It was hard for me to believe VPW did this kind of behavior, and hard to accept. But now I know. It blows off a lot of good memories I had in the early days.
Eagle
Most of us (those who aren't vpw apologists/defenders) have come to similar conclusions.
What I would say is:
The evils that vpw did do NOT negate the good experiences and good memories you have.
HOWEVER,
they add CONTEXT and DETAIL to them.
Those of us without any bad memories of the time received them, true-
but at the expense of those who DID have bad experiences.
I would not say you never had good times.
Some of those good times were due entirely to wonderful people that are still wonderful
people. Contrary to advertising, they were so before pfal and remained so after pfal.
I wouldn't say forget them all. They are part of who and what you are.
But, just as good times can't erase the evil vpw did,
neither can his evil erase the good you experienced.
I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.”
If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it.
I could describe his puny thing to you, but as one said he is dead and gone….
So, no there is no proof for those who do not believe all the numerous testimonies of people whose lives have been ruined.
Believe whatever you want. Changing your mind doesn’t matter to me. I know what I know.
Jeffrey Dahlmer ate people, did they check his poop? They found body parts in the apartment and he told them what he did. We really have no proof. He could have just cut the bodies up and threw them away. How do we REALLY know?
I have been told my step-mother LOVES my father. I have no idea if it is true. I can only watch her actions and decide if I believe her or not.
So, this kind of question, although innocently asked by a nice curious guy, will never be answered to the satisfaction of all—so why discuss it for the 1000 time. Someone once called a poster a name then said something like you have been complaining about this for all these years. Get over it. Sometimes people ask. That is one of the reasons why it is continually brought up.
And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you.
You can tell over and over if you want to do so. That is up to you and brave considering some of the crap people have slung your way when you have shared.
I am worn out, but as tired as I am I still get ticked reading some of the ways people handle others when they are sharing what happened.
Reminds me of Dana Carvey speaking of OJ Simpson.
How if OJ DIDN't Do it and was framed, how the cops all ran around saying "I'm in let's frame OJ!" It is ridiculous
Through the years there have been many people whom have shared stories of forced sex with VP, only to be told it was consentual. Then, even if he had consentual sex, isn't that (adultery) wrong for a Moggie, but they just travel down the one brain cell thinking... Its a bully thing and I am sick of it.
So, why bother?
Aren't you exhausted? Shoot, he really did you awful with the whole something in your drink, then later being mean to you and well... you know all the crap...
I never got why some people were yelled at for sex and others were invited to participate.
Like the guy in the one band that was around back in the day, Craig yelled at him and told him on a corps night or corps week or whatever "to keep it in his pants blaa blaa"
While he was getting his knob polished on a regular basis. Or why VP was ALWAYS drinking but yells at the corps to have a two drink limit.
Or how one corps coordinator told us that "not cursing does not offend anyone" and his wife could have won a verbal battle with a fleet of truck drivers and won.
It was selective enforcement. Heck, you went to the parties, we saw the drinking and yet they threw a friend of mine OUT of the corps for having 3 beers....
The limb leader I liked so much, never had a great position again because he was "srewing around" yet the guy telling him had numerous bangees.
Who drew the lines and where and on whom were they drawn?
I forgot al the 3 and 4th corps girls who were recruiters sharing "what a blessing it was to service a man of God." I guess they were all liars. And even if they wanted it, eventually, the fact that were solicited in the first place by an OLD MAN with a BIBLE sickens me.
that's one thing (of many) that is so FRIKKIN weird disconcerting ..... people getting thrown out and ostracized by stupid basstards that were so much worse
i'm still trying to figure some things out myself
i think when i first told online i was so beaten up or down ha that i had to go away for almost year - this was the beginning of waydale
and now when i talk, i really think i'm starting to believe i'm okay
i used to not come back for months, then weeks, now it's only days, and i can still bear to read what i wrote. i've come a long way baby :)
I think we've ALL come along way "baby", due in no small measure to the bravery and courage you and others have shown. I can only speak for myself but let me just say this: THANK YOU!
