Oakspear

Someone mentioned about thinking that some of those passing around information on the crap were "possesed". For some, the source of the information could taint how it was received. Since I was not involved from 1983-1990, I missed the uproar that accompanied Chris Geer's pronouncements, Lynn and Dubosfsky's paper, John Schoenheit's firing and all the rest. In late 1990, I was thinking of getting back involved so that my kids could take PFAL. Despite being "out" for seven years, we had not moved away from Wierwille's teachings. My "outie" sources for information were not in my mind very reliable. One was a woman I had known since my WOW year who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag, whose opinion was usually formed by the last person she had talked to. She and her husband didn't have enough brain cells between them to register on a postal scale. Another was my old WOW coordinator who I had little respect for because of his own abuses during our WOW year. Others were similarly unreliable in my mind. So I was left mainly with the company line: Martindale's "Galatians Tapes", aka "Leaders Tapes I & II", which I took shortly after getting back "in". The twig coordinators who were left in Nebraska were seemingly intelligent, and I was fooled by what I heard and saw. I did not know any of the other folks who had left, so I couldn't talk to them. Of course it was verboten to discuss any of this stuff with "the believers" at that point. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Rascal: Good point. I think your experience was more a function of the time that you got out. From what you and others who got out when you did have told me, the reasons were primarily practical error, rather than doctrinal. The meltdown following POP, Martindale's demand that everybody line up behind him, right or wrong, so many other things. Those of us who stayed in (or first got involved) after the mass exodus in the late 80's either didn't know about the practical error and abuses, didn't care, or rationalized them away somehow. So, if we got out, it was more likely to involve doctrinal questioning as well as questioning Martindale's behavior that led to the lawsuit. (This is all from my perspective and personal observation only!) The M&A class of 2001 had access to the internet and read about abuses going back years, and werea ble to view or participate in threads questioning the doctrinal basis of many of the Way's beliefs In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

We were at a live "Rise & Expansion" class taught by T*m M*llins. At lunch we all ate together in one of the hotel dining rooms. T*m was at the head table, and shortly after he finished his meal, lit up a smoke. Smokers all over the room looked to their table hosts and hostesses (I was one) for guidance on smoking availability. I figured (as did others) that if Reverand Grand Poobah M*llins was puffing, so could we, so we asked the waiter for some ashtrays and fired 'em up. Before we could say "Winston tastes good...like a cigarette should" we were getting yelled at for smoking. Grand exalted Region Coordinator could smoke, because he was the man of God and had the privelege of doing whatever he needed to do to be his best for teaching the Word. WE shouldn't have lit up. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Happy Birthday bro' See ya at next year's Roast In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

My branch coordinator who wondered aloud if the words diamond and daimon were related. Same branch coordinator who berated my son (then in his early 20's) for being in debt because he had to pay in to the IRS rather than receiving a refund. I was asked to instruct some of the younger wayfers on voting procedures (some would be voting for the first time). Some of the things that I discussed were who could vote in the primaries and the meaning of several propositions and referenda. As I was explaining the language in Proposition #4, my ex-wife interrupts with "...and we all know what the number four means, don't we?", and went off on an explanation of the biblical significance of "four". In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I got "in" in 1978. In early 1983 I got in several arguments with the Limb Coordinator and his wife and stopped going for about seven years. Got back "in" in 1990. Almost left again in the late 90's after the Branch Coordinator yelled at my wife and I yelled at him. My wife made it clear that she would not back me up and that she wanted to stay "in" no matter what. Was put on probation for six months in 1999. Got back "in" in late 1999. Started questioning practice and then doctrine after the lawsuit was announced in 2000. I started drifting away over the next year and a half. My wife would not listen to my concerns and stayed in when I was finally trhrown out in August 2001. Even though I was thrown out, and did not leave under my own steam, it was not all that traumatic, since in my heart I had been out for a long time. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Galen: TWI maintained that all twigs were "self supporting, self governing, and self propogating". (I know it was a crock, but that's what they said. When you make the statement that you were in a "self supporting" twig, are you making a distinction between them and other types of twigs? Interesting about the marriage thing. I knew of several non-ordained or non-Way Corps who performed Way weddings. Our Limb Coordinator in Nebraska in the mid-nineties did one wedding that I know of; when in New York in the late 70's, a the twig leader of an Hispanic twig did a wedding as well. I had never heard of anyone refusing to marry non-Corps, except for your story. Jumpo through hoops and "counselling", yes, but outright refusal, no. Goes to show you how things often would vary depending on what area you were in and who your "leaders" were. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

WN: You've come a long way, baby! Life is great, ain't it? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I'll be in lower NY sometime next summer, but it won't be a surprise, so maybe I can hook up wit' some a youse N'Yawkahs :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

We had a surprise birthday party for my mom today...she was really surprised since her birthday is actually December 25th! But it was one of those birthdays that end in zero (I won't be more specific in case mom wants to lie about her age)and this was the only weekend we could get everybody here! All mom's children, most of her grandchildren and nieces and nephews made it, as did her sister and several friends. Several of us had to be hidden at relatives houses Friday so as not to give it away; I couldn't even post that I was in New York because Mom reads the forums! So I'm back in my native land until Monday afternoon. Sorry I couldn't meet with any NY GSers, but everything was top secret! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Isn't the follow up "Okay, you can owe me", by Rodney Dangerfield's character? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son" Dean Wurmer to "Flounder" in Animal House In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

