Goey

Posted By Oldies: This presumes that Craig was "standing on the word". He wasn't. If there was godly action here , it was by those who chose to separate themselves from Craig and from those who mistakenly chose to give loyalty to a man that was "off the beam" . This was not Biblical peace. It was simply the absence of folks who dared to speak the truth to those who refused to hear it. Quiet maybe - but not necessarily godly. With the enlighted folks gone it might have seemed "peaceful". Kinda like when you run off a prophet who is nagging you to get back on the ball. The lack of legalism may have been seemingly true for your area, but it was not in others. PFAL is not the word. The fact that PFAL classes were running does not indicate that the "Word was moving". Any "word" that moved was a credit to the Wows themselves, not to Martindale or TWI Inc. Running PFAL classes ( the primary objective of the WOW program), is not equivalent to "moving the word". Filling the pews with ABSing believers is not a measure of Christian success. Returning to the perceived lesser of two evils should not be construed as godly. But it does speaks loudly as to the level of indoctrination many folks were exposed to in TWI. One false dilema was that folks may have thought to chose between either Martindale or Geer. Another may have been either stand with God via loyalty to Martindale or ---------- ( fill in the blank). Where where you, in a cave? Possibly that's because you were a part of the growing legalism problem and you refuse to admit it to yourself. Maybe that simply applied to your area. In any case that is your perception of your own experience. Many others had much different experiences during that same period, yet you do not include their experiences in your assement of things. How objective is that? . The sum of things related to TWI does not revolve soley around your experience. When you ignore and deny the experiences and testimonies of others and only assess VPW, LCM and TWI based upon your own perception of your own experiences, you are in effect trying to speaking for others. It is foolish and intellectually dishonest. If folks were to listen to you, anyone who left TWI before you, left too early. And anyone who stayed longer, left too late. Seems kinda skewed and arrogant to me. If folks listen to you, TWI was fine and dandy ( except a few minor problems) then all of a sudden one day *poof* it got all legalistic and mean. Let me guess, that was the day that you left or got kicked out. This is your revisonist history that denies the experiences of others. The seeds for these doctrines and practices were planted well before 1993.

Sorry for the derail. I just get all warm and fuzzy and excited when I read that. :lol: I am glad you do. But do you get the same warm fuzzies from the paragraphs that followed that one in that very same post? - Interestingly, the topic was the same as this one, but was back in March 2004. for the record, here is that entire post of mine. Still all wam and fuzzy?

It has been told to me by quite a few folks that they replied to the letter with something like: I will stand with you as long as you stand on the word. Aparantly this was not good enough as Martindale dismissed these folks from staff. Why?

His documented actions indicate otherwise. God does forgive those who are truly repentant. Craig's actions ( not his words) did not indicate change/ repentance. Moving the word? From my prospective, TWI as an organization was never really involved in "moving the word". It was more about building an empire. I think we are dealing more in what was likely than what is absolute fact in regards to reasons and motives. Based upon the context and history of TWI, VPW, Martindale and Geer, and upon my consideration of eye-witness accounts from what I believe to be reliable sources, I think it is very likely much closer to what I have laid out than what you have suggested. So he said. A perogative that I freely exercise.

Yeah, I have. However this is based upon yet another one of VPWs blunders with Greek. VPW taught that "saved" was translated from the Greek "sozo". Then he taught that sozo came from the Greek root word "zoe" meaning life in its fullest. He then relates that to "wholeness" . Then he fits that in with his formed, made & created / body, soul, and spirit theory. The final result being, saved means receiving the holy spirit and thus becoming body, soul and spirit once more ( the spirit being missing previously). So then according to VPW a person is saved/made whole when he/she receives the spirit. The problem with this is that sozo - (saved) DOES NOT come from the Greek "zoe" as VPW errantly taught. Sozo comes instead from the primary Greek "sos" a contraction for the obsolete obsolete saoz, "safe". VPW foisted the Greek and then forced a new meaning on sozo so that his definition of salvation would fit neatly in with body, soul, spirit. He also misunderstood why the King James translated sozo "made/make whole"in regards to physical healing. Salvation is from the Greek "soter" , which has a common root with sozo (saved). However neither of these Greek words is related to "zoe" or to wholeness. Wierwille was dead wrong in his definition of saved/salvation. (Raf, was sozo / zoe covered in actual errors ? It may not be in PFAL but I do recall it in one of the collaterals I think.)

Ok, the context. Let's see now. An abusive and ungodly religious leader attempting to maintain control of a corrupt multimillion dollar religious organization, while keeping it out of the control or another abusive and ungodly religious leader who would have it for himself to control. Future actions speak loudly as the to motivation behind previous actions. Ignoring them is foolish. That's not surprising at all. So you say.

Could it be that this was becasue Geer himself was a former front man for VPW's and possibly LCM's sexual escapades? It would have been in both Geer's and LCM's best interests to supress or keep this kind of stuff quiet. I heard quite a bit in the mid/late - late 70s and early 80's about sexual "misconduct" at HQ. Only it was represented to me as "freedom in Christ" or meeting the needs of the MOG. I heard rumors of orgies/ wife swapping between the higher ups at HQ as early as 77 or 78. More freedom in Christ.

That one sentence was the crux of your mockery. I actually don't give a rat's a$$ what YOU think of me Oldies. You are one of the very few here who constantly and falsely portrays folks who want to expose TWI as full of hate. You need a new routine, that one is getting lame. It's a start. . So this is what you really meant to say? Could have fooled me.

Posted by Oldiesman: That's just brilliant Oldies. Anger and hate are the only reasons for lawsuits. How did you get so smart? Maybe that's how you operate Oldies, but don't project your ignorance on the rest of humanity. Oldies, don't you think that crimes should be punished or that scam artists should be held accountable? Do you think a corrupt and harmful organization should be allowed to operated freely? Is wanting a corrupt organization dismantled so that no one else can be harmed or defrauded a hateful thing? It is only hateful to someone with a twisted sense of right and wrong - someone who blames the victims instead of the purpertrators, someone who rejects the truth to support the lie. Someone like you. You are pathetic.

I am not convinced that there is a particular "formula" for eternal life, salvation, or the other things of God . The scriptures don't seem to offer any specific formulas. Formulas are prety much human invention born of a scientific society/mindset that is focused upon accuracy and exactness based upon a need for the guarantee of success - many times at the expense of love, faith and service. I see no such mindset in the scriptures, but I do see it in much of modern Christianity. We have so-called biblical "formulas" for, salvation, eternal life, how to get rich, how to get prayers answered, etc. I would think that if God would have wanted us to simply follow "formulas", He would have clearly laid them out for us. God is an entity, a Person if you will, (no I am not trinitarian) He is not a doctrine or a system that is accessed or manipulated via formulas. I believe that access to God and the things of God is through a personal relationship with Him, guided by faith and the Holy Spirit rather than by formulas or so-called spirtual-laws.

It was a combination of personal meddling, the smug elitist attitude of many Way Corps, advancing legalism, and the focus on money. This was in 1982. Oh and "Athletes of the Spirit". That made me want to puke if not run for the hills.

Southern Gentleman, Welcome to the Cafe. Heres a tip: If you hit your enter key every once in a while you can make paragraphs that will make your posts less difficult to read. I am sure you will get get some takers on this. Many of us had some good times while involved in TWI. I guess looking at "the good affect that time in TWI got us" can help soothe the discomfort and pain of knowing that we were being scammed and used by those at the top of a very corrupt organization. Looking back though, many of my best times and fondest memories in TWI never really happened. It was a scam.

The figures represented in TWI's financial statement do not relect any funds hiddin in offshore accounts (should they actually exist). The problem with a class action suit is getting enough relatively recently outed/quit ex-wayfers to unify and actually do it. There have been rumors for a couple of years of a class action suit, but nothing has ever come of them. Doubt there ever will. While the BOD will probably live in relative comfort for the rest of their lives on the money that all of us gave to "move the word", we can take some comfort in knowing that thanks to the bone-headed actions of Martindale, Rivenbark, and a few others, that TWI is washed up as any kind of "ministry" and will continue to decline in numbers as they have nothing to offer or attract any new mullets. At least their poison has been contained.

And what "platform" are you actually speaking from Allan? The Wierwillian Platform? And you are throwing rock at Mormons and Catholics? Sorry, but I have to chuckle.

If you want it to go down fast, a good class action suit (fraud, racketeering, etc) with about 500 people getting about $100,000 each should just about eat up the BOD's little pot of gold. But, TWI Inc. will never completely go down as long as that 50 million or so is controlled by Rosie and the gang. They will live in relative comfort the rest of their lives no matter how many leave or stop their ABS. If they dwindled down to only 50 supporters and only had meetings once a month, they would still have control of most of the the cash and assets that we provided them over the years to "move the word". They'll just convert the assets/property to cash and downsize to a small but nice facility somewhere in the Cayman's or the Bahamas where they can publish "The Way Magazine" 6 times a year (for their 50 supporters) while living comfortably ( with servants) off of the interest and maintaining their tax exempt, non-profit status.