I never got why some people were yelled at for sex and others were invited to participate.
Like the guy in the one band that was around back in the day, Craig yelled at him and told him on a corps night or corps week or whatever "to keep it in his pants blaa blaa"
While he was getting his knob polished on a regular basis. Or why VP was ALWAYS drinking but yells at the corps to have a two drink limit.
Or how one corps coordinator told us that "not cursing does not offend anyone" and his wife could have won a verbal battle with a fleet of truck drivers and won.
It was selective enforcement. Heck, you went to the parties, we saw the drinking and yet they threw a friend of mine OUT of the corps for having 3 beers....
The limb leader I liked so much, never had a great position again because he was "srewing around" yet the guy telling him had numerous bangees.
I'm thinking piffle had this right, you point one finger at someone else and you point three back at yourself. Of course VP stole that too. But in psych101, what is that? Projection?
I see that a lot, even in forums here ... heck, I'm probably guilty of it. But from what I have seen it is pervasive in people that live a duplicitous life, such as those teaching one set of standards and living in direct contrast to them. I'm beginning to understand that it is not that they are deliberately scheming so much as that they are really in denial. Short of deprogramming them, they will maybe never change. Giving them 15% of one's income and revering them only worsens the condition.
I never got why some people were yelled at for sex and others were invited to participate.
Like the guy in the one band that was around back in the day, Craig yelled at him and told him on a corps night or corps week or whatever "to keep it in his pants blaa blaa"
While he was getting his knob polished on a regular basis.
...
Who drew the lines and where and on whom were they drawn?
I never thought about it with regard to TWI, but it's been my experience since leaving TWI out in the workworld that the more an organization yells about something - like "safety on the job" for example - the more you can bet that there is systematic breaking of safety rules in the organization (supported and expected by the higher ups). It has nothing to do with wanting safe practices to exist in the workforce & everything to do with the organization covering themselves against liability for illegal practices they expect and desire their employees to do - corners cut which get work done in less time thereby increasing profit.
Remember the "illicit" sex was supposed to be for the inner circles of people - those who could "handle" the freedom we have in Christ. It was never supposed to be revealed to the "rest" of the ... you know, the household, but not THE household.
the more an organization yells about something - like "safety on the job" for example - the more you can bet that there is systematic breaking of safety rules in the organization (supported and expected by the higher ups).
Ha, that's why Wierwille yelled so loudly, "It's the Word, the Word, & nothing but the Word!" Because it wasn't nothing but the Word.
Remember VP saying that if a man's words are from the Lord, he doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" because people will know if it's the Word of the Lord? Is yelling "It's the Word" any different? He said when people come up to him & say "Thus saith the Lord," he takes a step back to see if they have spiritual halitosis, & it's from the wrong lord. That's a lesson we should have learned where HE was concerned. But see, the technique works, so we didn't.
I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.”
If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it.
And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you.
I guess this has pretty much come to be the standard response to queries, whether they be honest or not. In fact, it assumes prettty much that there are no honest queries. Goin back to Paw's classification of "non-victims", "...and there are those who want to understand but don't quite understand the dynamics of the situation". Since this was the only classification he gave which sounded even halfways favorable, my questionis, what dynamics? I mean, I took plenty of dynamics in college, but it applied to meteorology and not sexual abuse. If it is a simple statement that non victims cannot understand what a victim has gone through, well, accepted. But with the above statements, and several others, including Wordwolf's recent post, and some things I was told in a private message, it seems more like a message that there is no one who really wants to understand if they haven't already accepted.
Linda and Paw are hardly the only people who I have seen state or imply that they know the sexual abuse happened because they personally know or have personally talked with victims. (See the opening of Linda Z's "Why some don't get the sexual abuse stories" thread I referred to yesterday). Yet everyone else seems expected to accept second or third hand and/or anonymous accounts on the internet without question, by the same people who would probably be very suspicious (as I was) if their doughter (or son) were asked to travel out of town to spend time with someone they had only met in cybersoace. That leaves no one, evidently, who does not accept everything that is said on faith, who is honestly seeking to know and who is ready to accept what they learn.
