Raf

what were the threats (and who made them) and what was that thing about giving the paper to a few for fear of his life or something ?(sorry about the memory thing here.... ever since i stopped renewing my mind.... i just haven't been the same) Sorry: I was away for the weekend and didn't see this post until just now: Excy: I have no idea how he was threatened. Or IF he was threatened. The statement that he was threatened was made by MJ, and I was responding to her post. I can't vouch for the accuracy of it: the only thing I know is he was fired.

What exactly is a "tad?"

JT, You're right (and so is MJ) if you think of TWI as a "company." But TWI was supposed to be a "ministry." That's the standard to which we should hold them. If JS should have been fired for anything, it would be for wasting time researching the fact that grass is green, the sky is blue, and a negative times a negative equals a multiplicity of negatives. That's a joke, people.

I don't think he's a hero either. But TWI was certainly being a villain. This wasn't supposed to be just a "company." This was supposed to be a research ministry and people were (belatedly) recognizing that adultery was a rampant problem. DUH!! I'll bet good money in the next breath you're going to criticize those in the research department who refused to take a stand and say adultery was wrong. John S can't win with you. If he didn't write the paper, you'd condemn him for his silence. If he wrote the paper, he violated company policy (which, last I checked, was somewhat LESS important than taking a stand on God's Word: Even when it's obvious. You think seducing your neighbor's wife and then killing him so you can marry her would be obviously wrong? Well, then, nothing "heroic" about Nathan, is there?). My point? You're ready to condemn John S no matter WHAT his past actions were. Yeah, John S violated company policy. Somehow, I doubt he would have gotten fired for writing an unauthorized research paper legitimizing abortion, or quanitfying the properties of manna. Company policy? F! the company.

This is straw man: no one is saying John S is a brainiac for figuring out adultery is wrong. What's amazing isn't that he figured out something so dreadfully obvious. What's amazing is that he got threatened for it. The example of John S is rarely brought up to prove what a wonderful guy John S is. The story proves nothing about John S, except maybe that he can read. The example of John S is more frequently brought up to prove how sick and twisted TWI was, that they would persecute someone just for saying "Adultery: bad." MJ, 1. Who said he is a "better Christian?" And who's painting him as an idol? You accuse me of making quips to try to shut you up, but look at what you're doing. You want me to shut up because ... well, I can't figure out why you're trying to shut me up. But stop misrepresenting me: I don't idolize John Schoenheit. He wrote a research paper on adultery and got fired for it. That's the extent of my opinion on the man. More replies in a coupla days: don't have time for it today...

MJ I think it really damages your argument against these men to believe that what JS did (research what the Bible said about adultery and make sure people got to see it) is worse than what Martha Stewart did (insider trading and obstruction of justice). I'm not saying Martha Stewart deserves to go to jail, but she did do something illegal. JS did... what, exactly? Disobey ungodly leadership? He writes a paper on adultery (in his capacity as a researcher in a Biblical research ministry), gets threatened for it, resists the threats... and you're taking TWI's side? Help me here, you lost me.

Regarding the statement "Jesus was wrong..." Those aren't their words. They are my summary of their words. I think it's important, if anyone is taking this discussion seriously, to see what they're saying in their words. If you think I'm misrepresenting them, call me on it. It's Question 15: There are three pdfs.

Unconsciously? I think, as far as the WOW-type program is concerned, they are well aware of what they're doing (ie, replicating TWI).

Here's the intro page.

I think it was in the PFAL class (not the book). It is certainly in The Way: Living in Love by Elena Scott Whiteside. It's also a bunch of hooey. Why anyone would appeal to it today is beyond me.

MJ, Thank you for your reply to my post, but part of your reply is the reason we keep having blow-ups. You said something like, "why don't we just excuse Martindale..." implying that this is a reasonable outcome of my argument. You must have missed the line where I said... I am well aware of what you are saying regarding Martindale. I have never contradicted it. But let's stick with the point: does a divorced person have no right to be a minister? That's what it sounds like when you bring up the fact that JAL and JS are divorced. Excuse adultery? Please, I did nothing of the kind. With that said, the rest of your post gives a lot of food for thought.

