Oakspear

The same BC that I mentioned earlier decided that bedtime for chldren should involve nothing but sleep and reproved us for allowing our kids to take a book to bed every night. It did a lot of damage to our children's enthusiasm for reading. The whole "decent and in order" mindset was also taken to extremes. We homeschooled six children of various ages. Our living room and dining room was the school room, complete with school desks for the younger ones, filing cabinets with lessons and cardboard boxes of books, maps and reference materials. Nope, everything had to be put away, no boxes stacked in the corner, everything "decent & in order". Also, set times for "school" had to be scheduled, which is fine for a traditional school, but doing things differently than public schools is kind iof the point of home schooling. The result was that instead of wandering over to a map of colonial North America, or finishing a math problem after dinner, it became a lot of work to get everything repeatedly set up and actual lesson time decreased.

No simple answer. I think that for most new people, no matter when they got involved, the legalism wouldn't seem to be present, partly because they didn't know what legalism was, and the expectations for newbies was lower. In my observation the legalism got more extreme as time went by, but that might have been my perception due to an increasing dissatisfaction. One thing that I've noticed here at GS is that no matter what time frame one poster views as an ideal time, someone else was just getting out because things were getting bad. I got involved in 1978 and thought things were pretty good, but I've talked to people who got out then who were convinced that it had all gone to h#ll long before that. A lot of people who got in when I did looked back at the early 70's as a time when things were really hot spiritually, but there were a few posters a few years back who were out by '73, swearing that it had all fallen apart by then. And we've got people here who got involved in the early 90's and thought things were okay then! The individuals and local leaders that one was surrounded by made the biggest difference of all.

I think that this one came straight from Martindale. "If it's cold enough for a coat, it's cold enough for a hat."

I think everybody 'gets it" as you say, not everyone agrees with you, my southern neighbor, as to the application of what you say. Focussing on one statement of yours "it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction." - no, it may be mistaken, but it's not dishonest. In my opinion the use of the word "alleged" in the media is often a weasel word which allows folks to say that somebody is guilty while remaining "allegedly" neutral. Right, until objective evidence has been presented in a court of law and a conviction handed down, an individual is not legally guilty of anything. Outside of a court, we all have our own threshholds regarding what we consider convincing. One might require police reports and forensics to be convinced that an incident took place, another might only require the word of a trusted associate, another might believe every rumor that comes down the pike. True, accusations that are not objectively verified cannot be called "proof" or "truth" in the sense that there is no longer an argument about their veracity. But we are all free to accept something as true ever without objective verification. Most of what TWI's leaders have been accused of will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because the accustaions aren't true? Maybe, but more likely because Wierwille is dead, statues of limitations have run out, accusers lack the time or resources to go to court or have even put it behind them, deeming it not worth the effort. Lacking legal resolution, what we are left with is our own opinion of what happened, or in some cases, our own memory of what happened. While I think that you should be able to express your doubt about the veracity of some accusations, expecting others to conform to legal standards when expressing their opinions, or even relating what happened to them is a bit much. ...allegedly

This site is too negative? Yeah, sometimes we do focus on the negatives, but if we don't, who will? Other than John Juedes, who tells the other side? The only "other side" sites I have run into have been run by anti-cult types who often get basic facts wrong and are clearly pushing an "orthodox" agenda. Do the pro-Wierwille, pro-PFAL people have a place here? Do those who wax nostalgic about "the good ol' days" contribute? In my opinion they do, if only to demonstrate that we are not afraid to admit that good things happened, good people were involved, and some of what was taught was good too. So why is the general atmosphere sometimes perceived as negative? Because the positive side of TWI, Wierwille and PFAL is portrayed very effectively by TWI itself, and to a lesser extent in some offshoots. The "good" has many outlets, many places were it is trumpeted, not so "the other side". While on Grease Spot Mike can extol the virtues of getting back to PFAL, Jonny Lingo remember his fun in the Corps and White Dove can hector us about the difference between "TRUTH" and opinion, when you go to the TWI site, Family Tables, the new Way Corps reunion site or any other that lean toward the "positive", nothing critical is even allowed. Maybe we could also have a separate forum where negative aspects of PFAL and the bad doctrine that we were taught could be discussed without the usual "harassments," then that would be nice for some of those others who "faithfully" stay away from here.By harassments, I mean endless distractions to anything negative about PFAL and constant focus on debunking sex and plagiarisms and mental manipulations.

