Goey

Ex10, I heard it. And I heard it in public from a Way Corps lady. It wes taught in Twig and expounded upon even more afterwards. That would have been around 1977 or 1978. It was her year in the field as a WOW Family Coordinator. I did say it didn't matter but I will qualify that. It matters if we want to try and understand exactly how this unwritten "doctrine" got spread around. But I would venture that it does not matter to folks that were victimized as a result of this errant "teaching". It still arose from TWI and was spread by some of it's leaders. It seems that some of you former Corps folks are being rather overly defensive about whether this was a formal teaching or not to the Corps. I don't see anywhere on this thread where anyone said it was a formal teaching. No one is throwing rocks at you. I saw this "happy is the man that condemeneth not" stuff lived by a few folks when I was involved in TWI and these folks were all Corps. So I dont think it is unreasonable to assume then that it was "taught" at some point at higher levels. I don't think any of you Corps folks here are lying about this stuff not being formally taught in class or even "fireside chats". But it was "learned" none the less and it made it's way down to us non-Corps folks and some folks were hurt by it.

Zix, I guess we see it differently then, but I do appreciate your input.

Posted by Catcup: If I had really wanted to be specific, I would have named names, trust me. Where did I attempt to "defend" my error? I thought I freely admitted it. It seems to me that you are trying to paint another false picture. I made and error and I promptly corrected it. I never "defended" it like you suggested. Why try to paint a false picture like that? Apology? What for? People make corrections when they make mistakes - not apolgies. I made my correction. Catcup, you could have simply stated that you thought I was mistaken instead of going on for paragraphs about "which one of these men were the seducer". It seems to me that you went out of your way to make it look like I was accusing either your husband or Shoenhite in an attempt to make me look like a false accuser -- and I do not appreciate that at all. It was completely unnecessary and out of line IMO. I found your method of reply to be very "Way Corpsish" and condescending if not a little bit pompous, thus my "snide remard". -------------------------------------------- [Edit Begins Here] Correction: It seems I was correct all along on the Corps number. The "reverend" in question was indeed in the 6th Corps (according to Believer Links) but possibly not officially on the "Research Team". But if not, then very, very close to it.

Posted by UncleHairy Very well said.. . .

Catcup, You posted: Cut the stupid crap Catcup. I got the Corps number wrong for this "reverend" ...that's all. So instead of asking if I maybe got the Corps number wrong (Didn't think of that possibility, did you?), you want to go on with this stupid logical deduction of yours suggesting that I am speaking about your husband or JS?. Freaking amazing.... It's folks like you that keep me away from the offshoots. You know good and damned well I am not accusing your husband of this (or JS for that matter). In fact my intention was not to name names at all but rather to show that indeed this stuff was taught and was in use by TWI "leaders" early on and that it has even carried over past TWI to offshoots. If I had wanted to name names, I would have.

Oldies posted: Oldies, I wonder why you are so adamant about defending fornication as less bad than adultery. Do you need some validation or something on this? Does consent make it all ok with you? Are you looking to get off the hook or something? I bet quite a few of us did the premarital sex stuff, before during and after TWI. And the vast majority of it was consenting I imagine. But "consenting" does not mean it was or is not harmful. Many times it was. It was still sinful and in many cases I could argue that it was also abusive regardless of consent.

UncleHairy posted: Let me share a personal experience here. In about 1999 there was an independant offshoot fellowship being run here by a former 6th corps "reverend". He was on on the research team at some point in the 70's/80's. Two friends of mine that had never been involved with TWI got involved through my acquaintance with this fellow. On of these was my then girlfriend who wanted to know more about Christianity. I was not invloved with the fellowship at all myself, but I truusted that this 6th Corps "reverend" might be of some help. This "reverend" then proceeded to romance my then girlfriend behind my back. The other felllow that attended asked the good reverend about sex, fornication and adultery. And the reply was from Romans. - Happy is the man that condemns not ...... blah, blah, blah. So don't you folks give me this crap that this stuff was not taught in TWI. It most certainly was. I heard it myself as early as the late 70's and It even seems to go directy back to TWI's research department. You folks who are saying that it was not taught don't know what you are talking about. You are very naive or you are in denial. The fact that you did not hear it in a formal setting is irrelevant. The fact that some former leaders here did not see the abuse or hear the teachings when it was right under their noses is very telling of level of spiritual perception of leadership as a whole in TWI even the "good" ones.