Dot's statements above look, well, very true. But in applying them, it seems that , for example, "someone would say the picture was altered" becomes "everyone would say...", and I guess I should resign myself to that being understandable. I suppose someone who has been hurt doesn't have a basis to trust me more than tjose who have given hurtful responses when they don't know me any better. Thus the response I got, I guess, from another long time poster...one of the few GSers in fact with whom I have had personal contact (on the phone in this case), in response to an inquiry about getting personal first hand testimony, that I woul have to believe the second hand and anonymous accounts, because if I had personal testimony, "you wouldn't believe it anyway". Which is why we are starting to get posts that say, basically, "what has been posted over the years is all you're going to get; find it and dig it out yourself, you are not going to get any more".
And they key is , I guess, that if someone's been deeply hurt, they're probably not going to care whether I believe it or not, so why hurt themselves further to satisfy the queries of someone they dont know and from their view is probably going to hurt them more.
My peon self will pipe in here and make a comment or two.......
If it wasn't for Excie and Dot and others stories about VP, I would probably still be debating whether to "stick it out and see if the love comes back in the Way". thank you :)
So, there is a need for it, no matter what the naysayers think.
Next, in my personal life...................................yes, I will expose it a wee little bit...................
I YELL the more guilty I am!
Yup.
Example: I tell my kiddos to stay out of the snacks at certain times, or only allowed one or two sugary ones per day..............................
ok, so what am I doing eating 4 chocholate thingies?
So, as I am eating enjoyably my chocholate, and I am sneaking it, I really don't want them to know, now do I?
Heck NO!
So, what do I do when one of them innocently comes around the corner to find me?????
I YELL!
"WHAT??? I told you to clean your room or something!"
I am definately short tempered and quick to lash out...................why????
Cuz I am a guilty mo@#$% fu@#$r! That is why!
And I am only talking candy here............................ "Lord forgive me. I am a chocohaulic"
think about adultery, lude and crude behavior, spiking drinks, and drinking!
Talk about yelling!
I can always pick out a guilty bugger now. They are the ones that don't shut up about how "bad" something is.
Have you ever met one of those? Craig was a great example in hindsight.
They are just covering for their own sins. GOTCHA!
I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.”
If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it.
And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you.
I guess this has pretty much come to be the standard response to queries, whether they be honest or not. ...But with the above statements, and several others, including Wordwolf's recent post, and some things I was told in a private message, it seems more like a message that there is no one who really wants to understand if they haven't already accepted.
...
Dot's statements above look, well, very true. But in applying them, it seems that , for example, "someone would say the picture was altered" becomes "everyone would say...",
Understood. But frustrating.
My first thought upon reading Lifted Up's post was that was simply NOT what Dot said. But, after reading the post a couple of more times, there's a point there worth taking. This is not exactly an open forum. Of course, to start with, the openess of the thread is qualified by the original question (Is there any proof of VP's adultery?). But, after that, as Linda Z asks, who draws the lines as to what is acceptable and what is not? The question is asked from perspectives very different from (perhaps unacceptable to) Linda's intended line of thought, but it is the same question. All kinds of lines that people have drawn for themselves and for others are coming out here. That's only natural; the subject is, after all, proof that VP stepped over a line.
I wonder if we aren't all dancing around the proverbial elephant in the living room here. I realize that there are people here who think that they have very legitimate causes for righteous anger. Please let me state up front that I'm not about disagreeing with any of you. If it were my daughter (that I don't have), & I was there with a knife in my hand, it wouldn't take any deep thought before I'd make his teeny weenie teenier.
But if I can just TALK for a while - about the elephant - without everyone taking sides, pulling out their knives, & castrating each other...
Why is all the wrangling going on here? Now, now - go easy. I'm not implying that there is no reason or cause worth wrangling about. I'm asking people to think about why there is so much static between people here on this thread. Some of you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, everyone agrees with you; THAT'S causing no static. Others think that you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, others are not so sure = static.