Many of us can think of things that never appeared in a class, never was written in a syllabus or Way Magazine, never was taught by Wierwille or Martindale publically (other than closed meetings maybe) yet were passed off as "The Word" by local leaders or even groups of "believers". We can argue until the cows come home about whether these things were "official" Way doctrine or were sanctioned by whoever the President was at the time, but one thing is true: the expectation in TWI was that leaders be obeyed and leaders were almost always backed up by higher leadership when complaints were lodged. Your choices were to obey the leadership and put up with their crap or leave. I'd just as soon avoid the argument about whether we were "forced" to do anything, just talk about some of the things that were put out there as if they were revelation from Gawd, yet originated merely between the ears of the "leaders". One I can think of was the ridiculous lengths that one particular BC went to in defining "debt". My son was at the time working two lowing-paying part-time jobs, the income level at each was low enough that there was no federal tax withheld, but if the combined income had been earned at one job, there probably would have been some withholding. The result was that when he did his taxes he owed some money, maybe about $150. (He was about 20 at the time. Now a few years before, Howard Allen talked about how he thought it was preferable to break even, or even owe a little a tax time, since that would prevent the IRS from holding your money all year at zero interest to you, which is what happens when you get a refund. When my son mentioned that he owed some money to the IRS, Mr. BC sat him down and strongly reproved him for being in debt (this was at the height of the Martindale anti-debt crusade). This was presented as handed-down-from-the-heavens Word O'Gawd. Another one was the same BC's insistance that everyone have a nice looking car. At the time I had 6 children living at home and wasn't making a heck of a lot of money. We had 2 cars, one a small car that I used for work (I was on the road and out of town a lot) and a second, a fake wood-sided wagon for hauling the kids around in that I had paid $500 for. We were saving up every month to upgrade and figured that we could get a nicer one in 18 months. Mr. BC insisted that the state of our car was violating the admonistion to "do all things decent and in order" and that we needed to get the car painted. <_< He harrassed us regularly about it. neither of these things per se were TWI doctrine, but the TWI annointed leader said these things with the full force of TWI behind him

Let's define what we mean by "elitism" and explain why we think that it's bad. Merrian-EWebster online defines it thusly: Okay, so the elite are those who are special either by way of their abilities or their position, possibily by accident of birth (although this is not specifically stated in the definition). Elitism is either the rule by the elite or the belief or recognition that one belongs to that special class, the implication being that those outside the special class are inferior, i.e. not special in some fashion. I think that one way of looking at Christian belief is the belief that Christians are an elite, but an elite that anyone can join. Sure, some Christians look down on the "unbelievers" or even the "differently-believing" as outside their special circle, as inferior or lacking in some way, but they generally believe that anyone can join their club, anyone can be a Christian. One is not barred by birth or finances or intelligence from being in the elite. I think that most religions have this mindset, or even the non-religious, not just Christians. Is there anything wrong with believing oneself to be part of an elite? Probably not, unless the majority begins to use their elitism to oppress the minority or squeeze them out somehow. The diference between religious based elitism and professional or skill based elitism, is that the religious based only makes sense within the context of the belief system and not in the larger world.

I disagree

What do you think? There are a wide variety of opinions here at GS, some well thought out and some not, some biblical, some not. Some posters have retained a belief in large amounts of what Wierwille taught and some have thrown out everything he taught. Some of us have even (gasp) decided that the bible is no longer our "rule of faith and practice". For every single thing that you brought up, there are reasonable people who believe both sides and can eloquently argue their position. My advice, for what it's worth, is to critically examine everything that you were taught and reevaluate it, even the basics, like is there a God and is the bible divinely inspired. Whatever answers that you end up with will be worth much more because they will be yours.

