A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there.
Example:
One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership".
At times I did.
Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story.
I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.
Belle------------The concept of unwritten policies is not unique to the more current version of twi. Even in the early days there were many unwritten "laws". Most of these revolved around two issues; believing and planning. Retirement planning was a no-no. Lots of scriptural referances were given to back this such as be anxious for nothing and many quotes regarding our needs already being met . I won't go into a lengthy list because I'm sure most people here have long lists of thier own that come to mind. Ditto on life insurance andsavings plans. Add to that health insurance because we all "know" the only reason to have it is if your believing is weak.
I always had health insurance on the job and that didn't effect my twi participation one way or another. Didn't want life insurance, as I was young and single and felt I didn't need it. That was my decision.
There was a believer retirement planner in New Jersey who did that stuff for believers. Out in the open.
See, these are just a few examples I'm talking about. Folks thinking that some stuff is twi policy, when it isn't. If you ask twi what their policy is, they'd tell you. They may even recommend some stuff... but it was up to the individual believer to decide for themselves what's best.
Doesn't necessarily mean someone is deliberately lying or they didn't exist, but someone could definitely be mistaken in their perception of an supposed policy of twi or the trustees.
[Or they might be the perfect excuse to claim they never existed.
Example follows:]
Perfect example of this Belle, is your insistance that twi taught that SIT is required for salvation.
[it wasn't in the Orange or White Books, therefore Oldies can claim it was NEVER taught by twi that SIT is required for salvation.
"I didn't see it, it didn't happen!"
Oldies is not aware that there WERE people who were very insistent.
God help you if you flubbed Session 12 and the class coordinator was one of those
"gung-ho" corps people!
Then you were screwed!
Off you get whisked off for 30 minutes to an hour and you will have LITTLE CHOICE
about speaking in tongues or not!
I'm sure he's never heard jokes like
"Is this seat saved?" "Well, I've never heard it speak in tongues..."
It was a short hop from
"only saved people can speak in tongues"
to
"if you're never heard to speak in tongues, you're not saved",
and LOTS of people crossed that line in the 80s,
and MORE crossed it in the 90s.
As for questioning that type of thing,
that's "questioning leadership",
and lots of people were subjected to screaming matches for that.
Since Oldies never got one from leadership for anything stupid
(neither did I), he concludes THOSE didn't happen either.
I DID, however, get a pointless lecture from someone in-residence
AS corps, who obviously was trying to REHEARSE the face-melt.
I tried to reason for a moment, then stopped when it was obvious he was
not in listening mode.
So I let him go on, and when he was done,
I simply said "You were waiting all week to give that speech, weren't you?"
and he relaxed after I didn't force him to fit into any specific "role",
like authoritatian leader or questioned leader or what-have-you.
Never apologized-just pretended he never made the speech.]
If you can get that simple concept wrong, it wouldn't surprise me that you and other folks could possibly get some other stuff wrong as well.
[sINCE some leaders DID get that simple concept wrong,
and that keeps eluding Oldies,
it does not surprise most of us that plenty of things went on that Oldies
never saw and asserts they never happened.]
This is why it's so important to document things in writing, if possible.
A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there.
Example:
One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership".
At times I did.
Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story.
I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.
Bra-vo, Oldies.
You can recall some incidents in the 80s when you disagreed and werent blasted.
THOSE incidents are not ALL incidents.
Since YOU didn't see them, that does NOT mean OTHERS did not.
You were never drugged by vpw-does that mean NOBODY was?
Not only did you have to be 10 minutes early to be "on time," if you were Corps the implication was that you really needed to be 10 minutes EARLIER!
Regarding salvation: I heard a 4th Corps grad - who sang with Way Productions SAY that a person going to church was an unbeliever. I got in her face. I asked her, "How do you know that this person isn't saved? Did God tell you? If not then how can you assume anything?"
I was told that this person didn't speak in tongues to which I replied that meant nothing. The person could have been saved, could have been a carnal Christian.
How I got away it that I'm not quite sure - but I did. (Reproving someone with a lower Corps number than I had - hmmmmm maybe I was possessed or something.)
Let me throw this out and ask your opinion on this .... do you think it'd be fair to portray the understanding of the 4th corps grad as an unwritten twi policy?
Let me throw this out and ask your opinion on this .... do you think it'd be fair to portray the understanding of the 4th corps grad as an unwritten twi policy?
Oldies - I'd say that the unwritten policies were exaclty these kind of things - the oral traditions passed down from older Corps, clergy, older grads, etc. Sometimes these traditions had their start in books and quotes:
During a Branch leader's meeting, the subject of finances and abs came up. This woman repeated that quote by unc Harry - something about not getting to a man's heart until you've reached his pocket.
I quipped, "CHAPTER AND VERSE!" My quote trumped her quote. HA! The truth of the matter was that she had no scriptural basis for repeating that statement.
Isn't this really how unwritten policy gets started? Can't we just as easily call it "twi traditions?"
This woman made it no secret that she was part of Joyful Noise, that she had worked with VPW, that her hubby was ordained. She was elder Corps. The only reason I didn't buy into it was that I maintained a healthy amount of rebellion from my days in the RC church. The only reason that I didn't get a face mel;ting is that there really was NO SCRIPTURAL ANSWER! That, and the fact that I had gained a reputation for demanding a scriptural back-up for this kind of statement. In other words, she knew the job wasw dangerous when she took it.
Oldies------- thank you for prodding me to look at old materials that have been collecting dust for some time now. I think what your postings have demonstrated to me at least, is that what we were taught and therefore believed was influenced, in part, by when and where we heard them. ,and also from whom. One good example of this is the differences on retirement, savings, life insurance, etc. You obviously were residing in an area where these were ok.(lucky you). I personally recall hearing no less than VPW himself teach that these things were not for "real believers" and were a validation of unbelief. Where and when did I hear them? AC 1973. These statements are not in any formal text but,who knows, maybe they are recorded for posterity on one of the zillions of audio tapes from that era. On the issue of SIT being required for salvation; I believe you are correct in saying that noone ever came right out and said it. At least not in an official sense. Here are two verses that come to mind that were frequently twisted and squeazed to extract that thinking.: I COR. 12:3b ---no man can say Jesus is Lord but holy spirit (the gift) paraphrased from page 333 of RTHST. --This , of course, is refering to sit. -------Romans10:10----the mouth that confesses him shall live. (by live, the implication is eternally) And so because everything must fit with a mathmatical accuracy even though GOD never really said so,the implication is evident. There are ,however, countless referances in the twi materials that explicately tell us that sit is our only proof of Christ's internal presence. And so to the average twig goer of that time, SIT was the ultimate nametag.Oh and by the way ,are the neon lights really bright on Broadway? Just wondering.