Still others are conflicted yet about what happened (understandably so) and still have all kinds of internal static going on. Sharing here, where there are so many differing opinions about where lines should be drawn can both help bring resolution and static.
Oh, right - the elephant (I notice I'm also dancing around it). Why is all the wrangling going on?
Because we're talking about SEX? Well, maybe partially; sex can be very personally intense, but hopefully we've all had sex without wrangling at some point in our lives, so that can't be the whole answer.
Because we're talking about ADULTERY? Well, now THAT could be a very touchy subject. I could coolly calculate ending someone's life for that. I wouldn't get all raucous about it, but that's just me. But consider Jesus and the "woman taken in adultery...in the very act." Now THAT'S PROOF! But who was making the big to do about it? Not Jesus. Certainly not the woman. The scribes and Pharisees. 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. But we're talking about situations that have elements in common. I'm just trying to bring up factors that might; & therefore, I figure do, enter in.
Because we're talking about RAPE? No people lining up to defend rapists? Especially child molestors - not very popular, even in prisons.
So, we've got a lot of people, each drawing a lot of lines, many of whom are not quite sure where to draw their lines.
I spent the wee hours of the morning in an RV (I think it was at the infamous 17th Corps week) with a Corps sister. TALKING, okay? But what if we weren't just talking? Would that have been over the line? What if we were in love? What if we were engaged? Anyway, we were talking about adultery, & she shared with me that LCM had come to her area, & while he was there, they had done the deed. He didn't force her or coerce her in any way. She didn't feel taken advantage of. It was "good." I doubt seriously that she feels any more traumatized by it today than she did then. I suspect that she certainly wasn't/isn't the only one who feels that way; although, I doubt seriously that they would post on this thread - the lines being drawn the way they are.
Okay, the elephant - I suspect that one of the reasons why there is so much wrangling is because people are not sure where they sit on the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek.
I'm not about defending Wierwille; I'm asking how many of us don't believe that there is some credence to what he taught about sex? Bliss was honest enough to talk about the anger principle with regard to candy. How many of us haven't dipped into the sweet stuff? Honestly, I have to put my stone down. Not only that, but many of us are still conflicted about whether we should feel guilty about it or not. How many of us, I wonder, have had sex with someone, perhaps even when one was married, during a time when your soul was a desert as far as sex was concerned - a time that had a lasting beneficial effect for that time, perhaps even throughout your entire life? Every good and perfect gift comes from above, so where did that come from?
Hey, look; I'm just trying to talk. Put your stones down. Why is it okay for Excie to think about about the "free love" that was around in the day without remorse or emotional turmoil, but Wierwille should die (again, I guess:)). Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of good reasons. All I'm saying is that these are considerations - unresolved considerations - in the minds of people. Maybe your considerations lie somewhere else on the continuum. Hey, maybe you don't have any unresolved considerations on sex that lie anywhere on that continuum - more power to you. All I'm saying is that people do.
The situation was presented to the WC that people have needs that can't be satisfied by marriage tomorrow or the next day or the next, and the God who promises to meet all our needs can do so without complication for an honest heart that asks. My first time was like that. It was wonderful, conditioned my appeciation of sex for the rest of my life - thank you. I'd do it again in a heart beat in the same situation.
But the situation is different for me today. I'm okay, today - I decided that being the husband of one wife was satisfying and a full time occupation. Call me one of those who can't "handle" the freedom. I really don't care; I call it a good and perfect gift coming down from the Father of lights.
Again, I'm not trying to absolve or defend Wierwille. I'm just trying to obviate some considerations that I think some people have that are fostering wrangling - but really trying to help mitigate some anger & resolve some guilt for people.
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
detour on route 29
We all do not need to repeat or relive this in any fashion. When the cafe opened we
had the opportunity to tell our story and for me move on...why relive, revisit, review this topic
when there is plenty in the achives...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Most of us (those who aren't vpw apologists/defenders) have come to similar conclusions.
What I would say is:
The evils that vpw did do NOT negate the good experiences and good memories you have.
HOWEVER,
they add CONTEXT and DETAIL to them.
Those of us without any bad memories of the time received them, true-
but at the expense of those who DID have bad experiences.
I would not say you never had good times.
Some of those good times were due entirely to wonderful people that are still wonderful
people. Contrary to advertising, they were so before pfal and remained so after pfal.
I wouldn't say forget them all. They are part of who and what you are.
But, just as good times can't erase the evil vpw did,
neither can his evil erase the good you experienced.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
i have real proof that cornfild vic tried
i saw him rubbing and squeezing my young good looking wife's foot in gunnison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I've been thinking 'bout our fortune,
And I've decided that we're really not to blame,
For the love that's deep inside us now
Is still the same.
Moody Blues - The Story in Your Eyes
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
To the oringinal post
I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.”
If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it.
I could describe his puny thing to you, but as one said he is dead and gone….
So, no there is no proof for those who do not believe all the numerous testimonies of people whose lives have been ruined.
Believe whatever you want. Changing your mind doesn’t matter to me. I know what I know.
Jeffrey Dahlmer ate people, did they check his poop? They found body parts in the apartment and he told them what he did. We really have no proof. He could have just cut the bodies up and threw them away. How do we REALLY know?
I have been told my step-mother LOVES my father. I have no idea if it is true. I can only watch her actions and decide if I believe her or not.
So, this kind of question, although innocently asked by a nice curious guy, will never be answered to the satisfaction of all—so why discuss it for the 1000 time. Someone once called a poster a name then said something like you have been complaining about this for all these years. Get over it. Sometimes people ask. That is one of the reasons why it is continually brought up.
And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you.
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
dottie hi my friend
some people maybe don't know after all these years whatever
sometimes for my inexplicable maybe sick reasons i still want to tell sometimes
oh yeah eagle, please leave soggie alone !!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Ex
You can tell over and over if you want to do so. That is up to you and brave considering some of the crap people have slung your way when you have shared.
I am worn out, but as tired as I am I still get ticked reading some of the ways people handle others when they are sharing what happened.
Reminds me of Dana Carvey speaking of OJ Simpson.
How if OJ DIDN't Do it and was framed, how the cops all ran around saying "I'm in let's frame OJ!" It is ridiculous
Through the years there have been many people whom have shared stories of forced sex with VP, only to be told it was consentual. Then, even if he had consentual sex, isn't that (adultery) wrong for a Moggie, but they just travel down the one brain cell thinking... Its a bully thing and I am sick of it.
So, why bother?
Aren't you exhausted? Shoot, he really did you awful with the whole something in your drink, then later being mean to you and well... you know all the crap...
I never got why some people were yelled at for sex and others were invited to participate.
Like the guy in the one band that was around back in the day, Craig yelled at him and told him on a corps night or corps week or whatever "to keep it in his pants blaa blaa"
While he was getting his knob polished on a regular basis. Or why VP was ALWAYS drinking but yells at the corps to have a two drink limit.
Or how one corps coordinator told us that "not cursing does not offend anyone" and his wife could have won a verbal battle with a fleet of truck drivers and won.
It was selective enforcement. Heck, you went to the parties, we saw the drinking and yet they threw a friend of mine OUT of the corps for having 3 beers....
The limb leader I liked so much, never had a great position again because he was "srewing around" yet the guy telling him had numerous bangees.
Who drew the lines and where and on whom were they drawn?
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
I forgot al the 3 and 4th corps girls who were recruiters sharing "what a blessing it was to service a man of God." I guess they were all liars. And even if they wanted it, eventually, the fact that were solicited in the first place by an OLD MAN with a BIBLE sickens me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that's one thing (of many) that is so FRIKKIN weird disconcerting ..... people getting thrown out and ostracized by stupid basstards that were so much worse
i'm still trying to figure some things out myself
i think when i first told online i was so beaten up or down ha that i had to go away for almost year - this was the beginning of waydale
and now when i talk, i really think i'm starting to believe i'm okay
i used to not come back for months, then weeks, now it's only days, and i can still bear to read what i wrote. i've come a long way baby :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think we've ALL come along way "baby", due in no small measure to the bravery and courage you and others have shown. I can only speak for myself but let me just say this: THANK YOU!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Yeah, to both of you, we have come a long way.
I can still see that stupid naked VP sitting in the coach expecting and asking me to....
Fat stupid, small wee- wee dumb butt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh christ thank you for making me laugh so hard, dot
and thanks waysider and anyone else
i know, i always feel like i should be thanking or apoligizing
i'm a wayferhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I'm thinking piffle had this right, you point one finger at someone else and you point three back at yourself. Of course VP stole that too. But in psych101, what is that? Projection?
I see that a lot, even in forums here ... heck, I'm probably guilty of it. But from what I have seen it is pervasive in people that live a duplicitous life, such as those teaching one set of standards and living in direct contrast to them. I'm beginning to understand that it is not that they are deliberately scheming so much as that they are really in denial. Short of deprogramming them, they will maybe never change. Giving them 15% of one's income and revering them only worsens the condition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
ex imo you are way more than ok!! here's to you!
Edited by coolchefLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Exie, Dottie:
You both ROCK! I appreciate your candid comments. Some more shocking than I expected but it sure gives a hard-hitting picture of all of it.
Okay, Exie, I'll say it.
Sogwap...sorry...looking over that post of yours, though graphic, seems to be in defense of these women. In that case...Kudos to you.
My apologies.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
group hug with eagle in the middle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
present and accounted for in the hug
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I never thought about it with regard to TWI, but it's been my experience since leaving TWI out in the workworld that the more an organization yells about something - like "safety on the job" for example - the more you can bet that there is systematic breaking of safety rules in the organization (supported and expected by the higher ups). It has nothing to do with wanting safe practices to exist in the workforce & everything to do with the organization covering themselves against liability for illegal practices they expect and desire their employees to do - corners cut which get work done in less time thereby increasing profit.
Remember the "illicit" sex was supposed to be for the inner circles of people - those who could "handle" the freedom we have in Christ. It was never supposed to be revealed to the "rest" of the ... you know, the household, but not THE household.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Ha, that's why Wierwille yelled so loudly, "It's the Word, the Word, & nothing but the Word!" Because it wasn't nothing but the Word.
Remember VP saying that if a man's words are from the Lord, he doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" because people will know if it's the Word of the Lord? Is yelling "It's the Word" any different? He said when people come up to him & say "Thus saith the Lord," he takes a step back to see if they have spiritual halitosis, & it's from the wrong lord. That's a lesson we should have learned where HE was concerned. But see, the technique works, so we didn't.
Edited by TomLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
yeah well may he rot in the fountain of dead waters
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I guess this has pretty much come to be the standard response to queries, whether they be honest or not. In fact, it assumes prettty much that there are no honest queries. Goin back to Paw's classification of "non-victims", "...and there are those who want to understand but don't quite understand the dynamics of the situation". Since this was the only classification he gave which sounded even halfways favorable, my questionis, what dynamics? I mean, I took plenty of dynamics in college, but it applied to meteorology and not sexual abuse. If it is a simple statement that non victims cannot understand what a victim has gone through, well, accepted. But with the above statements, and several others, including Wordwolf's recent post, and some things I was told in a private message, it seems more like a message that there is no one who really wants to understand if they haven't already accepted.
Linda and Paw are hardly the only people who I have seen state or imply that they know the sexual abuse happened because they personally know or have personally talked with victims. (See the opening of Linda Z's "Why some don't get the sexual abuse stories" thread I referred to yesterday). Yet everyone else seems expected to accept second or third hand and/or anonymous accounts on the internet without question, by the same people who would probably be very suspicious (as I was) if their doughter (or son) were asked to travel out of town to spend time with someone they had only met in cybersoace. That leaves no one, evidently, who does not accept everything that is said on faith, who is honestly seeking to know and who is ready to accept what they learn.