Um, the first Century church lasted 100 years because well, thats how long one century is - 100 years. Here's the problem though Alan. There really never was a unified "First Century Church". If you actually read your Bible you would know that. Schism began very early on. There was no "Catholic" church then And BTW whats your real problem with the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church other than you think you have a corner on doctrinal correctness? In spite of doctrinal differences, I dare venture to say in the last 30 years that folks following these groups have probably done more for people and society in general than anything YOU have ever been involed with. Let's discuss the heresies and problems of YOUR group shall we? Of coure we don't really know exacty what it is except that the things of Wierwille seems to set the standard. God, I hope you aren't in any kind of leadership position ..................

I will briefly address the definitions of heresy as offered by Mark. The Webster's Definition: 1 a : adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b : denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c : an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma 2 a : dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b : an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards 1a I do not think that "church" here necessarily means "Catholic Church", however someone with a Catholic bias would probably read that into it. In most churchs dogma is not always in harmony with the "Word of God". 1b This obviously assumes that the Catholic Church has sole authority to establish the standards for truth. A notion that I strongly reject. Truth trancends the Roman Catholic Church and it's claim as the sole mediator of truth. 1c. More of the same. 2a. Dominant does not mean correct. The Catholic Church persecuted Galieo as a heretic because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun. 2b. More of the same. The Cannon Law Definition: Can. 751 "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. This a Catholic defintion coined to force adherence of its members to the dogmas of the Catholic Church and to force submission to the Pope. It again wrongly assumes the Catholic Church to be the sole arbiter of the truth. In any case canon law only applies to those within the Catholic Church, not Christians at large. St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa II-II.11.1): "Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas." We can safely assume that Thomas Aquinas meant Cathiolic faith when he said Christian Faith. Therefore his definition only applies to those who accept the Catholic Church as the one true Church and the Catholic Faith as the one true faith. "Heresy" is like the word "cult". Its meaning depends upon the person/group using it. It seems that Mark would have us accept the Catholic definitions as authoritive, when in fact the definitions offered only apply to him as a Catholic and speak loudly as to his own religious bias. That being said, we all have bias. When we are convinced that we or our group is absolutly right on dogma or doctrine, then it stand to reason that we are therefore equally convinced that any dissenting view is absolutly wrong. Mark calling Luther a heretic is absolutely the correct usage according to the Catholic definitions he subscribes to. I wouldn't expect anything less from a good Catholic. Heretic would apply to Luther because he was a subject of the Catholic Church when he posted his theses. By those who assume that Rome has/had the authority to be the sole arbiter of truth, faith and practice, Luther therefore WAS a heretic according to the Catholic definitions offered. His theses contradicted accepted Church dogmas thus making him a "heretic". However, I do not assume the authority of Rome or accept the self-serving definitions offered by the Catholic Church. In my view, Luther's theses were mostly correct, and the and the practices and dogmas he rejected needed to be rejected. A heretic to some is a man of faith, courage and conviction to others.

Evan said something that I believe is important to this discussion. he said: "Bear in mind we all have our own threshold for what makes a cult." Not only we as individuals have our own trhreshhold or criteria, but organizations do as well. For exanmple, hard core trinitarians concerned with cults usually list a non-trinitarian belief system as the first criterion for defining a cult. "Cult" is also used by some as a form of namecalling, or by others (mostly well meaing religious folks), to expose or warn of a group whose doctrine does not agree with their own. Sometimes another religious group's beliefs are not understood and in some cases this is enough to warrant the label of "cult". However there are dangerous "cults". Actually I prefer the term "harmful or dangerous religious organizations" because few people in a discussion like this can agree as to what makes a group a "cult". I think a harmful group is one that actually does damage to it's adherants. The damage can be physical, emotional, financial, etc. The physical harm is obvious. The emotional and financial may not be so obvious since the members may not even be aware that they are being used and abused. I think a dangerous group is one that is potentially dangerous to it members or to society in general. For example a group that has the potential to "drink the Kool Aid", kill dissenters, or send out suicide bombers. Ok so how many harmful groups are there? How many dangerous ones? Who are they? I haven't much of a clue these days, but I do know that Scientology is alive and well. How harmful or dangerous they are I am not sure. I think they are more about money and privilege for the leaders than anything. But I do also know that they will harrass, threaten, or blackmail just about anyone who gets in their way, including government offcials. Of course TWI is still going, but it is probably not very dangerous. Harmful maybe, but not dangerous. However, I do believe that there was a possiblity that TWI could have become dangerous under Martindale had he been allowed to continue without restraint. I hear that there were some glassy-eyed supporters that would have killed "homos" if he had given the ok. Thats pretty scary. And I also suspect that at one point in time there were a small few die hard VPW supporters (not those who really knew him) who would have drank the Kool Aid if they had been told to. I doubt that anyone left in TWI is that "commited" these days.