Perfect example of this Belle, is your insistance that twi taught that SIT is required for salvation.
If you can get that simple concept wrong, it wouldn't surprise me that you and other folks could possibly get some other stuff wrong as well.
You are correct Oldie's. I see alot of things here that are exaggerated. I know you can take any senario and turn it into a "policy". Many times people say things but that does not necessarily represent the whole ministry but another leaders warped perception of what they think is "policy".
As for Belle, "the Way" never, never said SIT was necessary for salvation. What we were taught was that SIT was the proof that someone was born again and that was the only way you could know for sure someone was born again. So this is what I mean, this was taken way off track if that is what Belle was implying. No man can say Jesus is lord but by the holy ghost. (don't remember off hand which scripture it is) but let's not take it out of context. All believers born again can speak in tongues but all believers born again will not speak in tongues.
This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.
One of my best friends from high school got involved with TWI down in North Carolina, after I witnessed to her and her husband. They took the class, but she did not manifest at the end. She was hounded by her Twig Coordinator about it until she finally got ticked off enough to walk away from TWI. I look back now and think she was much smarter than I.
Lorna, the personal experiences of the posters here is not *hear say bs*. These policies were enforced by leaders trained and sanctioned by twi period.
"This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us."
Hi Lorna,
Certainly I see in your post that your experience was far different than mine, and different to many others who post here in general and specifically on this thread.
I'm actually envious in a way that your experience with the interpersonal relationships seems to have been on a positive, mutually beneficial plane.
As to whether or not you be lieve that "A lot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI, but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time." I can't agree with you there.
I posted, initially, with a blanket of sarcasm because it still annoys me. But, as to *just* the babysitting: I was *compelled* because I was put in a position where it would have been extremely hard to say no, and the one time I did, I received a reproof session far in excess to what might have been required. Since no reproof should have been required at all. But, during my time in TWI as a married person, and the few months I was separated before leaving finally--the assumption of babysitting was a "policy" acted upon by two separate sets of LCs, three different sets of BC's, and I experienced it in two states. In one case, I ended up being the primary childcare giver (when the corps couple had to return to secular work), and when I mentioned compensation I was told that was a "devilish, hard-hearted thing to say." Because giving in service was my great privilege.
So...that's five couples, not all from the same corps, trained by twi, three of the men ordained ministers, and yet, the "policy" was shockingly consistant. So, let's just say then, that it wasn't a policy, but it certainly was something that was both understood and accepted. And, the reasons given for doing it, and the consequences for NOT doing it were also shockingly consistant.
I remember when the mortgage issue came to a head here. I was, because of my role as insta-babysitter, witness to one of the "sell your house, get out of debt, or get out of here" sessions. It was brutal for the couple who endured it, I'm sure...and all the threats of bodily destruction and familial devastation were trotted out. It scared me. The husband finally had enough. He took his wife's hand, they left the house, and were announced as M&A at the next session of HF.
Finally, as far as "a waste of time to talk about."
Again, I respect your opinion, but I would suggest that different people seek out healing and understanding in their own way. I haven't seen this thread get blown up to the level of "Hearsay BS" that you've called it. I don't know if we all agree that there were abuses, and yes I use the word intentionally, perpetrated by twi, but I *do* believe that. Even in these "small, insignificant" ways, the continued pattern of control and dominance bled down from the top, and it takes people time to process that and work it through.
Therefore, I'm not sure talking about it is a waste of time.
I thought a great deal about your use of the term b*ll..... It's a strong opinion and an inflammatory term, guaranteed to elicit a strong response. During my time in twi, I saw plenty of "small things" blown off, and derisively dismissed as "b*ll....*, and have since come to question any argument which makes light of another person's personal experience.
We're talking here, in context, about our experiences in twi and I'm trying to limit my response to that. When you say "the past is the past, put it behind you." Instead of using this thread to whip up old resentments and add fuel to a fire, I believe many posters are trying to do just that, and using the old, well-worn mechanism of shared experience to do it. Sometimes you just have to voice things before you can put them away, or process them.
I was deeply affected by how I was treated by leadership--these were the people we were told stood for twi, represented them, and since the ones who took advantage of me most are still involved at the leadership level, I am afraid I must disagree with you in full, and say that twi does back these unwritten guidelines, and there is a tacit agreement to the items which go on.
I hope I haven't offended you. Apologising for my own thoughts and reactions--even when something's not my fault--is a trait I picked up in twi, and haven't overcome yet. But...I'm trying.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.
I don't know what part of the country you lived in, but this was definately mandated in our area. The most obvious abuse of this "unwritten policy" regarding mortgages was during the time a new couple was coming to our fellowship. They were signed up for the class and we were awaiting "5" more to sign up for them to go through (or whatever number it as at that time).
This couple owned a gorgeous house out a little ways in Anna Ohio. Just georgeous, with a hill going down their backyard and a great big jungle gym for their kids and an abundance of land.........and then the person who was "undersheperding them" began to talk to them about the NO DEBT POLICY of TWI. The NO MORTGAGE POLICY of TWI. Now mind you, the wife of the HFC who was responsible for getting their money............er, uh, oops I mean "undershepherding" this couple had gotten an inheritance when a family member died. They paid their car off, bought another one and paid their house off.
These HFC's were NOW the shining example in our area of a couple DOING the Word when it came to the NO DEBT POLICY.