I can't contradict you, or offer an effective counterargument. I am utterly unqualified to say anything about Momentus. If you have a point here, it's one I'm incapable of seeing for the obvious reason that I never took Momentus, and came into contact with CES only after it abandoned Momentus. In normal, untainted language, looking to the past with a mindset of "I went through hell, but I can pull some good out of it" is healthy, even if the only good you can pull out of it is "I ain't gonna do that again."

Excy, Depends on you you're counting. The JDubs have, currently, 6,000,000 members worldwide. At it's PEAK, TWI had between one and two percent of that number (and that's assuming all 100,000 people who took PFAL stuck with TWI, not a safe assumption). It's far more likely that two TWI people will know each other than two JWs. Tell me if I'm wrong: in many cities, all TWI members knew each other. In JW land, you're Mr. Popular if you know more than half the people in your congregation.

Actually, the entire quote is... Entirely looking at "where do you go from here?" Not at all blaming the victim for his/her role in getting abused. You don't. But do you blame God for it? Or do you blame their father/stepfather? It's a perspective thing. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that JAL is saying you chose to be victims then.

MO, The comment "you could choose to be a victim" is presented in the letter solely in terms of how you're going to view yourself in the future: there is no implication that anyone chose to be a victim in the past.

Good reminder: we pretend we "know" each other because of postings on a message board. I don't really know you, MJ, and I have no right to call you paranoid or even bitter. I can give an impression of the posts, but it takes much more to get an impression of the poster. I don't think you're bitter. I think you have a sincere desire to warn people about an organization you consider, on some level, dangerous. (Maybe that word is too strong. Cultic). I think there's a danger when we try to hold the actions or histories of "leaders" to a high standard. We want to call people out on their hypocrisy. We teach that marriage is a lifetime commitment, but we get a divorce? HYPOCRITES! (Hey, wait, that includes me!). We preach against lying, but we're caught in a lie? HYPOCRITES! (Hey, wait, that includes... everyone!) We preach that adultery is wrong, but we commit adultery? HYPOCRITES! (Hey, wait, that includes... more people than anyone in any church would like to admit). Adultery is wrong. It's wrong if I commit it. It's wrong if I don't. If I commit adultery, I am exposed as a hypocrite. But the doctrine remains sound. My problem with Wierwille and Martindale is not that they committed adultery (by reports and accounts, they did worse than that, but let's stick with adultery for the sake of this discussion). My problem with them is not that they committed adultery, it's that they excused it, doctrinally. It's one thing to preach against adultery and then commit it. That's a bad thing. But to not preach against adultery at all? Far worse. The error is compounded. No, you can't be accused of hypocrisy. But they can be accused of twisting the Word of God for their own selfish lusts. I'd rather be convicted of sinning against God than be convicted of leading others, including myself, to sin against Him. I don't know if John L or John S committed adultery. If they did, God have mercy on them and I pray they've resolved/repaired that sin in their lives. It's between them and God. But they can't be accused of leading others to do the same. At least, not now. People, sinners, need room to grow. Not one of us is perfect. That's why I bristle at criticism of JAL or JS that's based on the fact that they're divorced. They have my sympathy. I know what it's like. It hurts like hell. If they're anything like me, they condemned themselves far more than anyone else did or could. Proving the charge of hypocrisy is, unfortunately, too easy. Every minister, every last one, is a sinner. All of them. All. Without exception or distinction. You want my list? No problem... but you first. :)--> No one will convince CES followers to move away from the organization by pointing out the fact that JAL and JS are sinners. JAL and JS beat you to the punch: We all know they're sinners. We know more than we have to. I think honest Christians should be far more troubled that, when they saw a conflict between the words of Christ and CES doctrine, they said the doctrine is right and Christ was wrong. They make an interesting case for this belief, but one muct ignore certain clear Biblical claims and mandates in order to accept the CES view on this. Jesus said he spoke the words His Father gave him. Jesus said he always does the will of the Father. If he was wrong about a prophecy, then he spoke presumptuously and was a false prophet. "He didn't know about the administration of the Mystery" is not an acceptable excuse, because it presumes that Jesus spoke important words presumptuously. Every single person in CES should seriously consider the depth of that teaching. Are you willing to stand up and say "Jesus was wrong! Jesus spoke without checking with God first!" I'm not. I'd rather take the hits that come with not understanding every jot and tittle of the Bible than ever have the audacity to accuse my Lord of speaking presumptuously.