Dot's statements above look, well, very true. But in applying them, it seems that , for example, "someone would say the picture was altered" becomes "everyone would say...", and I guess I should resign myself to that being understandable. I suppose someone who has been hurt doesn't have a basis to trust me more than tjose who have given hurtful responses when they don't know me any better. Thus the response I got, I guess, from another long time poster...one of the few GSers in fact with whom I have had personal contact (on the phone in this case), in response to an inquiry about getting personal first hand testimony, that I woul have to believe the second hand and anonymous accounts, because if I had personal testimony, "you wouldn't believe it anyway". Which is why we are starting to get posts that say, basically, "what has been posted over the years is all you're going to get; find it and dig it out yourself, you are not going to get any more".
And they key is , I guess, that if someone's been deeply hurt, they're probably not going to care whether I believe it or not, so why hurt themselves further to satisfy the queries of someone they dont know and from their view is probably going to hurt them more.
Understood. But frustrating.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
"may he?" That's one "may" that's not a maybe. Rotting he is. Why don't I think that comforts you, Ex?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
My peon self will pipe in here and make a comment or two.......
If it wasn't for Excie and Dot and others stories about VP, I would probably still be debating whether to "stick it out and see if the love comes back in the Way". thank you :)
So, there is a need for it, no matter what the naysayers think.
Next, in my personal life...................................yes, I will expose it a wee little bit...................
I YELL the more guilty I am!
Yup.
Example: I tell my kiddos to stay out of the snacks at certain times, or only allowed one or two sugary ones per day..............................
ok, so what am I doing eating 4 chocholate thingies?
So, as I am eating enjoyably my chocholate, and I am sneaking it, I really don't want them to know, now do I?
Heck NO!
So, what do I do when one of them innocently comes around the corner to find me?????
I YELL!
"WHAT??? I told you to clean your room or something!"
I am definately short tempered and quick to lash out...................why????
Cuz I am a guilty mo@#$% fu@#$r! That is why!
And I am only talking candy here............................ "Lord forgive me. I am a chocohaulic"
think about adultery, lude and crude behavior, spiking drinks, and drinking!
Talk about yelling!
I can always pick out a guilty bugger now. They are the ones that don't shut up about how "bad" something is.
Have you ever met one of those? Craig was a great example in hindsight.
They are just covering for their own sins. GOTCHA!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
QUOTE(Dot Matrix @ Aug 3 2006, 06:00 PM)
To the oringinal post
I have learned through the years here, that if I posted a picture of his “stick” in a “fluffy,” someone would say the picture was altered. If another had the sperm on the sheets, someone would say prove it was put there during an adulterous “affair.”
If a woman produced a pubic hair, one would say well, maybe sex was consensual between them. Another could share how she was forced against her will, then a poster would pretty mush say she was a liar or she wanted it.
And sometimes people need to talk to heal, but whatever the reason when you tell the truth people come out of the woodwork to dismiss you.
My first thought upon reading Lifted Up's post was that was simply NOT what Dot said. But, after reading the post a couple of more times, there's a point there worth taking. This is not exactly an open forum. Of course, to start with, the openess of the thread is qualified by the original question (Is there any proof of VP's adultery?). But, after that, as Linda Z asks, who draws the lines as to what is acceptable and what is not? The question is asked from perspectives very different from (perhaps unacceptable to) Linda's intended line of thought, but it is the same question. All kinds of lines that people have drawn for themselves and for others are coming out here. That's only natural; the subject is, after all, proof that VP stepped over a line.
I wonder if we aren't all dancing around the proverbial elephant in the living room here. I realize that there are people here who think that they have very legitimate causes for righteous anger. Please let me state up front that I'm not about disagreeing with any of you. If it were my daughter (that I don't have), & I was there with a knife in my hand, it wouldn't take any deep thought before I'd make his teeny weenie teenier.
But if I can just TALK for a while - about the elephant - without everyone taking sides, pulling out their knives, & castrating each other...
Why is all the wrangling going on here? Now, now - go easy. I'm not implying that there is no reason or cause worth wrangling about. I'm asking people to think about why there is so much static between people here on this thread. Some of you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, everyone agrees with you; THAT'S causing no static. Others think that you have very simple righteous reasons for your anger, others are not so sure = static.
