Goey

It's deeper than that and you know it. Who was VPW to these women? He was the Apsotle, the Man of God for the whole world. He knew the Word like no one since the 1st century. God taught him directly since he threw out all his other books except his Bible. While it is true that many of us believed before going into TWI that adultery was wrong, we also believed that Jesus was God and and the 10 commandment still applied to Christians. VPW taught a lot of "strange" doctrines that we believed contrary to what we hand been previously taught, so taking grace, freedom in Christ, and no condemnation to adultry is ok, is not a stretch for someone who ultimately trusted the Man of God for Our Day an Time to teach the rightly-divided word. If they could change on the Trinity & 1O commandments then they could change on adultery, especially when taught by the Man of God for the entire freaking world. No, the "blame" belongs squarely with the one that deceived those that trusted him to teach the truth. Heres mine: Jesus: Why Oldies did you defend and take up for a wolf in sheeps clothing? Oldies: Uh, because I got delivered because of what he taught. Jesus: Would that be where he taught that adultery was ok? Oldies: I never heard that teaching, I was not there. Jesus: Why Oldies, did you not comfort those that were taken advantage of instead cast blame on them? Oldies: Because those women asked for it. They facilitated it! They knew better! Jesus: Did not Victor know better ? Was he not their trusted teacher? Oldiies: Yeah uh maybe. But I got delivered by Doctors teachings. Jesus: Would that be the adultery teaching or the one on abortion? How did these deliver you? Oldies: Uh, er ..... You're shifting the blame!

They "consented" because they were taught contrary to God's Word, that it was God's will, because it would "bless the man of God." VPW was the source of that false teaching. The adultry was "facillitated" not by their "consent" but by the deception and lusts of VPW - a supposed man of God who taught false doctrine to fulfill his sexual lust and justify adultry. Had there been no false teaching, and had there been correct teaching, there would have been no "consent".

Hmmm, I haven't noticed anyone actually curse VPW. Has anyone really cursed VPW?. This seems like one of the more typical responses that comes from the VPW defenders. Where telling the facts is portrayed as cursing. Where calling a spade a spade is cursing. Where few hours a week on this board, discussing VPW/TWI etc is portrayed as "cursing a dead man for the rest of your life". Irrelevant. While some or even most of the girls may have consented, it is certain that some did not. One hundred acts of adultry do not justify or invalidate one act of rape. I think it has been stated here many times by quite a few of the folks that you say are "cursing a dead man" those that consented do have some responsibility. Has anyone denied that some were willing? But, because some of these these women have some resposibility, doesn't mean that VPW is void of any. As God's alleged Apostle, MOGFOT, or whatever, he has more. And ... if what he taught them was the cause of their willingness then he bears the vast majority, if not all of the responsibility. But now you offer a red herring by errantly portraying this stuff as an issue of feminism or reverse misogyny? --- You are desperately grasping at straws. You focus on the willing, many of who were most likely tricked into their willingness, and ignore those that were unwilling and coerced or even raped - to make it an issue of feminism. Anything to take the focus off of the source. How is it that you conclude from the above that: "in today's society women aren't responsible for anything" ? That's pretty dumb IMO. I read that the woman is awaiting sentencing, meaning that she was probably convicted of rape and is going to jail. Both were crimes and both will be punished. Yet you seem to think (or you are falsely portraying ) that both crimes are equal and that the woman is somehow getting away with something. -- Absurd. Nope, thats not it all all. I think most of the folks here accept that VPW/TWI's teachings stand or fall upon their own merit, regardless of his actions. You and a few others refuse to see that and make up these strawmans, not just to defend VPW actions, or what he taught, but rather to defend your own (willing) blindness to the truth. You errantly mistake defending VPW, for defending Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice doesn't depend upon anything VPW said or did. You errantly mistake defending the teachings of one man to defending the Word of God. I think that the opposite is most likely true. You are in bondage to the dead man because of blind and misdirected loyalty - misguided loyalty that is so strong that it forces you into publicly displayed intellectual dishonesty, intentional misrrepresention and distorting of facts. -- Intentional misrepresentation of what others are really saying when what is said shows your beloved teacher to be much less than what he appeared to be. Freedom does not depend upon adherence to PFAL or a particular view of VPW. Neither does bondage follow those that have to courage to tell the truth about VPW ,etc. Personally, I would think there is much more peace in telling the painful truth than there is in defending the liar and the lies.

Doojable, Oldies didn't personally see or hear VPW make his marriage vows, so in his world it can't proved that VPW actually made these vows. Don't expect sound reason to sway Oldies in any way. It won't. BTW, I don't post with any delusions that I can change Oldies thinking. IMO, he is incorrigible in regards his thinking and the lengths he will go to in order to defend VPW. If he came around, his whole belief system would fall apart and he would have nothing to hold on to. Actually, it may not be that he is defending VPW as much as he is defending himself and his belief system, since it relies heavily if not soley upon upon VPW being the MOGOFT and PFAL being the handbook of life.

