Oakspear

I started re-evaluating what I believed after the lawsuit announcement in 2000. Martindale's new doctrine's often had little visible support, so I began to look into them, at first using biblical research principles taught in PFAL. I found a lot of what I thought were errors. Eventually I began to find errors and inconsistancies in what Wierwille taught as well. The number of errors undermined any trust that I might have had in either man's ability to accurately teach the bible.

From what I've read and heard, some folks left TWI because someone wasn't "doing the Word". They left because the organization and/or its leaders weren't living up to "the standard". No change in belief system took place, other than believing that TWI was "where the Word was taught". Other folks left because they saw that TWI doctrine didn't line up with what they understood the bible to say. Still others were thrown out with no choice in the matter. For those who have changed their beliefs, how did the circumstances of your exit from TWI influence your subsequent religious/spiritual beliefs?

I believe it was '96 or '97

Well said FC, well said

Sounds like local companies to me. We've got Mobil, Shell and BP stations around here, but also Kwik Shop, Gas N Shop, Caseys, U-Stop which are basically convenience store companies. When I was a teenager I worked at a Getty station, but we got gas on the sly from other companies.

Why did they call it "Corps Night"? You were in the Corps, surrounded by other Corps, constantly doing the Corps program and getting Corps teachings, involved in the Corps work program. Was Wednesday night more Corpsish than the other six days?

But that is not what is being done. Wierwille's sins and abuses are not a pretext for throwing away what one perceives as truth, but a reason for doubting that everything that the man said was truth, for carefully examining what he taught, or starting afresh. You are either not understanding what people are saying, or you are deliberately twisting words, you certainly aren't accurately reflecting what the other side is saying...as WordWolf said, it's a strawman argument. One might say the same of those who unquestioningly hold to PFAL.

First of all, each one of us is "entitled", which I take to mean "has the right" (please correct me if I misunderstand you) to do what ever we want with what we learned in TWI for whatever reason we want. Frankly, I don't think God is overly concerned about where we learned what we believe. Second, I think that you're misunderstanding what people are saying about rejecting Wierwille and starting over. Rejecting Wierwille's teachings, or rejecting Wierwille and/or PFAL as a basis or source for truth, is not about a wholesale rejection of "truth", it's about finding "truth" independent of TWI. Some choose to "chuck it all" and start all over again. During this new search for "truth", anything that coincidently lines up with what Wierwille taught in PFAL is not thrown out again, but accepted, the fact that Wierwille also taught it is no longer relevant. The rejection is only permanant for those things that are not deemed to be true. It's similar with those who don't throw it all out, but examine carefully everything that Wierwille taught to determine its truthfullness, if something that Wierwille taught meets whatever criteria the individual sets, then it is retained, held fast, and again, the fact that Wierwille taught it is irrelevant. That's exactly what most, if not all those who have rejected Wierwille have done.

Well...yeah <_<

Same thing with any TWI musician, Dave Garibaldi, Billy Falcon...the TWI years are a blank spot on the ol' resume...not that I blame them

So, if there's not more than one WayD signup in a state, they can't go? We get the "stay in your own state" part ...what we don't get is what did TWI do if there was only one or two people from an area signed up? Did they get "sent" WayD solo? Did they have to wait until they could convince 3 other suckers to go? Did they have to move somewhere else? What year was this btw? I got out in late 2001. If I remember correctly, that year people stayed in their own regions, not necessarily their own states.

The reason I personally decided to just throw out the fish, to stick with the analogy that Oldiesman used, is that I can't trust the guy who cooked the fish. I personally do not think that everything that Wierwille taught was wrong, I haven't even given much thought to what percentage of it was wrong. The problem that I personally have with using Wierwille's teaching as a jumping off point and weeding through it trying to determine truth and error, is that so much of what he taught is dependent on other things that he taught, and that even many of our assumption about how to do biblical research are tangled up with Wierwille's errors. For example, the fundamental TWI understanding of the "manifestations" is tied up in Wierwille's questionable use of grammar, the whole concept of "to receive" is based on his faulty translations of Greek words, his explanation of believing vs. faith, on which so much Way theology is based, is wrong as well. It's the rare wayfer who has the wherewithal to do some actual biblical research, and to spot Wierwille's errors. Everyone who took PFAL and didn't leave the room during session accepted a lot because they trusted that Wierwille knew what he was talking about. I got to the point in my life where I no longer trusted that Wierwille knew what he what talking about.