Still others are conflicted yet about what happened (understandably so) and still have all kinds of internal static going on. Sharing here, where there are so many differing opinions about where lines should be drawn can both help bring resolution and static.
Oh, right - the elephant (I notice I'm also dancing around it). Why is all the wrangling going on?
Because we're talking about SEX? Well, maybe partially; sex can be very personally intense, but hopefully we've all had sex without wrangling at some point in our lives, so that can't be the whole answer.
Because we're talking about ADULTERY? Well, now THAT could be a very touchy subject. I could coolly calculate ending someone's life for that. I wouldn't get all raucous about it, but that's just me. But consider Jesus and the "woman taken in adultery...in the very act." Now THAT'S PROOF! But who was making the big to do about it? Not Jesus. Certainly not the woman. The scribes and Pharisees. 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. But we're talking about situations that have elements in common. I'm just trying to bring up factors that might; & therefore, I figure do, enter in.
Because we're talking about RAPE? No people lining up to defend rapists? Especially child molestors - not very popular, even in prisons.
So, we've got a lot of people, each drawing a lot of lines, many of whom are not quite sure where to draw their lines.
I spent the wee hours of the morning in an RV (I think it was at the infamous 17th Corps week) with a Corps sister. TALKING, okay? But what if we weren't just talking? Would that have been over the line? What if we were in love? What if we were engaged? Anyway, we were talking about adultery, & she shared with me that LCM had come to her area, & while he was there, they had done the deed. He didn't force her or coerce her in any way. She didn't feel taken advantage of. It was "good." I doubt seriously that she feels any more traumatized by it today than she did then. I suspect that she certainly wasn't/isn't the only one who feels that way; although, I doubt seriously that they would post on this thread - the lines being drawn the way they are.
Okay, the elephant - I suspect that one of the reasons why there is so much wrangling is because people are not sure where they sit on the continuum between "scribes and Pharisees who throw stones at adulterers" and "'helping' young conflicted girls get over their sexual problems by giving them 'pure, loving, sex'." Please note the single quotes indicating I'm being speaking tongue-in-cheek.
I'm not about defending Wierwille; I'm asking how many of us don't believe that there is some credence to what he taught about sex? Bliss was honest enough to talk about the anger principle with regard to candy. How many of us haven't dipped into the sweet stuff? Honestly, I have to put my stone down. Not only that, but many of us are still conflicted about whether we should feel guilty about it or not. How many of us, I wonder, have had sex with someone, perhaps even when one was married, during a time when your soul was a desert as far as sex was concerned - a time that had a lasting beneficial effect for that time, perhaps even throughout your entire life? Every good and perfect gift comes from above, so where did that come from?
Hey, look; I'm just trying to talk. Put your stones down. Why is it okay for Excie to think about about the "free love" that was around in the day without remorse or emotional turmoil, but Wierwille should die (again, I guess:)). Don't get me wrong - there are a lot of good reasons. All I'm saying is that these are considerations - unresolved considerations - in the minds of people. Maybe your considerations lie somewhere else on the continuum. Hey, maybe you don't have any unresolved considerations on sex that lie anywhere on that continuum - more power to you. All I'm saying is that people do.
The situation was presented to the WC that people have needs that can't be satisfied by marriage tomorrow or the next day or the next, and the God who promises to meet all our needs can do so without complication for an honest heart that asks. My first time was like that. It was wonderful, conditioned my appeciation of sex for the rest of my life - thank you. I'd do it again in a heart beat in the same situation.
But the situation is different for me today. I'm okay, today - I decided that being the husband of one wife was satisfying and a full time occupation. Call me one of those who can't "handle" the freedom. I really don't care; I call it a good and perfect gift coming down from the Father of lights.
Again, I'm not trying to absolve or defend Wierwille. I'm just trying to obviate some considerations that I think some people have that are fostering wrangling - but really trying to help mitigate some anger & resolve some guilt for people.
Go easy on each other.
Tom
Edited by TomLink 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.