Where did WW post word for word anything from Nizkor? Use the accepted standards for determining what is plaigerism and what is not -- and make your case. If you can show where he plaigerized Nizkor, I promise that I will "hammer" him. Ok? On the other hand WTH, for years you have repeatedly cut and pasted articles written by others - word for word - onto this board, pawning them off as if they were yours. Consider yourself "hammered". You deserve it. Like father - like son.

Where did WW post word for word anything from Nizkor? Use the accepted standards for determining what is plaigerism and what is not -- and make your case. On the other hand WTH you have repeatedly cut and pasted articles written by others - word for word - onto this board for years, pawning them off as if they were yours. Like father - like son.

Oldies Replied: Then Tom Said: It means that if you say you are going to the store after work and have a flat and then decide to go home instead and make the store trip another time, that you are a liar and have broken a vow to God. You are worthy of beratement, ridicule and public shame. Only in TWI could an intention or desire, be construed as a sacred vow, to be kept at all costs. Totally Anal.

Hey folks, I wouldn't get too incensed with Oldies sexual predator comment. He said it was a "nature" that all men were born with. Now I am not sure if men means mankind or just male humans. He will need to clarify that. The Bible says that all men (mankind) are born with a sin nature. Sin covers a lot of area and sexual predation is certainly sin. But is that the kind of sin nature that the Bible is refering to? I don't think so. I have read in the Bible where all men are liars, but I haven't read yet where all men are natural sexual predators. If all men are born with a sexual predatory nature, then what is it that prevents that nature from coming out in 99 percent of the human population? If it were a knowledge of the word, fellowship with God, speaking in toungues, Apostleship, etc then it would seem that VPW would have had control over it. But Oldies has conceded that VPW did not have control over it. Are there implications here? What can we infer? I am interested in seeing if Oldies can provide some credible biological or antropological evidence of his statement. And not just misrepresent what I have said above and use it as his "proof".

Care to back that up with some expert opinion? Particulary the predatory part. I will agree with the sexual part. I will agree with sin nature. But I am not so sure that sexual predation is inate within all men at birth. You need to offer some proof concerning the "predatory" part. Let me help you out some: Main Entry: pred·a·to·ry Pronunciation: \ˈpre-də-ˌtȯr-ē\ Function: adjective 1. a: of, relating to, or practicing plunder, pillage, or rapine b: inclined or intended to injure or exploit others for personal gain or profit <predatory pricing practices> 2: living by predation : predaceous; also : adapted to predation (Merriam- Webster)

Very good. What say ye Oldies ? Am I obligated to fulfill an oath if : 1. My swearing an oath is wrong. (Unknown to me at the time) - James 5:12) 2. The people that asked me to swear the oath were wrong in asking. ( James 5:12) 3. Later, I am asked to do something wrong as a requirement to keep that oath.

I suggest that it is impossible to assissinate something that is already dead.

Let me take a stab at this. I don't think WW is representing that at all. As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place. You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises. Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?

In Regards to the CF&S Survey. This questionaire came out in the 70's when VP was on top of everything. So he either put it together himself, or had someone else put it together. It was a part of CF&S because VPW want it to be. So what was it's real purpose? What is most interesting to me, is that the survey had questions related to sexual morality, yet the CF&S class didn't address that much, if at all. In others words, there was no direct teaching that adultery "extramarital intercourse" was immoral or contrary to the Bible, at least not that I can recall. No wonder, because lawsuit testimony, shows that VPW taught Martindale that extra marital sex was acceptable to the spiritually mature and to "consider all the women in the kingdom to be his- he was the king." I can only surmise that the survey was to take a general pulse, and/or or to identify fwomen that might later be candidates to be initiated in to the ranks of the spiritually mature. It seems to me that with VPW/TWI knowing and teaching the word like it handn't been taught since the 1st Century, that there would have been clear cut teachings on many of the things asked in the survey. He had no problem teaching Jesus is not God and other doctrines that were certain to be unpopular, so why didn't he teach the masses that extramarital sex was ok for the spiritually mature? -- Because, it would have given many of us guys (that stayed) a lot of motivation to grow up spritually and then there would have been to many spiritualy mature men for VPW/HA/LCM ,et al to compete with? Because it would have been to far over the top and caused too much outside attention? Where did these surveys eventually end up? Certainly someone here has first-hand knowledge of that. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they ended up right on VPW's desk. Wasn't this class being run right about the same time that the wife-swapping was going on among certain initiated and spiritually mature Way Corps?