Is that in the bible anywhere, or is it one of those folk sayings or aphorisms that become part of culture? I have found it as part of the Wiccan/Pagan "rule of three" where you reap 3x what you sow.

TWI talked out of both sides of their collective mouth on this issue. they wanted to participate in the cultural fun and games, but pretend like they weren't observing the day. Same as Halloween. I recall hearing Bill Gr**ne talking about the kids going out "Bless or Treat" on Halloween. At least the JW's are consistant in maintaining their stance of no holiday observances.

Actually, they're second person accounts if you're referring to I Corinthians 15:6 and assuming that each of the five hundred personally told Paul. It wouyld only be 500 first person accounts if each of those 500 had written down what he had seen.

DWBH: There are indeed gaps in Dorothea Wierwille's accounts in her book, some of which you know of personally. However, as an officially sanctioned TWI publication, the negative things that are in it are priceless gems, simply because it was from a "friendly witness" who TWI would not dare to impeach. Similar things can be said about The Way: Living in Love and VP & Me where telling information cam be gleaned from all the happy-talk.

What difference does it make if something was "Way Doctrine" or just a "TVT", or somebody's opinion or whatever? Things were taught under the authority of The Way International and in general the Board of Trustees did little if anything to stop these supposed unauthorized teachings from being deseminated. For all practical puroses it was "Way doctrine" if it was widely taught in Way fellowships. One of the problems with The Way is that errors were seldom, if ever, owned up to. If something was "unofficially" making the rounds and the BOT wanted to put a stop to it, did they come out on a Sunday tape or in the Way Magazine, admit that error was being taught and correct it? No way; at best they'd correct the Way Corps or Limb Coordinators and really push the corrected version. If you were in an area where the "wrong" version had been taught, you might scratch your head and wonder why all of a sudden there was an emphasis on a seemingly minor topic. Another thing to consider is that not every thing can be covered in a class. Much of what was taught "on the field" was practical application of the basics that were taught in PFAL and the other classes. Leaders were appointed to positions of responsibility because they could be trusted to push the party line and faithfully interpret the dogma. To suggest that things routinely escaped the notice of the BOT is just not plausible IMHO. Frankly, despite his careful avoidance of the words "liar", "lies" and other loaded expressions, IMHO White Dove is suggesting that some of what is being said here is not an accurate representation of what happened. So what? If you know it happened, why care about what my southern neighbor thinks or says? But he does bring up some good points. Human memory is fallible. We simply don't always remember what was said with 100% accuracy. Our memory is clouded by juxtoposition of similar events and by our prejudices, either at the time or in retrospect. That doesn't mean that sometimes we can't recall with photographic precision, only that it's not likely and certainly not guaranteed. Here's a real-life example. During the waning days of my first marriage my ex-wife and I were coninually arguing. One evening I was asking some questions about some things that were going on that week. My ex- asked me why I was asking so many questions, my response was "I live here, I'm asking questions because I want to know what going on", a few days later, as she related the conversation to our fellowship coordinator, she "remembered" me answering "This is my house, I'll ask the questions here". Similar words, completely different meaning. Apparently she had already decided that my attitude and demeanor were negative and "remembered" the words in a way that backed up her preconceived notion. I'm not saying that much of what is being reported here didn't happen, there are too many stories from too many sources for it all to be a misunderstanding IMHO, but for someone who didn't experience the negatives to the same extent, it can seem unbelievable.

It's like trying to copyright the name "Jesus" or "Christian" IMO.

The owner of the site states "telling the other side" as his goal, but it is certainly not the goal of everyone here. Supporters of Wierwille, PFAL and TWI doctrine have an outlet here that thsoe who are against Wierwille, PFAL and TWI do not have on pro-TWI sites. IMHO in the "larger scheme" minority status is only assumed because most places that I've seen don't allow negative comments about TWI.

Okay fine. What's your point. Someone says something happens and you say that it's not documented, and documentable. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not say that your statements imply anything. So..what exactly is your point of your statement? Why say it in the context of people making negative statements about TWI?