Jeeze You Guys. UncleHairy never said there was a formal teaching on the stuff he mentioned. People can be taught by example also you know. As non-Corps I observed the very things that UH talked about. Formally taught or not, many of us did some of the very stuff that UH mentioned. It must have been learned behavior, because I have never seen such a high concentration of know-it-all, pompus a$$es in any other group of folks as I did in the Way especially those who were Way Corps and who learned at the feet of the Mogs. By the early 80's I could hardly stomach the bossy, smug, and elitist behavior of even the *nice* Corps folks like I am sure that many of you here were (or claim to have been). It's all a matter of prospective. I do not say this to shame or demean anyone here, but face it, we were all in a friggin cult, promoting the agenda of a cult which was lead by a couple of sociopathic liars and abusers. The abuse may not have been formally taught, but it was taught none the less.

Pat, All of your posturing and sabre rattling here on GS concering this lawsuit is rather disconcerting. I think it's possible that it might come back on you an bite you. Be careful.

Pat, I say this will all respect -- 2 semesters of Law school hardly makes you a qualified and experienced lawyer. Why don't you ask your favorite law professor what he thinks about you representing yourself?

Pat, On the other hand, what possible reasons could you have for registering and owning thewayinternational.com - than to prevent TWI from using it or to make money selling it? I mean what was your reason why did you register it? Appearances are everything in a Court of Law. If I were an attorney for TWI, it would seem like a slam dunk to me. A bitter ex TWI follower getting some kind of revenge. That's how I would approach it freom their side. If I were you, I would take Zix's advise. Get a good attorney if you don't have one, and take his advise. Ask him/her about the wisdom of posting all this stuff you are posting here concerning this suit. Good Luck

Interesting, I would argue that it is not in bad faith because of TWI's bashing of the evil Internet and becasue their policies againt Internet use by thier followers. TWI had plenty of time to register this domain name, why didn't they? Dumbasses -- that's why.

Sorry, Didn't believe it for a minute. The date gave it away. Besides, Rosie and gang wont go down that easy. Now, I wonder if that pesky April Fool's Virus is gonna hit again .........

I see quite of folks here near the freeway ramps with signs that say "Will Work For Food". On several occasions I have offered to take them up on thier offer. Everytime there has been an excuse why they can't work. I no longer offer and seldom put anything in thier hat. Lazy bums and alcoholics many of them, just trying to get money for a beer. Then a few years ago I saw this fellow with a sign that said, "Lazy Bum - Spare Change for Beer". He was smiling at folks and joking around with motorists stopped on the exit ramp. I liked his approach. I usually gave him a buck or two. Come to find out, he did not even drink at all. He was just down on his luck and needed some money to get back home.

I can't imagine living in Leesville.... If the world needed an enema, Leesville is where they would insert the hose.

Having been around several families of Wow's for a year before I went Wow myself, I was not expecting 3 sit down meals a day. While I could hardly describe my time as a Wow as physically "more than abundant", I never missed a meal or was lacking in anything materially that entire year.

I think of PFAL as a mediocre attempt at presenting keys to unlock the scriptures. There is some pretty good stuff in PFAL, but unfortunately, there is some pretty eroneous stuff too. Enough errorenous stuff to make PFAL fail dismally as any kind of valid theological system or handbook of faith. It is a case of a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

TWI just blatantly wrongly divides 2 Peter 1:12 and invented "present truth" doctrine in order biblically justify being wishy washy or changing thier minds. Add to this the doctrines of "old wineskin" and whereonly certain leaders ( BOT ?) get revelation and the possibilities are endless. For example: The BOT decides that folks shouldn't own a house - House ownership becomes an "old wineskin" while TWI's new debt policy becomes "present truth". Oops that backfired! -- To many folks leaving over this. What shall we do to save the ABS? Oh, let's not admit we were wrong and stupid. Let's just get some "revelation" and let the debt policy become an "old wineskin" but still necessary at the time. And let's say that new "present truth" allows folks to own homes! Pretty nifty -eh ? Of course this only works in a cult like TWI where the followers take the word of their leaders over that of scripture. I wonder if the current innies even read their Bibles or do even basic research anymore. It does not seem like if they actually buy into this "present truth" horsepucky. 2Pe 1:12 (KJV) Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know [them], and be established in the present truth. Strong's equates this word in the Greek with pareimi, however the word in the text is actually "parouse" or "parousei" depending upon the text you look at. A morphological analysis of parousei indicates it is from "paro/w" which means to mutilate or to pierce or something along those lines. That just does not seem to fit so I looked up some classical Greek literature and found several usages of "parousei" and the translators of these texts translate parousei the same as "pareimi" so I'll go with Strong's here ... (pareimi ) 1) to be by, be at hand, to have arrived, to be present 2) to be ready, in store, at command Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 23 AV - be present 9, come 7, present 3, be present here 1, be here 1, such things as one hath + 3588 1, he that lacketh + 3361 + 3739 1; 23 It's pretty clear that "present" in 2 Peter 1:12 does NOT have anything to do with time as in past, present and future, but rather has to do with "presence". Think of it as the opposite of "absent".