"I think you misundahstood him" Julia to Satch in Frequency after Satch relays Julia's husband's story of talking to their thirty-years-in-the-future son on a ham radio In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

"I'm here to kick @$$ and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum" Roddy Piper in They Live In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Whoa... I usually don't agree with Oldies on anything, but don't you think he is getting a bum rap here? He's not saying that God will excuse or forgive anything that TWI did, just that God will take care of an individual who was hurt deeply by them. It's a statement about God, not TWI! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Actually Martindale was in FCA when in college. I believe he was a big wheel in KU's FCA chapter, perhaps the president. Did FCA use the athlete of the spirit as a metaphor for a Christian? Or did they use the popularity of athletes to further the Christian message? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

When we are discussing Wierwille's plagerism, supporters of the godliness and "accuracy" of PFAL itself often chime in with "reminders" that Wierwille's plagerism does not affect the content of the class itself. That isn't the issue. The supposeded accuracy and godly worth of PFAL isn't what is being addressed when allegations of plagerism come up. The point of spotlighting plagerism by Wierwille is to show how this reflects on his character, not his self-proclaimed research skills. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

As I recall, JCING was footnoted, crediting authors such as Hislop, who wrote The Two babylons. Some chapters were published before being included in JCING, such as the pamphlet One God which became the chapter on John chapter one, after having been included in The Word's Way. I concur with the remarks about a "research team". Compare the writing style of the early collaterals to JCING, Jesus Christ Our Passover and Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I enjoyed Matrix I, once I willingly suspended disbelief regarding the "humans as a power source" plot device, it was actually quite enjoyable and pretty much internally consistant. It is a big hole to ignore though, it requires one to assume that nuclear, solar and fossil fuel power are no longer available. The machines seem able to build and drill, so why not? They never really address reproduction either. When people meet, marry and reproduce in the matrix, do the machines extract genetic material from each to start a new human? Matrix II was so confusing that I left the theater twice not sure what it was all about. The addition of apparently benevolent programs like The Oracle and The Keymaker, and independent programs like the Merovingian and his spook and vampire cronies, made things a bit interesting, but the whole conversation at the end of Reloaded with the Architect had me saying "huh?". In Matrix III at least we found out who Bane was. Although I must have missed any explanation as to how the Smith program (was he actually a virus?) "possessed" Bane. I also must have missed any explanation as to how Neo could stop the sentinels and "see" after being blinded. Superhuman feats made sense in the matrix, since they were, after all, just the manipulation of perceptions, but what explained the suspension of the laws of physics in the "real" world. At the end of Matrix II I thought maybe that they were actually still in the matrix, fooled into thinking they were in the real world. A third thing I must have slept through was any mention of a "machine city" prior to Neo's announcing that he was going there. What was that face formed from the swarming sentinels? Was that the Architect? Some things that I did like: The scene where the sentinels are flying in formation through the breaches in Zions roof; the fire and gloomy lighting was evocative of demons swarming through hell. The whole concept of Smith taking over the matrix one being at a time, absorbing both programs and people. The tableau just before the final fight where Neo and Smith approach each other in the pouring rain. It was interesting how the only way to defeat the machines was to unite against a common enemy; but the machines still retain the upper hand. When Neo was blinded, yet could still "see", was I the only one who remembered Herbert's Dune Messiah? Muad'Dib!!!!! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Always enjoy the Christian vs. Agnostic sparring...missed ya at the Weenie Roast In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I'm having a rough week :(--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

What? The story of how Wierwille did a hostile takeover of the Way East and the Way West has never been posted here before? Heefner and Doop were heading up independent corporations using the PFAL class and running fellowships in California and New York respectively. They had a separate set of Trustees or Directors. I don't remember all the details, but Wierwille managed to set things up so that he was in control of both organizations, folding them into the Way International. He saw how others were having sucess using his stuff...if he was that much of a control freak, does anyone think that he would have stood still if unauthorized people were printing copies of PFAL, or even just parts of it and putting their own names on it? Of course not! The remarks about plagerizing from Karl were supposed to be humorous!!!! --> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

that was the initial reason...now I'm just being contrary. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Nah, I don't want to plagerize Karl K. :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

It is not arguable that large parts of Mr. Wierwille's early work was identical or nearly so to the works of other authors. Okay, it now looks like there is no argument about whether Mr. Wierwille actually read the works of others before compiling his own works. It certainly is a documented fact that Wierwille and a few others attended Leonard's class in Canada. There doesn't seem to be an argument about whether or not Wierwille's actions meet the legal definition of plagerism. The only argument that I can discern is whether it was important or not. Whether Wierwille should or should not be held to the same standards as everyone else. Whether Wierwille's wholesale copying of others' works was done at the behest of God, or in order to line his own pockets. When's one's unshakeable premise is that PFAL is the new Word of God, and that virtually everything done to bring it forth was justified, then nothing else matters. When one has a somewhat open mind, one can more easily accept that things may not have been as they appear. Roy brought up a good point: If someone had taken Wierwille's work and repackaged it under a different name, how would Wierwille have responded? Never mind hypotheticals, look how he did respond to independent groups (the Way East, the Way West and the Way of Australia) running classes that he had no direct control over? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear