Abso friggin LUTELY..... motives, whether he believed his own crap or not, whether he was sincer or decietfull....means precisely SQUAT when it comes to whether or not he was a genuine christian minister or a cleverly disguised counterfit ..a wolf disguised as a sheep in order to gain access to the sheep .... that led people away from the genuine walk with God.
I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal. I apologize if I'm wrong. I agree with your above statement.
But Tom..I think that this is the insidious nature of the lie of twi doctrine.
Suuure scripture says don`t fornicate....
Suuuure scripture says don`t commit adultery...but that isn`t reeeeally what god meant.
It reminds me of the teaching that vpw did with eve and the serpent.
The teachings were always about a way to wiggle out of what was expected of us as christians...a convenient way to dismiss the fact that the fruit in our leaders lives and many of our own defined us clearly as of the *flesh*
I am going to start another thread about this tonight.
"Always" is a strong term.
Matthew 5:27  ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 Â But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
I don't think Jesus would have looked upon Abraham as committing adultery, yet his definition of adultery could have been committed in the heart without any physical adultery even happening. That's something like what I was trying to communicate about fornication and marrieds taking c/o each other.
Nope, not at all Tom, what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.
Next you're going to say that-although it was our personal Lord that said this, there was
an administration change and now it's ok.
[
For someone who prefers civility in discourse, that's an unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth. You've got me down, Wordwolf; no use talking about it.
I don't think it much matters to the discussion, but I think the section you copied from Rom. 2 is written about Jews & Gentiles, primarily Jews.
I also find it hard to believe that Samson was out of fellowship, yet "He still had the strength" to take the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and go away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carry them up to the top of a hill. And why? Was the sex that great? These guys were hiding quietly waiting for him to kill him. How did he know they were there? Okay, maybe he came upon them & grabbed the gate before they could jump him. But when he broke his committment to God with Delilah, he lost his strength immediately and absolutely, & when he used his strength, he was energized in the service of the true God. I don't think he was naturally strong enough to carry gates to the cities around, but hey, I could be wrong.
Nope, not at all Tom, what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
From the post you are supposed to be addressing: "Am I saying that everyone setting Wierwille in our midst and ready to throw stones at him are present day scribes and Pharisees 'tempting' the Lord's brethren, 'that they might have to accuse' them? No, we're not talking about the same situations here."
That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.
Again, "...we're not talking about the same situations here."
As I said, "I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal."
So what now? You can't find anything, so you make up stuff that's the direct opposite of what I've said?
what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication ... as some how understandible.
I missed that one in there, Rascal. You're making stuff up again. Wierwille's adultery & fornication was despicable. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact when I mentioned (also quoted from the post in question) "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'," I immediately followed it with the words "Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek" so that people would realize I do NOT condone that attitude.
what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles ... attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
"Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon. Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings.
Just because Wierwille used them as cover and rationalization for sin doesn't mean they are wrong. People use the liberty that God called us to as an occasion to the flesh; that doesn't make the liberty a lie.
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
Wierwille's mindset I wouldn't begin to pretend to understand. I never could, & I wouldn't want to try to fathom the nastiness that was there.
A poor guy who simply erred is another figment of your imagination as is the a$$ hole accusation.
For the record, Tom, I didn't think you were defending VPW. I took what you were saying as an attempt to see all the way around the thing - all perspectives, all sides. I think that is often a healthy approach to things. My response was just me sharing my personal opinion on the situation.
"Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon.
Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings.
When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it.
When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not
endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly.
If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what
vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal. And we phrase them more
clearly. I myself had 2 different threads a few months back, examining 2 different bizarre claims of
vpw, and I labelled them clearly-I wanted to know if there was Biblical justification for either. On each,
we had an interesting discussion. Nobody thought I was holding forth either one.
For someone who prefers civility in discourse, that's an unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth. You've got me down, Wordwolf; no use talking about it.
You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to
commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all
Gospel passages as "different administration."
(And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect
to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position
would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct,
as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's
the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact.
(That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.)
Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet.
When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant
"anyone holding this position"- a more general "you".
I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked
like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said.
Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave,
you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting
them here.
Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.
You are picking a fight where there isn`t one Tom. I am not venting, I am not portraying you as a wierwille defender.....I am not accusing you of anything period.
Stop accusing me of accusing you of things please.
When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it.
When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not
endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly.
You think it is clear that I didn't condon what was done to women, yet Rascal still doesn't get it. You didn't think I was clear about vpw's argument, yet Abigail got it.
I said "However, I do think that there are many who neither say 'they think vpw's comments were appropriate,' nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling."
"People" I said. "in part" I said. I was talking about a continuum on which people could be at a point. Abigail got it. You would have if you didn't put words in my mouth. You want to lump me in with some classification? Then you're not conversing with me; you're conversing with a classification. That's a condescending, presumptuous rape of my individuality. Besides, you were wrong in your assumptions. If you're not going to address me & what I say, I'm not going to respond to you as if you had. Honestly, I thought you were bigger than that, Wordwolf.
If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what
vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal.
Perhaps, but that was not what my post was about; although, you apparently still perceive it that way despite the fact that I said it wasn't several times.
You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to
commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all
Gospel passages as "different administration."
(And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect
to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position
would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct,
as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's
the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact.
(That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.)
Again, Wordwolf, this post should probably belong in the doctrinal section. I'm not sure what you've induced as "orthodox vpw" but vpw never dismissed all OT passages or all Gospel passages on the basis that they were different administrations. He taught they were for our learning. He taught they were to be received as addressed to us insofar as they didn't contradict that which is addressed to us. Your basic assumption concerning vpw orthodoxy is incorrect; no wonder your "time saving" conclusions are incorrect. Even if you're assumptions about vpw orthodoxy were correct, which they are not, they are certainly incorrect about me. Dang it, Wordwolf, do you make a habit of assuming stuff about people? I didn't think so before this. That just kills a potential communication.
Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet.
When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant
"anyone holding this position"- a more general "you".
I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked
like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said.
Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave,
you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting
them here.
Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.
Okay, let's chalk it up to a miscommunication then - okay?
You are picking a fight where there isn`t one Tom. I am not venting, I am not portraying you as a wierwille defender.....I am not accusing you of anything period.
Stop accusing me of accusing you of things please.
Your words:
what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
I don't recall ever experiencing that attitude anywhere I was, but I don't doubt that it existed in places - those places where extramarital sex was freely practiced, you know, as a "doctrinal" thing. But Wierwille, nor anyone else, ever taught that when I was around that I remember. Sometimes he taught a lot of things in a short time that were so bizarre to my way of thinking that I might have just missed it.
I do remember hearing that he told Craig that he needed loosen up sexually. As I remember hearing it, VP told him that he would never be able to fully realize his potential ability to minister to women unless he did loosen up with them in that area. I suppose the implication may be made that the "principle" holds for others also, but I never was around anyone who tried to push the notion...umm, again, that I was aware of. People (like me) can be pretty naive or just unaware.
Thanks for the response. I really would like to get a response from some others on that, particularly any other corps. I am talking about if there was anything like that in the corps besides just what VPW told LCM. Of course, I would like to get a resonse to my other question as well, but I am afraid with the trust issue I may not get any further there than I have before.
I may have seen/experienced that attitude. It probably wouldnt belong on the same page as most stuff talked about on this thread. But together with other evidence, it may have been a symptom...
Unfortunately, besides your response, I havent received any others. I cant even get flamed as you have been just a touch, heh heh. Maybe a symptom of the times, but I just got dumped in chat too.
If you count a few people who don't post daily, he IS idolized, no qualifiers.
Let's try to keep names off the threads of people who haven't consented
to tell their stories here, though, 'kay?
========
Based on this recollection, that possible story sounds a lot more probable....
Dot:
"When I laid out some word to VPW on adultery his response was "What so ever things are pure...think on those things" He said it was MY THINKING evil is what made it evil.
He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage --he thought it to be beautiful.
VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."
He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage --he thought it to be beautiful.
VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."
And this would be the response of the little baby girls if they had a vote in that insanity!!!!!
You know what?! The world had enough of its own evilness (don't ask me or excath to elaborate on that, as you well know it I'm positive); without having to come in under the guise of godly council or deeper light for the spiritually informed. (barf!) (barf again!)
You can take a lot of liberties, walk on the edge of it all your whole life if that's what floats your boat, but to include a child in your teachings and private actions is just flat out insane.
And when those little girls who have carried their own demons grow up and have someone of the cloth further damage them, they best be glad they both weren't de-balled via some hedge clippers.
Lifted, the reason why you perhaps haven't gotten the responses you're looking for could be merely due to the fact that:
people aren't here every day who could answer
- the ones who read it and could answer won't because of how awfully those folks get attacked
- that to confirm it, yet not want to reveal one's name would render their account "unreliable" because they have personal reasons for remaining anonymous
- that to confirm it, yet not provide enough details based on someone's subjective decision as to what constitutes "enough" renders the confirmer "unreliable"
- folks who can confirm have already done so on WayDale or here already and do not care to revisit the memories - or have moved on and no longer frequent the cafe
A cursory read through the archives using the search function should provide ample evidence for someone who's willing to accept the testimonies of the many who have already shared that information. WayDale archives would provide even more testimonies, but equally insulting remarks because of how high emotions ran in those days.
Tom and WordWolf, I get what you're saying and I highly respect both of you, so I'm very surprised at the discussion between you two. I think in person you would both see what each other is saying better - this is one of those times, imo, where lack of the entire communication environment, body language, tone of voice, eye contact, etc. is contributing to the frustration.
Sex in and of itself can be a wonderful thing (or not-so-wonderful ), and not ungodly and sinful. It's the rest of the situation and circumstances that makes it so. Which, in VP's case, is absolutely despicable, even with the women who approached the coach willingly. Some could, and do, argue that point regarding the willing, but I think they would not have been so willing were vee pee just some dirty old man from the barber shop as opposed to his self-proclaimed "MOG" status.
Tom, for the last time, it wasn`t personal. Please stop picking a fight where none was intended.
What I addressed was what you wrote from the pov of why adultery and fornication might not be so heinous....and comparison of us to pharacees with stones......So...it was wierwilles pov and not yours...so....I STILL think it is horse sheet ....
RATHER than seek to live the life of a Christian...striving to be temperate and follow the scriptures requirements......He instead found a way to mangle the scriptures to justify his lust and the feeding of his sick apetites.
If this is not your pov then you and I are in complete agreement.
Ya know we were friends for years before we both told each other that VP had well tried on me and forced you into bed.
I recall feeling so afraid to tell anyone. Cause when I first REALLY saw all the screwing around in another leader and reported it, they had a meeting to tell the area I was possessed and not to believe me --
They were so great a damage control....
And even though you and I shared so much, I was afraid to tell you thinking you would report me for saying it.
When you read John Jeudes site you see all the deception to keep the secret.
Still shocks me when I think of the small corps group and how he spoke of "hardening the nipple" and stuff how we wound up in the bathroom independantly.
The sickening feeling about all of the "stuff" along with the FEAR of opening one's mouth still shocks me....
Looking back, we should have taken over the lunchroom and told them all what the creeps were doing....
But then we would have been disgraced and tossed out....
I think now, so toss me out, but at the time it was a grim thought.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
29
25
14
Popular Days
Jul 14
69
Aug 5
32
Jul 16
30
Aug 3
21
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 39 posts
Tom 29 posts
CoolWaters 25 posts
pond 14 posts
Popular Days
Jul 14 2006
69 posts
Aug 5 2006
32 posts
Jul 16 2006
30 posts
Aug 3 2006
21 posts
Tom
I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal. I apologize if I'm wrong. I agree with your above statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
"Always" is a strong term.
Matthew 5:27  ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 Â But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
I don't think Jesus would have looked upon Abraham as committing adultery, yet his definition of adultery could have been committed in the heart without any physical adultery even happening. That's something like what I was trying to communicate about fornication and marrieds taking c/o each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Nope, not at all Tom, what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
That woman wasn`t destroying lives on a daily basis...wierwille did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
For someone who prefers civility in discourse, that's an unsanitary practice of putting words in my mouth. You've got me down, Wordwolf; no use talking about it.
I don't think it much matters to the discussion, but I think the section you copied from Rom. 2 is written about Jews & Gentiles, primarily Jews.
I also find it hard to believe that Samson was out of fellowship, yet "He still had the strength" to take the doors of the gate of the city, and the two posts, and go away with them, bar and all, and put them upon his shoulders, and carry them up to the top of a hill. And why? Was the sex that great? These guys were hiding quietly waiting for him to kill him. How did he know they were there? Okay, maybe he came upon them & grabbed the gate before they could jump him. But when he broke his committment to God with Delilah, he lost his strength immediately and absolutely, & when he used his strength, he was energized in the service of the true God. I don't think he was naturally strong enough to carry gates to the cities around, but hey, I could be wrong.
Tom
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
From the post you are supposed to be addressing: "Am I saying that everyone setting Wierwille in our midst and ready to throw stones at him are present day scribes and Pharisees 'tempting' the Lord's brethren, 'that they might have to accuse' them? No, we're not talking about the same situations here."
Again, "...we're not talking about the same situations here."
As I said, "I feel like you would like to characterize me as a Wierwille defender so that you can argue with me and vent your anger on me, Rascal."
So what now? You can't find anything, so you make up stuff that's the direct opposite of what I've said?
I missed that one in there, Rascal. You're making stuff up again. Wierwille's adultery & fornication was despicable. I never said otherwise. As a matter of fact when I mentioned (also quoted from the post in question) "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'," I immediately followed it with the words "Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek" so that people would realize I do NOT condone that attitude.
"Plausible," as in appearing to merit belief or acceptance with the operative word being "appearing." I was merely trying to point out so many years of WC did not believe what Wierwille was saying without any reasonably sounding biblical documentation, NOT that the documentation WAS sound. How many times and ways do I have to say I'm not presenting a doctrinal stance that I'm standing upon. Even later, in response to Wordwolf's statement that we believed what we did without any biblical documentation, all I was presenting was the biblical documentation that Wierwille offered. It wasn't until later that I started talking about what I believe - much of which I got from Wierwille's teachings.
Just because Wierwille used them as cover and rationalization for sin doesn't mean they are wrong. People use the liberty that God called us to as an occasion to the flesh; that doesn't make the liberty a lie.
Wierwille's mindset I wouldn't begin to pretend to understand. I never could, & I wouldn't want to try to fathom the nastiness that was there.
A poor guy who simply erred is another figment of your imagination as is the a$$ hole accusation.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
For the record, Tom, I didn't think you were defending VPW. I took what you were saying as an attempt to see all the way around the thing - all perspectives, all sides. I think that is often a healthy approach to things. My response was just me sharing my personal opinion on the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it.
When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not
endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly.
If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what
vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal. And we phrase them more
clearly. I myself had 2 different threads a few months back, examining 2 different bizarre claims of
vpw, and I labelled them clearly-I wanted to know if there was Biblical justification for either. On each,
we had an interesting discussion. Nobody thought I was holding forth either one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to
commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all
Gospel passages as "different administration."
(And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect
to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position
would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct,
as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's
the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact.
(That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.)
Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet.
When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant
"anyone holding this position"- a more general "you".
I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked
like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said.
Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave,
you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting
them here.
Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
You are picking a fight where there isn`t one Tom. I am not venting, I am not portraying you as a wierwille defender.....I am not accusing you of anything period.
Stop accusing me of accusing you of things please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
You think it is clear that I didn't condon what was done to women, yet Rascal still doesn't get it. You didn't think I was clear about vpw's argument, yet Abigail got it.
I said "However, I do think that there are many who neither say 'they think vpw's comments were appropriate,' nor worship him, yet do, perhaps without even thinking about it, agree with his teachings in part. Both factor into the wrangling."
"People" I said. "in part" I said. I was talking about a continuum on which people could be at a point. Abigail got it. You would have if you didn't put words in my mouth. You want to lump me in with some classification? Then you're not conversing with me; you're conversing with a classification. That's a condescending, presumptuous rape of my individuality. Besides, you were wrong in your assumptions. If you're not going to address me & what I say, I'm not going to respond to you as if you had. Honestly, I thought you were bigger than that, Wordwolf.
Perhaps, but that was not what my post was about; although, you apparently still perceive it that way despite the fact that I said it wasn't several times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Again, Wordwolf, this post should probably belong in the doctrinal section. I'm not sure what you've induced as "orthodox vpw" but vpw never dismissed all OT passages or all Gospel passages on the basis that they were different administrations. He taught they were for our learning. He taught they were to be received as addressed to us insofar as they didn't contradict that which is addressed to us. Your basic assumption concerning vpw orthodoxy is incorrect; no wonder your "time saving" conclusions are incorrect. Even if you're assumptions about vpw orthodoxy were correct, which they are not, they are certainly incorrect about me. Dang it, Wordwolf, do you make a habit of assuming stuff about people? I didn't think so before this. That just kills a potential communication.
Okay, let's chalk it up to a miscommunication then - okay?
Your words:
what I am adressing is the attempt to portray wierwilles adultery and fornication and attempts at scriptural justification and cover up as some how understandible.
You compared us to pharacees with stones in our hands...
I am addressing your attempt to explain/excuse wierwilles mindset and portray us as a$$ holes looking to stone a poor guy who simply erred.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Thanks for the response. I really would like to get a response from some others on that, particularly any other corps. I am talking about if there was anything like that in the corps besides just what VPW told LCM. Of course, I would like to get a resonse to my other question as well, but I am afraid with the trust issue I may not get any further there than I have before.
I may have seen/experienced that attitude. It probably wouldnt belong on the same page as most stuff talked about on this thread. But together with other evidence, it may have been a symptom...
Unfortunately, besides your response, I havent received any others. I cant even get flamed as you have been just a touch, heh heh. Maybe a symptom of the times, but I just got dumped in chat too.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
tom, i've been understanding you all along
thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you count a few people who don't post daily, he IS idolized, no qualifiers.
Let's try to keep names off the threads of people who haven't consented
to tell their stories here, though, 'kay?
========
Based on this recollection, that possible story sounds a lot more probable....
Dot:
"When I laid out some word to VPW on adultery his response was "What so ever things are pure...think on those things" He said it was MY THINKING evil is what made it evil.
He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage --he thought it to be beautiful.
VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
And this would be the response of the little baby girls if they had a vote in that insanity!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
You know what?! The world had enough of its own evilness (don't ask me or excath to elaborate on that, as you well know it I'm positive); without having to come in under the guise of godly council or deeper light for the spiritually informed. (barf!) (barf again!)
You can take a lot of liberties, walk on the edge of it all your whole life if that's what floats your boat, but to include a child in your teachings and private actions is just flat out insane.
And when those little girls who have carried their own demons grow up and have someone of the cloth further damage them, they best be glad they both weren't de-balled via some hedge clippers.
Yeah, I'm ticked off, so what!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Lifted, the reason why you perhaps haven't gotten the responses you're looking for could be merely due to the fact that:
people aren't here every day who could answer
- the ones who read it and could answer won't because of how awfully those folks get attacked
- that to confirm it, yet not want to reveal one's name would render their account "unreliable" because they have personal reasons for remaining anonymous
- that to confirm it, yet not provide enough details based on someone's subjective decision as to what constitutes "enough" renders the confirmer "unreliable"
- folks who can confirm have already done so on WayDale or here already and do not care to revisit the memories - or have moved on and no longer frequent the cafe
A cursory read through the archives using the search function should provide ample evidence for someone who's willing to accept the testimonies of the many who have already shared that information. WayDale archives would provide even more testimonies, but equally insulting remarks because of how high emotions ran in those days.
Tom and WordWolf, I get what you're saying and I highly respect both of you, so I'm very surprised at the discussion between you two. I think in person you would both see what each other is saying better - this is one of those times, imo, where lack of the entire communication environment, body language, tone of voice, eye contact, etc. is contributing to the frustration.
Sex in and of itself can be a wonderful thing (or not-so-wonderful
), and not ungodly and sinful. It's the rest of the situation and circumstances that makes it so. Which, in VP's case, is absolutely despicable, even with the women who approached the coach willingly. Some could, and do, argue that point regarding the willing, but I think they would not have been so willing were vee pee just some dirty old man from the barber shop as opposed to his self-proclaimed "MOG" status.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Tom, for the last time, it wasn`t personal. Please stop picking a fight where none was intended.
What I addressed was what you wrote from the pov of why adultery and fornication might not be so heinous....and comparison of us to pharacees with stones......So...it was wierwilles pov and not yours...so....I STILL think it is horse sheet ....
RATHER than seek to live the life of a Christian...striving to be temperate and follow the scriptures requirements......He instead found a way to mangle the scriptures to justify his lust and the feeding of his sick apetites.
If this is not your pov then you and I are in complete agreement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ditto
if he had been attractive, younger, and a "soul" healer, i think i would have gone for him
that's one thing one of my relatives had going for him
how sick, right
tom, that post wasn't for you
just the ditto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
"if he had been attractive, younger, and a "soul" healer, i think i would have gone for him
that's one thing one of my relatives had going for him"
Ex
So, in other words, had he have been a completely different person I may have gone for him....
You are too cute.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Ex
Ya know we were friends for years before we both told each other that VP had well tried on me and forced you into bed.
I recall feeling so afraid to tell anyone. Cause when I first REALLY saw all the screwing around in another leader and reported it, they had a meeting to tell the area I was possessed and not to believe me --
They were so great a damage control....
And even though you and I shared so much, I was afraid to tell you thinking you would report me for saying it.
When you read John Jeudes site you see all the deception to keep the secret.
Still shocks me when I think of the small corps group and how he spoke of "hardening the nipple" and stuff how we wound up in the bathroom independantly.
The sickening feeling about all of the "stuff" along with the FEAR of opening one's mouth still shocks me....
Looking back, we should have taken over the lunchroom and told them all what the creeps were doing....
But then we would have been disgraced and tossed out....
I think now, so toss me out, but at the time it was a grim thought.
For thiose interested:
http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/ltr_marsha.htm
http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/ltr_Psexstory.htm
http://www.uia.net/~messiah7/ltr_newwoman.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dot i love you
did you notice someone else was at that damn meeting where we were !!!!!
shame fear of being ostracized dah dah dah
does strange things to us
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
forget it, dot, it got deleted, just like ours
i guess veepee was not a believer in incest after all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.