Moving on, the couple with the gorgeous home, was finally convinced to sell it and take the money and buy another outright. What they ended up buying, with persuasion from HFC and his wife and the BC was an old "fixer-upper". Oh my God, this brick building was so run down that it was not even "habitable" at the time they bought it and when we the fellowship when over to oooo and ahhhhh over their great believing I was in total shock. I will never forget that day and what I was thinking and probably should have said at the time.
Now I know this new couple was a grown couple, and should not have been persuaded by these TWI kooks to do this, but somehow it happened. (who here cannot say they were never schnookered at one point or another by TWI) The pressure from the top down towards us peons to apply the PRESENT SPEWTH was incredible. As far as being booted out for not following these "unwritten policies" you knew that it was coming down the pike the longer you questioned, bucked and rebelled. If you made it through your first or second "face-melting" and got called in for a third one, you better bet you are going to be told to pack up and get out of the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word" tent city. You guys that were around late 90's early 2000's knew that there was to be no murmurings in the tents against TWI or leadership.
We were taught that if one of us screwed up in the promised land, then that could affect or kill another believer. I heard this teaching in a STS - hah no guilt there huh? I don't remember the scripture, but it was in the old testament and we were taught that it applied to us because we were the spiritual ones allowed into the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word." They compared our spiritual understanding to being in the physical realities of the Promised Land in the old testament. If it wasn't said out right (and I don't recall one way or the other), it was HEAVILY IMPLIED during that STS and other meetings to follow after LCM announced one night that we had truly indeed "ARRIVED" in the Promised Land of the Prevailing Word.
It was a much more intense commitment that everybody in the ministry was supposed to make. It didn't have to be written down because we lived it everyday.
Back to the couple who sold their house.......they never took the class.........and were really really really ....ed off when they walked away from fellowship.........
I wonder if TWI got 10 or 15% of the money that this naive couple got off of selling their beautiful home and land. And yes one was expected to tithe just as soon as they got that check from selling their homes.
Oldies - I'd say that the unwritten policies were exaclty these kind of things - the oral traditions passed down from older Corps, clergy, older grads, etc.
doojable, that's fine. But at the same time, it's really not a twi policy then... all it seems to be is one person's tradition of doing things, and maybe other folks are doing it too. But if we want to find out exactly what a twi policy is, we need to go to hq to find out, and get it in writing.
Here's an example:
I was out WOW, and was bothered by the fact that the limb coordinator was setting dates for PFAL classes. I thought it'd be better and more honest if we set a date after we signed up enough folks. What'd happen more than once, a date would be set and we would try to get folks signed up but wouldn't get enough, then the class would be cancelled. I thought that was dishonest and reflected bad on myself, telling folks something and not following thru, and look bad for twi that it was cancelling these classes. We weren't being honest with folks.
Now here's the question: was it a twi policy to set dates for Pfal BEFORE enough folks were signed up for it?
Yes it was a practice. But is it fair to call that a twi policy?
I wrote hq, the Trunk Office, and at that time Ralph D. was the trunk coordinator.
Here are excerpts of the response I got back from him:
August 1, 1980
Dear Oldiesman:
Greetings and God bless you abundantly in the powerful name of Jesus Christ our lord.
Thanks much for your letter of July 12. I appreciate your heart and concern for the ministry God has entrusted us with. I agree with you. No "starting date" for any class should be set unless the minimum required enrollment is first arrived at. This does avoid exactly the situation you encountered and keeps the ministry from " . . . even all appearance of evil."
At our last leaders' meeting in February, 1980, we established the procedures you advocate in your letter. I do not understand what went wrong with communications in your specific situation...
You may communicate this information to all those who are in need of proper instruction...
The way I see this situation, the limb coordinator of that state was not following twi policy, even tho' this guy and his wife was an established corps grad, been around for years and years, and supposedly was representing twi in this matter. He wasn't.
So you see, I feel you must contact hq to find out what their policy is. To be fair, just because folks follow a tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's twi policy.
That was also many years ago oldies - you are talkng wow years - different administration - hey thats what Cla**ette Roy*l told me when I asked her in the late 90's - why she no longer sang Precious Lord..........And geez I thought that there were only 7 administrations and we were in the 5th (Grace) Somehow a sixth sneaked in on me when I wasn't looking or something..............
... On the issue of SIT being required for salvation; I believe you are correct in saying that noone ever came right out and said it. At least not in an official sense. Here are two verses that come to mind that were frequently twisted and squeazed to extract that thinking.: I COR. 12:3b ---no man can say Jesus is Lord but holy spirit (the gift) paraphrased from page 333 of RTHST. --This , of course, is refering to sit. -------Romans10:10----the mouth that confesses him shall live. (by live, the implication is eternally) And so because everything must fit with a mathmatical accuracy even though GOD never really said so,the implication is evident. ...
waysider, had I ever heard anyone from twi imply that SIT was a requirement for salvation, I probably would have done just what doojable did, speak up about it. The matter was so clear in PFAL.
Now if some individual wants to believe within their own thought processes that a person they know isn't saved and since they didn't hear them speak in tongues, it only corroborates their belief... well.. that's up to that person. But twi didn't teach that as doctrine. I don't care if the person who believes it is 4th corps, they are still wrong. That was the individual having his own thoughts on the matter.
twi taught that SIT proves one is saved; they didn't teach that the absence of SIT proves one is unsaved.
As for Belle, "the Way" never, never said SIT was necessary for salvation. What we were taught was that SIT was the proof that someone was born again and that was the only way you could know for sure someone was born again.
"This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us."
Hi Lorna,
Certainly I see in your post that your experience was far different than mine, and different to many others who post here in general and specifically on this thread.
I'm actually envious in a way that your experience with the interpersonal relationships seems to have been on a positive, mutually beneficial plane.
As to whether or not you be lieve that "A lot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI, but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time." I can't agree with you there.
I posted, initially, with a blanket of sarcasm because it still annoys me. But, as to *just* the babysitting: I was *compelled* because I was put in a position where it would have been extremely hard to say no, and the one time I did, I received a reproof session far in excess to what might have been required. Since no reproof should have been required at all. But, during my time in TWI as a married person, and the few months I was separated before leaving finally--the assumption of babysitting was a "policy" acted upon by two separate sets of LCs, three different sets of BC's, and I experienced it in two states. In one case, I ended up being the primary childcare giver (when the corps couple had to return to secular work), and when I mentioned compensation I was told that was a "devilish, hard-hearted thing to say." Because giving in service was my great privilege.