Note: The above was plaigerized word for word by WTH from an essay called "The Holocoust Hex" by Joseph Heany - an admitted Holocaust revisionist. Like father - like son. Read it here

You might be walking by the 5 senses if ...... You see your pastor grab your wife's derriere and then punch him in the face. (He was actually ministering healing) You smell bad breath on your friend and give them a breath mint. (You friend is actually possessed) Your gas gauge is on E and you stop to fill up. (God knows you could have gone 20 more miles)

I think it's insane to continue to defend VPW's callous, self-serving, and destructive behavior. Your ability to discern right from wrong and truth from error is clouded by your unwaivering adoration of VPW. It has made you just as callous, just as cold-hearted, and just as self-serving as VPW himself. It may surprise you, but I consider you a victim as well. While I still hold you accountable for you callouness and cold-heartedness, I hold VPW even more accountable since he fathered you in it. And contrary to what you think, it's way more than a "few posters" that think these women were victims of VPW. (I speak of those women who would not have had abortions except for the pressure applied by VPW and his minions.) Actually, I doubt you think that at all. You've been around a long time and you know full well that more than a "few posters" hold VPW accountable for that. Who are you trying to persuade with that silly nonsense?

IMO, If VPW is the source of the doctrine being debated, then leaving his name out would be a discredit to your readers. I think that you might even be ethically obliged to include his name.

It was all shipped to HQ and was secretly burried there. If anyone wants a map, I have several hundred copies that I'll sell for $29.95 ea. All are Aramaic originals. (For English Translations add $1.99 ea.) Ohio residents add 6 percent sales tax. Offer voild where prohibited. . . . .

Did the the Pharsiees believe that they were right and justified? Sure they did. Yet Jesus still called them liars. Don't recall him saying they were exaggerating. If someone tells me a lie and I believe it, and then I tell it to someone else as being true, is it no longer a lie? Am I then not a liar simply because I believe it to be true? Why do you suppose that the Bible says that "all" men are liars? Why is that statement necessarily false or exaggerated? Becasue you say so? Because it can't (in your opinion) be proven in a reasonable way? We be believe God exists. According to your method of reason that would be false and exaggerated. It cannot be universally proved. Simply because something cannot be proved does not make it false, it just makes it unproved. On the other hand, If that statement can be proven false, then I would actually have no problem calling that person a liar. Can it be proven either way? I think it can, but only to an objective mind that is capable of honesty weighing the evidence. BTW, what is false about it? That anyone died That the ones that died were innocent That VPW had a role in it Go ahead Oldies. Let's see you prove it false.

Exclusivity and biblically insupportable doctrines are not unique to the Mormon Church. While I find many of the core doctrines biblically insupportable, they have come a long way in modern years in regards to race and gender discrimination. They have maintained family values better than some. Recently they have even opened up a bit about the darker sides of their history with honest dialog about such things as the Mountain Meadows Massacre . Let's see how they handle the fairly recent sex abuse cover up charges.

You did not answer my question at all. You dodged it by giving a different example of your own and then answering that instead. Classic strawman. Then you obfsucate things and turn allegations and accusations into "simply opinions". Then finally the presumptive ad hominum - Try not to be so sensitive ... Same Oldies that was here when I went on leave. Haven't changed a bit. Your posts are still predictable and follow the same basic paterns as usual. Strawman, obfuscate, ad hominum. (Not necessarily in that order)

Oldies, A lie is a falshood. Get it? How thick are you really? Example: If some claims as an eye-witness that VPW was sitting naked when they entered the room and then he asked them to perfom a certain lewd act with him. And in response, someone else says "That's false and exaggerated, I don't believe it" How is that not calling them a liar? Take your time.

I am having a great day thank you. Why don't you take that bottle of Drambuie, Bronze it and make a little shrine?

Shame on me? Got to laugh at you on that one Oldies. You are quibbling over terms and hiding behind what you think to be cleverly crafted language. But honstley dude, you are just not quite clever enough to pull it off. "A distiinct probablilty that some posters repeadedly engage in false accusations" ? Not outright liars, just probable ones? Maybe I should dig up some of your more classic posts, compile them, and start a thread callled the "BEST OF OLDIES" Why let Mike have all the glory? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: LMAO at Oldiesman

It makes perfect sense and you are good an example of it to some extent. While you may have not used the term "children of the devil" you have called the witnesses liars and such. Why quibble over terms? Jesus called those Pharisees "children of the devil" not because they were possessed or literally "born again of Satan" ( an impossibility) but rather because they were liars. Satan is the father of lies so thus Jesus used the figure "children of the devil." BTW, these are not Way believers, but former Way believers who are big fans of VPW and his teachings. Folks somewhat like yourself. For you, The "best of my knowledge" leaves a lot to be desired. Your M.O. remains intact. You didn't see it so it didn't happen.