Irrelevant to the topic. The fact that this is a public forum does not preclude the use of private forums on the site as well. Who has decided you are not in "the group"? Give me some names. Actually it seems like YOU decided to separate yourself from the supposed group all on your own. It also seems like you arrived here with with some preconcieved notions and an attitude of contention. Irrelevant. It is a given that what is posted are mostly opinions, especially the conculsions that folks make. Why go others opinions seem to bother you so much? Who are "they"? Give some names. There are other reasons than fear of the WayGB for keeping a certain level of anonymity. It is a commonly accepted practice on the Internet. Why does that seem to bother you? Also, someone that is still in TWI and is posting here may have a good reason to keep their idenity from the likes of Linder and the other TWI henchmen. Use your brain and figure it out. Again, why does that bother you so much? Again, why does it concern you so much what other folks do or think? . Is it from a geniune attitude of caring? I doubt it. It rather seems you just dont like this place or most of the folks here. One has to wonder why YOU are here. But hey, thanks for defining what Greasepot Cafe is for us. How does your logic go? The posts of a few more vocal members define the entire Cafe? Hmm? Guess then I am not accountable for what I think about you and your opinions- eh? But why would anyone report your post? It may based in ignorance, full of logical fallacies, and heartless, but I don't see where you have broken any rules................

If you really want to know why the sight "poofed" then PT me. Goey

Always the TWI apologist - eh Oldies? Put on your thinking cap man and take off your your rose colored glasses for a sec. What were the supposed ramifications if someone walked out of TWI's "open door"? I am talking about the 90's Oldies, not the "good old days" of Doc Vic and TWI-1. What were people told by TWI's God appointed leaders? "Greasepot by midnight" I have been told. Do you deny this? Now isn't it reasonable to think that SOME people believed these leaders? And that bad thing would happen to them or their families? That there was no truth and no real fellowship beyond TWI? Do you deny this? too? And consider also that these things were said by TWI's GOD-appointed leaders - or so they claimed to be. Oldies, don't you believe that VPW spoke for God or was appointed by God? Is it unreasonable then to assume that folks in later years of TWI believed that their leaders were also appointed by or spoke for God? These were the same leaders who told folks that they would die or become a greasespot if they walked out that "open door" of yours. We are NOT talking about YOU Oldies, and YOUR seemingly unique experience or YOUR revisionist history of TWI. We are talking about folks in the trenches who didn't have family members or friends close to top of TWI - Folks without special privilege. --To these folks, leaving or getting kicked out of TWI was the worst thing that could happen to them. Why? Cause they believed the lies that TWI and its leaders told them. Some still do. This is abuse Oldies. - Why is it so hard for YOU to grasp that?

HCW, Nope, I haven't. But then again do I really need to when so much information and first hand testimony is available? I am not afraid to comment. I think it's bunk. Apples and oranges. The athetic comparision does not work well here. You pretty much know what to expect in sports training. Momentus is different. These folks delve deep into your psyche and sometimes the outcome is very ugly. Do a Google search for "Momentus training". You may get enlightened. It's not football. The fact that there are churches that only give lip service to Christ does not redeem Momentus in anyway. It makes is all the worse, especially if a person taking it is already attached to a lip service ministry. What's to gain? Some things do not have to be experienced to be proven lacking, harmful, or inappropriate. I have probably done 10 hours of research on Momentus/ Mindspring over the last few years. I have talked with folks who have taken it - both those that liked it and those that didn't. So my opinion is not comming from a postion of ignorance. We have witnesses who have taken the training, many who tremendously disliked it or were emotionally harmed by it. Others say its great. I don't know the percentages and I don't really care who likes it. The question is, are the perceived benefits worth the risk? Personally, I don't think so. Even if my best friend took it and recomended it, there is enough evidence and testimony out there for me to say it is still dangerous and quite unnecessary for Christian development. But there is on thing for certain , and that is that Momentus is a money maker for the promoters/trainers. And it beats the heck out of me how a Christian group like CES could have gotten so wrapped up with something like Momentus that it was almost "required" if you wanted to fit in and be respected. Kinda reminds me of TWI and "going Corps".

It seems to me that Momentus is dangerous and unnecessary for Christian development. It's techniques are pyhcological based and even according to the trainers can cause harm in some cases. They have a 2 page "hold harmlees" agreement that you have to sign that releases the trainers from any liability, even if they are negligent, in the case of " any personal, physical, psychological or emotional injuries you may suffer as a result of the TRAINING..." This agreement also clearly warns of the possibility of the things noted above. I would clasify Momentus/Breakthtrough as extreme phycological based training having little if anything to do with real Christian development other than a bit of lip service to Christ.