Quick everyone! Let's jump on the time machine! We've gots-ta get video evidence to make some people happy! Oh! And DNA! Because we totally can't prove nuthin' without it. Thems are facts! Because until then the victims are like robbers! ... I've come to the conclusion that no one here needs to prove themselves to you. It's not like talking to you is going to help you reach some sort of enlightenment. Half the time I wonder if you guys are just trolls rubbing your paws together and enjoying the way people jump like you know they will. Drama cows to be milked. I'm embarassed that I even replied... like I am replying now. Damn! XP So anyways... spouse abuse is bad... m'kay? treating your wife or husband like garbage is bad too. Where is that ignore button? Just in case... WD, if you consider what we say just our opinion, why does it bother you so much that we speak? amongst the group that actually experienced this stuff, it's more than an opinion and you actually don't HAVE to comment when we share our experiences. why are you compelled to lecture whenever someone didn't take appropriate action in YOUR opinion? Maybe the teachers didn't actually say "submit or die" but the implications were surely there. This is a topic that I'm thankful is being discussed. If I've gotten it correct, it's supposed to be about helping people deal with offences. I don't care if the offense is new or 20 years old, if someone is hurting they deserve to be helped through it. White dove, your posts have been very counterproductive as far as anything good being accomplished. Quit forcing hurt people to defend the very fact that they're hurt. I don't know what kind of mindset would lead you to take a lawyer-like approach in an open setting like this where we can verify virtually nothing anybody is saying, but it is very off track with the stated purpose of this topic. PLEASE WHITE DOVE, EITHER HELP PEOPLE OR BE QUIET.

Since there's some question as to what White Dove actually said, here are all of his posts on this thread since the argument started. I have not included quotes from people who he is responding to in all cases...too much work Oh, PS: The timeline for the submissive stuff I was taught was 1993-96. It was a big whoopty-do at the time and even earlier, when LCM was blaming wives for taking their husbands out of the ministry. ummm... could that be because this is the most prominent ex-way site? ...could that be because others are still bound by fear of reprisal should they speak up? It's 'of no profit' to waste time with you and the other veepee worshipers! Do you think everyone who comes here everyday that has something bad to say about TWI is lying? Just a wondering.

the poster isn't saying that all women nag, but that woemen who do nag do it for the stated reason in the psoters opinion. Nagging could constitute verbal abuse, but not necessarily, not even usually. It could and most often does refer to repeatedly bringing up the same subject. On more than one occassion my wife "nagged" me to see a doctor about certain symptoms that I was having. In each case she turned out to be right and I didn't see it until I finally gave in and went. You're assigning a definition to "nagging" that few, if any of us accept; I'd like to see a show a hands of those who think that nagging to the point of verbal abuse is unequivocally okay...doubt that I'll see any hands...no one is saying that abuse perpetrated by women is okay; it is you, who have defined abuse in a certain way who have twisted others' words to make them say that. Wrong. The poster was giving a reason why women who nag, nag. That doesn't mean that it's right, but there's always a reason. And you can say "men usually hit because..." because there are reasons why. That doesn't make any of those reasons right or excusable. No one admitted that.What I see when I see or hear about someone (man or woman) whose response to words is to hit someone, I see someone who doesn't have enough brain cells to register on a postal scale, who lacks the simple language skills to sucessfully parry a verbal "attack", that they physically attack those who are weaker than them. These brave souls usually don't have the guts to go around "clocking" those who are bigger and stronger, only the smaller and more physically helpless. (Kind of like how the PETA folks throw paint on the fur-wearing little old ladies but somehow shy away from the leather clad Hell's Angels <_< ) Yeah, there's always a "reason" to do something stupid.

It was one of those things, IIRC, that VP said real fast, like when he said that they broke the legs of the guys on the cross "so that they wouldn't run away" in PFAL, so you couldn't analyze it too closely.

No, I don't want to shut you up. Letting you talk is often the easiest way to show how weak and illogical your arguments usually are. Shutting you up is the last thing that I want to do.

One of my colleagues suggested that since it's not a "holiday" party we should move it to September when we don't have to drive on icy roads.

Is that a euphemism?

I await with bated breath the rationalization and justification.