So...that's five couples, not all from the same corps, trained by twi, three of the men ordained ministers, and yet, the "policy" was shockingly consistant. So, let's just say then, that it wasn't a policy, but it certainly was something that was both understood and accepted. And, the reasons given for doing it, and the consequences for NOT doing it were also shockingly consistant.
I remember when the mortgage issue came to a head here. I was, because of my role as insta-babysitter, witness to one of the "sell your house, get out of debt, or get out of here" sessions. It was brutal for the couple who endured it, I'm sure...and all the threats of bodily destruction and familial devastation were trotted out. It scared me. The husband finally had enough. He took his wife's hand, they left the house, and were announced as M&A at the next session of HF.
Finally, as far as "a waste of time to talk about."
Again, I respect your opinion, but I would suggest that different people seek out healing and understanding in their own way. I haven't seen this thread get blown up to the level of "Hearsay BS" that you've called it. I don't know if we all agree that there were abuses, and yes I use the word intentionally, perpetrated by twi, but I *do* believe that. Even in these "small, insignificant" ways, the continued pattern of control and dominance bled down from the top, and it takes people time to process that and work it through.
Therefore, I'm not sure talking about it is a waste of time.
I thought a great deal about your use of the term b*ll..... It's a strong opinion and an inflammatory term, guaranteed to elicit a strong response. During my time in twi, I saw plenty of "small things" blown off, and derisively dismissed as "b*ll....*, and have since come to question any argument which makes light of another person's personal experience.
We're talking here, in context, about our experiences in twi and I'm trying to limit my response to that. When you say "the past is the past, put it behind you." Instead of using this thread to whip up old resentments and add fuel to a fire, I believe many posters are trying to do just that, and using the old, well-worn mechanism of shared experience to do it. Sometimes you just have to voice things before you can put them away, or process them.
I was deeply affected by how I was treated by leadership--these were the people we were told stood for twi, represented them, and since the ones who took advantage of me most are still involved at the leadership level, I am afraid I must disagree with you in full, and say that twi does back these unwritten guidelines, and there is a tacit agreement to the items which go on.
I hope I haven't offended you. Apologising for my own thoughts and reactions--even when something's not my fault--is a trait I picked up in twi, and haven't overcome yet. But...I'm trying.
Regards,
QT
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.
I don't know what part of the country you lived in, but this was definately mandated in our area. The most obvious abuse of this "unwritten policy" regarding mortgages was during the time a new couple was coming to our fellowship. They were signed up for the class and we were awaiting "5" more to sign up for them to go through (or whatever number it as at that time).
This couple owned a gorgeous house out a little ways in Anna Ohio. Just georgeous, with a hill going down their backyard and a great big jungle gym for their kids and an abundance of land.........and then the person who was "undersheperding them" began to talk to them about the NO DEBT POLICY of TWI. The NO MORTGAGE POLICY of TWI. Now mind you, the wife of the HFC who was responsible for getting their money............er, uh, oops I mean "undershepherding" this couple had gotten an inheritance when a family member died. They paid their car off, bought another one and paid their house off.
These HFC's were NOW the shining example in our area of a couple DOING the Word when it came to the NO DEBT POLICY.
Moving on, the couple with the gorgeous home, was finally convinced to sell it and take the money and buy another outright. What they ended up buying, with persuasion from HFC and his wife and the BC was an old "fixer-upper". Oh my God, this brick building was so run down that it was not even "habitable" at the time they bought it and when we the fellowship when over to oooo and ahhhhh over their great believing I was in total shock. I will never forget that day and what I was thinking and probably should have said at the time.
Now I know this new couple was a grown couple, and should not have been persuaded by these TWI kooks to do this, but somehow it happened. (who here cannot say they were never schnookered at one point or another by TWI) The pressure from the top down towards us peons to apply the PRESENT SPEWTH was incredible. As far as being booted out for not following these "unwritten policies" you knew that it was coming down the pike the longer you questioned, bucked and rebelled. If you made it through your first or second "face-melting" and got called in for a third one, you better bet you are going to be told to pack up and get out of the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word" tent city. You guys that were around late 90's early 2000's knew that there was to be no murmurings in the tents against TWI or leadership.
We were taught that if one of us screwed up in the promised land, then that could affect or kill another believer. I heard this teaching in a STS - hah no guilt there huh? I don't remember the scripture, but it was in the old testament and we were taught that it applied to us because we were the spiritual ones allowed into the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word." They compared our spiritual understanding to being in the physical realities of the Promised Land in the old testament. If it wasn't said out right (and I don't recall one way or the other), it was HEAVILY IMPLIED during that STS and other meetings to follow after LCM announced one night that we had truly indeed "ARRIVED" in the Promised Land of the Prevailing Word.
It was a much more intense commitment that everybody in the ministry was supposed to make. It didn't have to be written down because we lived it everyday.
Back to the couple who sold their house.......they never took the class.........and were really really really ....ed off when they walked away from fellowship.........
I wonder if TWI got 10 or 15% of the money that this naive couple got off of selling their beautiful home and land. And yes one was expected to tithe just as soon as they got that check from selling their homes.
But if we want to find out exactly what a twi policy is, we need to go to hq to find out, and get it in writing.
Isn't the title of this thread "UNWRITTEN POLICIES OF TWI"
These policies were policies that we experienced - with some consistency, but were by definition UNWRITTEN.
Now, maybe it would help if in threads like this one the poster would preface his or her posts with the time that they were in TWI, and the main states that they were in.
waysider, had I ever heard anyone from twi imply that SIT was a requirement for salvation, I probably would have done just what doojable did, speak up about it. The matter was so clear in PFAL.