From what little I've heard about transient global amnesia, episodes are known to be triggered by physical exertion. See. a. doctor.

I didn't say it was the issue. You brought up the divorce, separately. Then you said he was "fired." You did not present those two issues as related. Neither did I.

I should rephrase what I meant: I don't think, for a second, that JAL needs any help defending his positions on message boards, or that he would ask for any help doing such. By and large, I have found that these guys don't care all that much about what's said here. He would sooner ignore all this than call for reinforcements. As for rallying people to CES: yes, of course that's what he does. He's always done that. Once again, MJ, our blow up is based more on misunderstanding each other than understanding. Forgive me for my part in that, and let's both keep in mind for the next time we have a blow up. Which, by the way, I'm looking forward to. :)-->

Perhaps my "distance" has skewed my judgment. Or at least made me less willing to exercise that judgment. It is a lot more comfy where I sit. I send a check, I get tapes, a discount on books, and no hassles whatsoever. They've made no attempt to influence anything I've done on my web site (except when I asked for their assistance). Yeah, maybe I'm too comfy. Maybe I've got a twice-bitten, thrice shy attitude about the whole thing. I get involved, but I keep it at arm's length. They don't control me, and they haven't tried to. When I'm uncomfortable, I say so, publicly (which is wrong: I should say it to them first). But I haven't even gotten reproof on that. They've been totally "live and let live" with me. Too comfy: I think you may have me on that one. And MJ: I know you're trying to sound a just warning. If I'm unkind in my challenge, forgive me, but the challenge is fair: warn people about what's really there, not about what you project is there based on your mistrust of them. My deep concern with CES, which I've termed my "crisis of commitment" is based on a number of very real factors: They excuse false prophecy, and would rather declare Jesus wrong than themselves. Both are a little more complicated than that, but if those two truths don't get people to think very, very carefully about their CES involvement, mentioning JAL's divorce will not.

Well, I apologize for misunderstanding you, MJ.

This is another possibility: not sure if it's related, but it is serious...

MJ, that's judgmental. Do you honestly believe JAL needs to rally people to his cause to get them over here to defend his integrity? That CES followers feel AFRAID to use the Internet? Or message boards. Because if you really feel that way, that's paranoia. It's not based on anything resembling reality. But I'll tell you what: I'll rescind my paranoia comment and apologize for it. I'm sorry I said "paranoia." Instead, I'll say this: If you really, really feel that way... Prove it.

P.S. I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm tired of that false accusation too.

Who made this about you? I said your "history" was revisionist. I stand by that. You accused me of spin. That's fine, you're entitled to do so. Then you accused me of sugarcoating in order to keep people calm. BULL. Then you accuse me of buying their line "hook line and sinker." BULL. Everyone knows I have problems with CES and I've made no bones about that, but you accuse me of buying their line "hook line and sinker." You're either misinformed or lying. I've repeated this enough times to no longer believe you're misinformed, but I don't think you're deliberately lying. Forgetful, maybe. So let me remind you: I do not buy the CES line "hook line and sinker." And I'm tired of your false accusations to the contrary. I've said good and bad about CES, but you only seem to fly off the handle when I say something good. Lighten up.