

Oldiesman never saw the evil leadership in action because they were all chasing after Galen, trying to figure what port he would show up in after he was kicked out once again. They didn't have time for Oldies. :D-->

Actually the bottom line is that I regularly had people screaming and spitting at me to "freely" give.

Nice beard btw.

Galen: A couple of things: I was speaking generally, although your comments about insurance being gambling did inspire me to write what I did. Yup, I've noted that. Yet you call insurance gambling.Do I understand that they are (according to your view) not gambling when they fit in with your financial plan, or are required by law? Or is gambling okay in these situations? Just because I used "insurance" and "afraid" in the same sentence doesn't mean that I am saying that anyone is afraid of insurance. Maybe it would have been clearer if I said "...rather than avoid insurance because I think that it's gambling". Maybe not. Sometimes you seem determined to misunderstand. But maybe that's just a misunderstanding on my part ;)-->My point is that because some folks believe that insurance is gambling, they will avoid insurance because they believe that gambling is "off the Word", evil, or whatever. Thus the formula: if gambling = evil, and if gambling = insurance, the insurance = evil. I don't believe that gambling is especially evil, I don't believe that insurance is gambling, therefore I have no problem with insurance. None of what I have said should be construed to mean that I think that everyone should have insurance. I don't. If you can work it so you don't need it (which you apparently have in several categories) then don't get it. But lack of insurance should be based on a sound financial plan, not on a belief that taking out an insurance policy is gambling. Other than your statement that insurance is gambling, I don't have a clue as to your motivations, so I'm not making any assumptions about them. However, unless you are saying that gambling is okay in select situations, I don't understand how you can claim that insurance is gambling, yet carry insurance. -->

No doubt that TWI did the things that diazbro described, and I'm sure that some incidents were blamed on deprogramming that were not. That doesn't change the nature of deprogramming, nor make it right. When I was a WOW, and indeed at any other time during my "innie" years, my family had no trouble contacting me; my parents visited me on the WOW field, and even attended fellowships when they visited in later years. I have a cousin who preceded me into TWI by a short time. We took PFAL and several other classes together, were at most functions together, hung out and witnessed together, yet she was out in less than a year, while I was still involved over twenty years later. What? The special brainwashing waves were selective? Maybe she fell asleep during the session where the hypnosis took place. --> Funny how the peak of deprogramming was during TWI-1, which was a lot less abusive than TWI-2.

I beg to differ def: Unless Sunday wasn't "the first day"

If you've got the money set aside, or a dependable income source, to cover possibilities such as untimely death, catastrophic illness, or expensive car wrecks, then you have a choice on whether insurance is best for you. You can weigh the options: is it better to "tie up" some assets in a surety bond and avoid paying premiums to the insurance company, or is it more cost effective to pay the premiums and invest the cash so that it earns more than what the premium is? Not everyone is in that position, however, and for various reasons. I prefer to take advantage of the options available to me, rather than avoiding insurance because I'm afraid that it's gambling. Or is insurance not gambling when the cash-flow is better than having a surety bond? -->

and sure enough, it's the second day, otherwise referred to as Monday

There were certain exceptions to the debt policy, which you were allowed to have and still be eligible to participate in Advanced Class stuff, run a fellowship: child support/alimony and medical bills were two that spring to mind, seems like there were a total of five.

ex-70's: We're discussing your wife on an open forum without her input. See anything wrong with that? If you need help, don't post your dirty laundry for all to see. Maybe she's got her side too.

I agree with Oldiesman . . . . . . okay, the world didn't end :D--> Deprogramming was kidnapping Deprogramming was wrongful imprisonment Deprogramming was assault The rationale behind deprogramming was that we were "in" against our will - the number of people who willingly walked away should have been enough of an indication that that was wrong.

If one were to live a long and healthy life, and have enough assets to care for one's dependents after passing on, then an insurance policy would not necessarily be worthwhile. An insurance policy is a good thing to have when you haven't yet built up enough for your dependents to live on if you were to die an untimely death.I don't look at insurance as gambling, but as contingency planning. I'd much rather be in a position where I had an inheritance to pass on so that my fourteen year-old son wouldn't have to work the coal mines to be able to live in the style to which he is accustomed. :D--> But I'm not in that position at this time. If I was to die today, without insurance, those who depend on my financial support would suffer. Granted, the ideal situation would be to have enough in assets, whether real estate, cash, or what have you so that you could pay all your medical bills without insurance, cover any mishaps with your auto (Nebraska has the option that was mentioned about taking out a bond instead of insurance) or take care of your obligations in case of death. Until I get to that point, I'll have an insurance policy; having one doesn't mean that I'm betting that I'm going to die soon.

Socks: Martindale never specified what he thought that "the act" was that Eve and the Devil in the Blue dress engaged in. Nor did he specify whether Adam's "agreement" was that it was just okay for Eve to be bi, or that Adam wanted a hairy playmate for himself. And you don't need to be a Hebrew scholar to know that his definitions are bogus. Five minutes with a concordance will tell you that God was not looking at his creation with sexual desire when he "saw" it. Same with his crap about homonyms; you don't use the definition for one homonym to explain another. I think the nuns taught me that in fifth grade.

No, you are not :o-->Why is it that so many people accepted Wierwille's definitions in the PFAL class without question? Especially when TWI sold study aides that often contradicted what he said? Part of it IMHO is that he did a pretty good job of demonstrating that most churches were teaching other than what a plain reading of the bible would support. (Read what is written) In doing so he built a trust for what he said and a distrust of what others said. He dazzled us with b.s.

WElcome to the cafe Int'l Skier It's customary to actually read the threads, but to each his own. Hmmm...doubt it -->

Thanks house for the quotes - I added a few of my comments In 2001 I sent my analysis and comments to a member of the Board of Trustees who referred me to my Region Coordinator. TH, the Region guy, listened to what I had to say, then told me that "even if there isn't scripture to back up the teaching, it has to be true because of what we know about homosexuality".

Foghat was one of the bands that introduced me to the blues Rest in peace Rod

Did somebody call me? -->

HCW: My summary has been emailed to you.

Is it the law that you have to be a libertine there? Or is it just strongly encouraged?

I doubt that they believe it, but it's being taught. The wacky teaching is mainly supported by invented or twisted meanings of several Hebrew words. I don't have time right now HCW, but I'll email or private topic you the basics of that nonsense later - I really don't want to derail the thread or put anyone to sleep. :)-->