Now if some individual wants to believe within their own thought processes that a person they know isn't saved and since they didn't hear them speak in tongues, it only corroborates their belief... well.. that's up to that person. But twi didn't teach that as doctrine. I don't care if the person who believes it is 4th corps, they are still wrong. That was the individual having his own thoughts on the matter.
twi taught that SIT proves one is saved; they didn't teach that the absence of SIT proves one is unsaved.
It wasn't in the Orange or White Books, therefore Oldies can claim it was NEVER taught by twi that SIT is required for salvation.
"I didn't see it, it didn't happen!"
Oldies is not aware that there WERE people who were very insistent.
God help you if you flubbed Session 12 and the class coordinator was one of those
"gung-ho" corps people!
Then you were screwed!
Off you get whisked off for 30 minutes to an hour and you will have LITTLE CHOICE
about speaking in tongues or not!
I'm sure he's never heard jokes like
"Is this seat saved?" "Well, I've never heard it speak in tongues..."
It was a short hop from
"only saved people can speak in tongues"
to
"if you're never heard to speak in tongues, you're not saved",
and LOTS of people crossed that line in the 80s,
and MORE crossed it in the 90s.
As for questioning that type of thing,
that's "questioning leadership",
and lots of people were subjected to screaming matches for that.
Since Oldies never got one from leadership for anything stupid
(neither did I), he concludes THOSE didn't happen either.
Isn't the title of this thread "UNWRITTEN POLICIES OF TWI"
These policies were policies that we experienced - with some consistency, but were by definition UNWRITTEN.
Now, maybe it would help of in threads like this one the poster would preface his or her posts with the time that they were in TWI, and the main states that they were in.
doojable - 1978-1988 NY, in res, TX
I see what you're saying doojable, but I still wouldn't call them twi policies, even "unwritten" policies.
Happenings and experiences yes, but not necessarily twi policies.
Oodles of things happened with corps grads and those "in the know" that weren't necessarily twi policies. I gave you an example above.
I am in full agreement with you that it would help if folks qualified their experience to the specific time period they are recollecting. But even still, I still feel that an experience or tradition doesn't necessarily mean it was a twi "policy."
I am continually amazed at the intensity of this discussion.
I can't understand why there would be such a dispute about what was or wasn't taught 30 years ago in a particular area. It was my experience that debt was seriously frowned on, giving time or money to another charitable group was seriously frowned on and that the only way to *prove* you were born again was to speak in tongues.
Now how these thing were enforced varied widely depending on the zealousness of the local leadership. Many good-hearted leaders looked at their people's hearts or just looked away. Others, the brown-shirts of the Corps and potential Corps, enforced the rules and unwritten rules with an iron fist.
It was the luck of the draw as to which one you had. I got out in '83 so I didn't see the walls closing in as many of you did.
I would think that after all these years we could agree that each of our experiences was unique.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
5
9
5
Popular Days
Jul 28
24
Jul 27
10
Jul 23
9
Jul 24
7
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 7 posts
Belle 5 posts
WordWolf 9 posts
QuietThinker 5 posts
Popular Days
Jul 28 2006
24 posts
Jul 27 2006
10 posts
Jul 23 2006
9 posts
Jul 24 2006
7 posts
oldiesman
A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there.
Example:
One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership".
At times I did.
Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story.
I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I always had health insurance on the job and that didn't effect my twi participation one way or another. Didn't want life insurance, as I was young and single and felt I didn't need it. That was my decision.
There was a believer retirement planner in New Jersey who did that stuff for believers. Out in the open.
See, these are just a few examples I'm talking about. Folks thinking that some stuff is twi policy, when it isn't. If you ask twi what their policy is, they'd tell you. They may even recommend some stuff... but it was up to the individual believer to decide for themselves what's best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Or they might be the perfect excuse to claim they never existed.
Example follows:]
[it wasn't in the Orange or White Books, therefore Oldies can claim it was NEVER taught by twi that SIT is required for salvation."I didn't see it, it didn't happen!"
Oldies is not aware that there WERE people who were very insistent.
God help you if you flubbed Session 12 and the class coordinator was one of those
"gung-ho" corps people!
Then you were screwed!
Off you get whisked off for 30 minutes to an hour and you will have LITTLE CHOICE
about speaking in tongues or not!
I'm sure he's never heard jokes like
"Is this seat saved?" "Well, I've never heard it speak in tongues..."
It was a short hop from
"only saved people can speak in tongues"
to
"if you're never heard to speak in tongues, you're not saved",
and LOTS of people crossed that line in the 80s,
and MORE crossed it in the 90s.
As for questioning that type of thing,
that's "questioning leadership",
and lots of people were subjected to screaming matches for that.
Since Oldies never got one from leadership for anything stupid
(neither did I), he concludes THOSE didn't happen either.
I DID, however, get a pointless lecture from someone in-residence
AS corps, who obviously was trying to REHEARSE the face-melt.
I tried to reason for a moment, then stopped when it was obvious he was
not in listening mode.
So I let him go on, and when he was done,
I simply said "You were waiting all week to give that speech, weren't you?"
and he relaxed after I didn't force him to fit into any specific "role",
like authoritatian leader or questioned leader or what-have-you.
Never apologized-just pretended he never made the speech.]
[sINCE some leaders DID get that simple concept wrong,
and that keeps eluding Oldies,
it does not surprise most of us that plenty of things went on that Oldies
never saw and asserts they never happened.]
[And if you DID have it in writing,
we move on to the next phase,
creative reinterpretation of the printed text.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Bra-vo, Oldies.
You can recall some incidents in the 80s when you disagreed and werent blasted.
THOSE incidents are not ALL incidents.
Since YOU didn't see them, that does NOT mean OTHERS did not.
You were never drugged by vpw-does that mean NOBODY was?
This is NOT a difficult concept for most people.
Further,
supposed leadership "being perturbed" (I'm picturing YELLING involved-
was that a nice word for "he went into face-melting mode?"
BTW, "face-melting" was lcm's term, not a GSC invention-
he called it that.
Is leadership entitled to call disagreeing people who VOLUNTEER under
him "a-holes"? Is this acceptable behaviour to you?
"And that's the end of the story."
Weren't living on grounds, I take it?
If you had this same disagreement with vpw himself,
you would have been off-grounds within the hour.
If you had this same disagreement with lcm himself,
you would have been off-grounds within the hour.
If the "leader" had connections and you didn't,
they might have stopped for now.
But now, the wheels have just BEGUN to turn when you're not looking,
and things "coincidentally" all seem to work AGAINST YOU.
Nothing you can say "you're all being a-holes to me because I
wouldn't bend over for that staff leader twit" about,
not with any guarantee it wasn't all a "convenient" coincidence.
As for elsewhere, similar things might happen, depending on who
was in charge.
Most of twi in most of the 90s, disagreeing with leadership ANYWHERE
was a ticket to "mark-and-avoid" land, and you were kicked out.
Some people here WERE kicked out for refusing to conform when
face-melted.
"Dear twi:
I was wondering.
Is it twi policy that the president of twi is entitled to drink alcohol in
large amounts daily, claim the work of others is his own,
and to rape the women of the congregation, and kick out any woman
who looks like she might tell someone?"
"Dear Joe Believer:
It is not and has never been a policy for twi to ever approve of or do
any of that."
"Dear twi:
Well, your word is good enough for me!
Glad we had this little chat!"
================
"Up to the individual believer to decide for themselves"....
which, in the 90s certainly,
meant
"conform or accept all the social sanctions for refusing to conform,
all the confrontations, all the rumours they spread smearing your name,
and the recommended ostracism of you by leaders".
Technically, that IS a choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Not only did you have to be 10 minutes early to be "on time," if you were Corps the implication was that you really needed to be 10 minutes EARLIER!
Regarding salvation: I heard a 4th Corps grad - who sang with Way Productions SAY that a person going to church was an unbeliever. I got in her face. I asked her, "How do you know that this person isn't saved? Did God tell you? If not then how can you assume anything?"
I was told that this person didn't speak in tongues to which I replied that meant nothing. The person could have been saved, could have been a carnal Christian.
How I got away it that I'm not quite sure - but I did. (Reproving someone with a lower Corps number than I had - hmmmmm maybe I was possessed or something.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
doojable, you did the right thing.
Let me throw this out and ask your opinion on this .... do you think it'd be fair to portray the understanding of the 4th corps grad as an unwritten twi policy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Oldies - I'd say that the unwritten policies were exaclty these kind of things - the oral traditions passed down from older Corps, clergy, older grads, etc. Sometimes these traditions had their start in books and quotes:
During a Branch leader's meeting, the subject of finances and abs came up. This woman repeated that quote by unc Harry - something about not getting to a man's heart until you've reached his pocket.
I quipped, "CHAPTER AND VERSE!" My quote trumped her quote. HA! The truth of the matter was that she had no scriptural basis for repeating that statement.
Isn't this really how unwritten policy gets started? Can't we just as easily call it "twi traditions?"
This woman made it no secret that she was part of Joyful Noise, that she had worked with VPW, that her hubby was ordained. She was elder Corps. The only reason I didn't buy into it was that I maintained a healthy amount of rebellion from my days in the RC church. The only reason that I didn't get a face mel;ting is that there really was NO SCRIPTURAL ANSWER! That, and the fact that I had gained a reputation for demanding a scriptural back-up for this kind of statement. In other words, she knew the job wasw dangerous when she took it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oldies------- thank you for prodding me to look at old materials that have been collecting dust for some time now. I think what your postings have demonstrated to me at least, is that what we were taught and therefore believed was influenced, in part, by when and where we heard them. ,and also from whom. One good example of this is the differences on retirement, savings, life insurance, etc. You obviously were residing in an area where these were ok.(lucky you). I personally recall hearing no less than VPW himself teach that these things were not for "real believers" and were a validation of unbelief. Where and when did I hear them? AC 1973. These statements are not in any formal text but,who knows, maybe they are recorded for posterity on one of the zillions of audio tapes from that era. On the issue of SIT being required for salvation; I believe you are correct in saying that noone ever came right out and said it. At least not in an official sense. Here are two verses that come to mind that were frequently twisted and squeazed to extract that thinking.: I COR. 12:3b ---no man can say Jesus is Lord but holy spirit (the gift) paraphrased from page 333 of RTHST. --This , of course, is refering to sit. -------Romans10:10----the mouth that confesses him shall live. (by live, the implication is eternally) And so because everything must fit with a mathmatical accuracy even though GOD never really said so,the implication is evident. There are ,however, countless referances in the twi materials that explicately tell us that sit is our only proof of Christ's internal presence. And so to the average twig goer of that time, SIT was the ultimate nametag.Oh and by the way ,are the neon lights really bright on Broadway? Just wondering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
You are correct Oldie's. I see alot of things here that are exaggerated. I know you can take any senario and turn it into a "policy". Many times people say things but that does not necessarily represent the whole ministry but another leaders warped perception of what they think is "policy".
As for Belle, "the Way" never, never said SIT was necessary for salvation. What we were taught was that SIT was the proof that someone was born again and that was the only way you could know for sure someone was born again. So this is what I mean, this was taken way off track if that is what Belle was implying. No man can say Jesus is lord but by the holy ghost. (don't remember off hand which scripture it is) but let's not take it out of context. All believers born again can speak in tongues but all believers born again will not speak in tongues.
This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
One of my best friends from high school got involved with TWI down in North Carolina, after I witnessed to her and her husband. They took the class, but she did not manifest at the end. She was hounded by her Twig Coordinator about it until she finally got ticked off enough to walk away from TWI. I look back now and think she was much smarter than I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Lorna, the personal experiences of the posters here is not *hear say bs*. These policies were enforced by leaders trained and sanctioned by twi period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
..Copied from Lorna's Post
"This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us."
Hi Lorna,
Certainly I see in your post that your experience was far different than mine, and different to many others who post here in general and specifically on this thread.
I'm actually envious in a way that your experience with the interpersonal relationships seems to have been on a positive, mutually beneficial plane.
As to whether or not you be lieve that "A lot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI, but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time." I can't agree with you there.
