Oakspear

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.

:D

WD, callous, drowning in his own righteousness? :huh: Sorry guys and gals, I don't see it. These days when I see posts by those who still agree with what they were taught in PFAL I see folks who have just made a decision to go a different route than I did. To them, there are parts that are worth hanging on to. I disagree, but I don't ahve to live their lives and they don't have to live mine. And Whitey, while, from an inerrant bible point of view, getting it right is important, and some might say crucial, I suspect that it was the "be right at the expense of the love of God" attitude that prevailed in some quarters that is the problem. Nothing wrong with being right, nothing wrong with shaking things up some of the time, but sometimes being right just isn't that important. An imperfect example might be that I believe that proper grammar facilitates good communication and that an extensive vocabulary enriches it. That doesn't mean that I'm going to correct my wife's grammar if she doesn't pronounce a word correctly. I think it's that level of nit picking that folks are talking about. One thing that I noticed during my time in TWI (or rather see in retrospect): if a person was strong enough to withstand the crap, they often had an influence on those around them, especially if those around them were of like mind. A personal committment to God or to love those around them put up a kind of wall about them. They were like islands in the river of muck. It was when the scales tipped the other way (boy I am mixing my metaphors :B) ) that things got too bad to take and people left. It's why we have GSers who left at all different periods of TWI history, and it all seemed like the right time to each.

Clout? What do you mean? Here's what I said: You said what you said, you're obviously not ashamed of what you said, so what's the problem? You and I disagree on most things on this board, not all, but most. I won't bring up your opinion about the appropriateness of "clocking" people, specifically women, if it has nothing to do with what you're talking about, but will if I believe that it is relevant. Yes, I feel "entitled" to do that. Any problem with that John?

Most of you guys know that I'm not a Christian, and don't celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus; I don't have a lot of patience for the faction that calls for boycotting stores that have "Holiday" sales instead of "Christmas" sales. There's a lot of holidays around this time of year, including Hanukah, and Midwinter (aka Yule, aka Winter Solstice)...but this is too much. Our company has always had a "Holiday" party for all employees, usually in mid-January, since, as a retail grocery chain, we're busiest in November & December. They've never made it a "Christmas" party per se, i.e. they've never made the small minority of non-Christians uncomfortable in the slightest, despite the owners being religious Christians. This year the name of the event was changed to the "Annual Party". One of the memos that went out bout it mentioned that it was not a religious-themed event, so no calling it a "Holiday" party. How freakin' ridiculous!

Bumpy, are you coming out of the closet?

Nathan, I forgive you