OK, I get it. The 91, 47 and 93 are also the same as the ascii character codes for [ / and ]

If I knew how to use "escape codes" that what I would have done. What the heck are "escape codes" ?

Oldies, Oh really now. That's obvious - eh? Oldies, I most likely got saved as a result of folks in TWI. I dedicated 2 years of my life as a WOW Ambassador, giving up a carreer to do so. I stood faithfully with TWI for about 7 years, it being the central thing in my life. I got great benefits from my time in TWI. However, when I saw the direction it was taking and realized the coruption at the top, for whatever reason, luck, intution, etc, I had sense enough to get out. You are very presumptive to suggest that I did not appreciate TWI at the time I was in, or that I perceive no benefit. But unlike you, I have the balls to to look beyond my own experiences (Gee, I got blessed - it must be good ...) and consider the experiences of others and the facts of what really went on in TWI. You are like the person VPW talked about that gets a good feeling on a psychiatrists couch. You're thinking in black and white again. You cannot seem to fathom the notion that TWI was corrupt early on so you deny it and disregard the testimony of many eye witnesses. You can't seem to imagine how someone can call the TWI that you loved and supported "evil" what at the same understand they also reaped some beebefit from it, so you make eroneous presumtions like above. But you are right on one thing, I appreciated TWI, but certainly not like you did. I did not appreciate it enough to call the ungodly actions of a power monger "love", or to justify ungodly terror as "cleaning up the household".

Hope, Thanks for clarifying that. I know what you meant but ti seem ir flew right over oldies head. [hr} Oldies, Yes, especially one that is based upon lies and deceit. I get it. Challenging the authority/decisons of the presumed MOGFODAT is "speaking evil" but when then same MOGFODAT says nasty lies about folks, and removes anyone who disgrees with him it is "cleaning up the household". Is that it Oldies ? And you believe that just becasue Don said it? In spite of what folks have told you happend when they tried? My, My, aren't we gullible and naive. Oldies, you have a much different idea of what "love" is than I do. I see neither side as being loving. I see no love at all this whole situation -- I see two phony cult leaders in 2 stupid cults competing for power, money and "loyalty". I see naive people like yourself who may have actually wanted to serve God, duped into thinking that the lesser of these 2 evils was "good". A false dilemma. Personally, I don't think you have the capacity to be honest enough with yourself to admit that you were in a stupid cult and supporting a stupid cult leader.

Oldies, I am not too sure that Hope's point was that Geers delay proves that the BOT were not effed up. It seems more like the point was that: If Geer was really that concerned that TWI was so messed up he would have acted sooner. This was more about Geer being messed up than TWI being "right on". Hope, for clarity's sake, did you post this to say that you think that Craig and the BOT at this were actually doing a fine stand up job?

Posted by Oldies, What if those folks were right? What if Craig and the BOT were "evil" or if not evil itself then "off the beam". What if TWI and Gartmore Geer were both "off the beam"? So you got a good feeling (peace?) by not having to listen to these folks saying stuff you didn't want to hear. So what? -- Does that make it "biblical"? - I don't think so.

Posted by Catcup: Infamous people like Martindale, Wierwille, and other despots and vile persons almost never come clean and admit their wrong doings, much less make anything like an honest attempt at reparations. They will either deny any wrong doing at all, blame the devil, or blame the victims. Like the sex perp who rapes a 5-year-old kid and says, "she asked for it", they are incapable of real honesty. - Too far gone. I would be surprised if Martindale ever made any kind of apology or restitution for the damage he did. But we can hope anyway if not for his sake then for the sake of those he harmed.