I posted, initially, with a blanket of sarcasm because it still annoys me. But, as to *just* the babysitting: I was *compelled* because I was put in a position where it would have been extremely hard to say no, and the one time I did, I received a reproof session far in excess to what might have been required. Since no reproof should have been required at all. But, during my time in TWI as a married person, and the few months I was separated before leaving finally--the assumption of babysitting was a "policy" acted upon by two separate sets of LCs, three different sets of BC's, and I experienced it in two states. In one case, I ended up being the primary childcare giver (when the corps couple had to return to secular work), and when I mentioned compensation I was told that was a "devilish, hard-hearted thing to say." Because giving in service was my great privilege.
So...that's five couples, not all from the same corps, trained by twi, three of the men ordained ministers, and yet, the "policy" was shockingly consistant. So, let's just say then, that it wasn't a policy, but it certainly was something that was both understood and accepted. And, the reasons given for doing it, and the consequences for NOT doing it were also shockingly consistant.
I remember when the mortgage issue came to a head here. I was, because of my role as insta-babysitter, witness to one of the "sell your house, get out of debt, or get out of here" sessions. It was brutal for the couple who endured it, I'm sure...and all the threats of bodily destruction and familial devastation were trotted out. It scared me. The husband finally had enough. He took his wife's hand, they left the house, and were announced as M&A at the next session of HF.
Finally, as far as "a waste of time to talk about."
Again, I respect your opinion, but I would suggest that different people seek out healing and understanding in their own way. I haven't seen this thread get blown up to the level of "Hearsay BS" that you've called it. I don't know if we all agree that there were abuses, and yes I use the word intentionally, perpetrated by twi, but I *do* believe that. Even in these "small, insignificant" ways, the continued pattern of control and dominance bled down from the top, and it takes people time to process that and work it through.
Therefore, I'm not sure talking about it is a waste of time.
I thought a great deal about your use of the term b*ll..... It's a strong opinion and an inflammatory term, guaranteed to elicit a strong response. During my time in twi, I saw plenty of "small things" blown off, and derisively dismissed as "b*ll....*, and have since come to question any argument which makes light of another person's personal experience.
We're talking here, in context, about our experiences in twi and I'm trying to limit my response to that. When you say "the past is the past, put it behind you." Instead of using this thread to whip up old resentments and add fuel to a fire, I believe many posters are trying to do just that, and using the old, well-worn mechanism of shared experience to do it. Sometimes you just have to voice things before you can put them away, or process them.
I was deeply affected by how I was treated by leadership--these were the people we were told stood for twi, represented them, and since the ones who took advantage of me most are still involved at the leadership level, I am afraid I must disagree with you in full, and say that twi does back these unwritten guidelines, and there is a tacit agreement to the items which go on.
I hope I haven't offended you. Apologising for my own thoughts and reactions--even when something's not my fault--is a trait I picked up in twi, and haven't overcome yet. But...I'm trying.
Regards,
QT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.
I don't know what part of the country you lived in, but this was definately mandated in our area. The most obvious abuse of this "unwritten policy" regarding mortgages was during the time a new couple was coming to our fellowship. They were signed up for the class and we were awaiting "5" more to sign up for them to go through (or whatever number it as at that time).
This couple owned a gorgeous house out a little ways in Anna Ohio. Just georgeous, with a hill going down their backyard and a great big jungle gym for their kids and an abundance of land.........and then the person who was "undersheperding them" began to talk to them about the NO DEBT POLICY of TWI. The NO MORTGAGE POLICY of TWI. Now mind you, the wife of the HFC who was responsible for getting their money............er, uh, oops I mean "undershepherding" this couple had gotten an inheritance when a family member died. They paid their car off, bought another one and paid their house off.
These HFC's were NOW the shining example in our area of a couple DOING the Word when it came to the NO DEBT POLICY.
Moving on, the couple with the gorgeous home, was finally convinced to sell it and take the money and buy another outright. What they ended up buying, with persuasion from HFC and his wife and the BC was an old "fixer-upper". Oh my God, this brick building was so run down that it was not even "habitable" at the time they bought it and when we the fellowship when over to oooo and ahhhhh over their great believing I was in total shock. I will never forget that day and what I was thinking and probably should have said at the time.
Now I know this new couple was a grown couple, and should not have been persuaded by these TWI kooks to do this, but somehow it happened. (who here cannot say they were never schnookered at one point or another by TWI) The pressure from the top down towards us peons to apply the PRESENT SPEWTH was incredible. As far as being booted out for not following these "unwritten policies" you knew that it was coming down the pike the longer you questioned, bucked and rebelled. If you made it through your first or second "face-melting" and got called in for a third one, you better bet you are going to be told to pack up and get out of the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word" tent city. You guys that were around late 90's early 2000's knew that there was to be no murmurings in the tents against TWI or leadership.
We were taught that if one of us screwed up in the promised land, then that could affect or kill another believer. I heard this teaching in a STS - hah no guilt there huh? I don't remember the scripture, but it was in the old testament and we were taught that it applied to us because we were the spiritual ones allowed into the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word." They compared our spiritual understanding to being in the physical realities of the Promised Land in the old testament. If it wasn't said out right (and I don't recall one way or the other), it was HEAVILY IMPLIED during that STS and other meetings to follow after LCM announced one night that we had truly indeed "ARRIVED" in the Promised Land of the Prevailing Word.
It was a much more intense commitment that everybody in the ministry was supposed to make. It didn't have to be written down because we lived it everyday.
Back to the couple who sold their house.......they never took the class.........and were really really really ....ed off when they walked away from fellowship.........
I wonder if TWI got 10 or 15% of the money that this naive couple got off of selling their beautiful home and land. And yes one was expected to tithe just as soon as they got that check from selling their homes.
Edited by outofdafogLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
doojable, that's fine. But at the same time, it's really not a twi policy then... all it seems to be is one person's tradition of doing things, and maybe other folks are doing it too. But if we want to find out exactly what a twi policy is, we need to go to hq to find out, and get it in writing.
Here's an example:
I was out WOW, and was bothered by the fact that the limb coordinator was setting dates for PFAL classes. I thought it'd be better and more honest if we set a date after we signed up enough folks. What'd happen more than once, a date would be set and we would try to get folks signed up but wouldn't get enough, then the class would be cancelled. I thought that was dishonest and reflected bad on myself, telling folks something and not following thru, and look bad for twi that it was cancelling these classes. We weren't being honest with folks.