Liberals couldn't vote? It is now 18-16 for ductape to leave.

I wish I were the note taker I knew to be

I understand them (as Whitey said...I wrote them, why wouldn't I?) I just don't always agree with them I never put notes directly into my bible margins. If I had notes that I wanted in there, I did it in pencil, so I could change them if I found out there was an error.

The "five sonship rights", as Wierwille called them, were Righteousness Justification Sanctification Redemption Ministry of Reconciliation Although nowhere do all five appear together, like, say, nine "manifestations", nine fruit of the spirit, or five "gift ministries, nor are they called "rights".

Why did he mention Stiles and Leonard and even sell Bullinger's books? I have no idea whatsoever. But just because you or I can't come up with a reason doesn't mean it wasn't plagiarism. In the case of How to Enjoy the Bible, many people did notice the similarity. The "company line" was that Wierwille came to the same conclusions independently. Maybe. I don't think so myself, but it's possible that he did come up with the similarities independently, I just don't think it is likely. The main reason I think that way is that there are several examples where Wierwille uses a concept from Bullinger to prove a point, except that it's a different point than the one that Bullinger was making. For example: Bullinger believed that the geneology in Matthew was Joseph's and that Jesus' claim to the throne of David was through his legal father, Joseph. Wierwille believed that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's (remember the teaching on the "mighty man", Joseph, the father of Mary?) Bullinger makes a point in the Companion Bible dismissing the theory that "The Lord's Brethren" couldn't have been Joseph's sons by a previous marriage, because that would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David if there had been older brothers. Wierwille, in his chapter in The Word's Way called "The Lord's Brethren" makes the same point about the existance of Joseph's children from an earlier marriage invalidating Jesus' royal claim, even though Wierwille believed that Jesus' royal claim was through Mary. He was obviously copying concepts straight out of Bullinger's works without always understanding the point that Bullinger was making. As far as Stiles and Leobard goes, there is enough documentation available, especially over at Juedes' site, that Wierwille copied them virtually word-for-word. Why he would do this and then mention them, opening himself up for plagiarism charges mystifies me. But its hard to argue that he didn't plagiarize when you see the words side by side like that

Thanks everyone...I'll make sure that she sees this

I for one "pounce" on irrelevancies to 1)Get the topic back on track and 2)To point out how an opponent in an argument is using a flawed argument"Hows come"?

Okay, so your whole family "got born again" in PFAL; a rough estimate of my experience is that 90% already were "born again" when they came in contact with TWI. Which of our experiences should be taken as representative? What success? There are individual churches, even here in Nebraska, who have more members than whole regions of TWI had in its heyday. And the outreach success that he did have was mre the result of people like Donnie Fugit, Steve Heefner and Jim Doop. The latter two at least were having great success before they ever heard of Wierwille or PFAL. many of us came from churches where this was true, certainly, but to think that Wierwille was all that unique is wrong. Again, it depends on the church, but Wierwille sure wanted us to thaink that it was the case. Wierwille taught us a pseudo-scholarly approach. His methods were sloppy, his definitions were contrived, and despite his protestations to the contrary, his conclusions were pre-decided.

Nice variation on the ad hominem attack!

B.G. Leonard was in an ivory tower? At one time that might have been true, but many churches have taught their people many of the fundamentals of research that it seemed like only PFAL was teaching 30 years ago.

I'm just guessing here, but maybe the need to post their experience repeatedly would not be necessary if others didn't deny such things happened.

the playing field is level...your team just has less players Thank God we have johniam to "clock them like they deserve" Ah...a manly man! Thank you Moe.

How can it, when you've already made up your mind? You don't care!