Now here's the question: was it a twi policy to set dates for Pfal BEFORE enough folks were signed up for it?
Yes it was a practice. But is it fair to call that a twi policy?
I wrote hq, the Trunk Office, and at that time Ralph D. was the trunk coordinator.
Here are excerpts of the response I got back from him:
The way I see this situation, the limb coordinator of that state was not following twi policy, even tho' this guy and his wife was an established corps grad, been around for years and years, and supposedly was representing twi in this matter. He wasn't.
So you see, I feel you must contact hq to find out what their policy is. To be fair, just because folks follow a tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's twi policy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
That was also many years ago oldies - you are talkng wow years - different administration - hey thats what Cla**ette Roy*l told me when I asked her in the late 90's - why she no longer sang Precious Lord..........And geez I thought that there were only 7 administrations and we were in the 5th (Grace) Somehow a sixth sneaked in on me when I wasn't looking or something..............
Edited by outofdafogLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
waysider, had I ever heard anyone from twi imply that SIT was a requirement for salvation, I probably would have done just what doojable did, speak up about it. The matter was so clear in PFAL.
Now if some individual wants to believe within their own thought processes that a person they know isn't saved and since they didn't hear them speak in tongues, it only corroborates their belief... well.. that's up to that person. But twi didn't teach that as doctrine. I don't care if the person who believes it is 4th corps, they are still wrong. That was the individual having his own thoughts on the matter.
twi taught that SIT proves one is saved; they didn't teach that the absence of SIT proves one is unsaved.
Thanks LornaDoone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
They made my brother sell his house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Isn't the title of this thread "UNWRITTEN POLICIES OF TWI"
These policies were policies that we experienced - with some consistency, but were by definition UNWRITTEN.
Now, maybe it would help if in threads like this one the poster would preface his or her posts with the time that they were in TWI, and the main states that they were in.
doojable - 1978-1988 NY, in res, TX
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It wasn't in the Orange or White Books, therefore Oldies can claim it was NEVER taught by twi that SIT is required for salvation.
"I didn't see it, it didn't happen!"
Oldies is not aware that there WERE people who were very insistent.
God help you if you flubbed Session 12 and the class coordinator was one of those
"gung-ho" corps people!
Then you were screwed!
Off you get whisked off for 30 minutes to an hour and you will have LITTLE CHOICE
about speaking in tongues or not!
I'm sure he's never heard jokes like
"Is this seat saved?" "Well, I've never heard it speak in tongues..."
It was a short hop from
"only saved people can speak in tongues"
to
"if you're never heard to speak in tongues, you're not saved",
and LOTS of people crossed that line in the 80s,
and MORE crossed it in the 90s.
As for questioning that type of thing,
that's "questioning leadership",
and lots of people were subjected to screaming matches for that.
Since Oldies never got one from leadership for anything stupid
(neither did I), he concludes THOSE didn't happen either.
Oldies didn't see them put the squeeze on him.
You don't have this unwritten policy in writing.
Therefore, it didn't happen.
They didn't make your brother sell his house.
Your brother didn't sell his house.
In fact, you don't have a brother.
[/sarcasm]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
outofdafog - 1985 to 2000 sidney ohio
Oldies didn't see them put the squeeze on him.
You don't have this unwritten policy in writing.
Therefore, it didn't happen.
They didn't make your brother sell his house.
Your brother didn't sell his house.
In fact, you don't have a brother.
hahahahahahahahah
hahahahahahahahah
....didn't see him put the squueze on him hahahahahahahahahahaha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I see what you're saying doojable, but I still wouldn't call them twi policies, even "unwritten" policies.
Happenings and experiences yes, but not necessarily twi policies.
Oodles of things happened with corps grads and those "in the know" that weren't necessarily twi policies. I gave you an example above.
I am in full agreement with you that it would help if folks qualified their experience to the specific time period they are recollecting. But even still, I still feel that an experience or tradition doesn't necessarily mean it was a twi "policy."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I am continually amazed at the intensity of this discussion.
I can't understand why there would be such a dispute about what was or wasn't taught 30 years ago in a particular area. It was my experience that debt was seriously frowned on, giving time or money to another charitable group was seriously frowned on and that the only way to *prove* you were born again was to speak in tongues.
Now how these thing were enforced varied widely depending on the zealousness of the local leadership. Many good-hearted leaders looked at their people's hearts or just looked away. Others, the brown-shirts of the Corps and potential Corps, enforced the rules and unwritten rules with an iron fist.
It was the luck of the draw as to which one you had. I got out in '83 so I didn't see the walls closing in as many of you did.
I would think that after all these years we could agree that each of our experiences was unique.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Whether a rational, reasonable, fair person would call them twi policies is a DIFFERENT question.
Board member A teaches everyone must be out of debt-mortgages included. No exceptions. Period.
Local Leader B tells his local peons they must get out of all debt including mortgages.
Local Peon C struggles and manages to sell off their mortgaged house,
and rents a local house for slightly more than the monthly mortgage,
and builds no equity.
Local Peon D struggles and concludes they'll be driven into abject poverty
(they're barely making it NOW) if they sell off their mortgaged house,
which still has 5 years left on the mortgage-they can't pay it all off now.
Local Peon D is subjected to lectures and face-melting sessions by Local Leader B.
Local Peon D elects to not go into poverty, and retains the house.
Local Leader B kicks out Local Peon D,
declaring them "mark-and-avoid".
Local Peon D-now "mark-and-avoid" appeals to Board Member A,
explaining the situation.
Board Member A lets the situation stand and sends a vague (non-responsive)
answer, since if you obey leadership,
"GOD WILL COVER".
(Now, THAT was policy all the 90s people heard-
except maybe Oldies.)
So, Local Peon D has been kicked out for owning a mortgage.
No written policy has been found specifying those with mortgages
should be kicked out.
Would a reasonable, logical person claim that Local Peon D was kicked out
for violating an unwritten policy?
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.