Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Foolhardy behavior


rascal
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ah, well, Tom...

I wasn't really expecting an answer, but, yeah, I thought the questions needed to be asked.

and I do agree, that those policies and so forth had nothing to do with moving the Word.

Some may argue that it did, in fact, further the process of moving the Word because it taught people to believe and not fear in any circumstances, but it also seems to me to be something foolhardy as well, to believe you are "being the best for God" by scrounging rides on the side of the highway.

I mean, if I'd come across someone on the highway or road, hitching, and if by some miracle I stopped to pick them up (which would happen when those pigs on the other thread start flyin' outta my @rse), and that person started telling me about the kind of "More Abundant Life I could have with *this* Ministry", then I suppose my first question would be...

If your ministry thinks you are God's best, and you are an example of the kind of person it takes to be a disciple, and they have all the resources *I* will ever need to learn the Word and more...well, then, why are you out here thumbing a ride? I mean, if there are so many people who are turned on to this thing...how come they can't afford a bus ticket, or let you drive your own car?"

And, I am taking this in view of my own experience. I'm 35 years old...when I was coming up, hitch-hiking was already filed under the heading of "things you never do."

...and it makes me wonder...what about the whole principle of "safety in a multitude of counselors", "safety within the household", and "strength in numbers"...? I see very little even mentioned here about the 2 x 2 thang...you know, except for the one where lcm and his hitch-partner ended up separated.

ok, I'm done on this thread...what good I could do has been done.

:evilshades:

QT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geeze goerge...ya expect better from your brothers in Christ, from your ministers responsible for the spiritual well being of those they have taken the responsibility to minister to.

You expect better from the shepherd responsible for the safety of the sheep :(

Who`da thunk that these wol oops er men might be untrustworthey or not have our very best interests at heart....sigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there's also a thing called "risk/benefit analysis". A thing that was entirely disregarded at WayWorld, near as I can tell.

Like - a couple of girls hitchhiking alone through Texas in the winter. I can definitely see a markedly increased risk. But what were the benefits? I mean, other than the fact that it was a way to transport the girls somewhere at no cost to VPW?

If people would've had the good sense to sue the bastards when things went wrong, I'd bet that WayWorld would've had a marked change of heart with regards how much jeopardy they required their minions to expose themselves to. They were MIGHTY sensitive to trauma to their pocketbook...

well, finished except for this. WordWolf was kind enough to copy my post on the last page so that it wouldn't get lost. I don't want George's to get lost, either...

so, just so no one misses it...

QT

(I edited this quickly, because it read (even with the comma) as "well done except for this" which might have been taken to refer to George's post. I meant, finished on the thread except for this).

Edited by QuietThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most programs, you may be surprised to know, DON'T require things like those or

hitchhiking. Of course, most programs are designed by people who actually

know something ABOUT leadership programs,

and don't view the participants as DISPOSABLE.

It was "designed" by people who didn't particularly care about-nor understand-

the consequences to the people who had to try and live through them.

It was CLAIMED to challenge and expand one's abilities.

Much of it was "retake all the classes", or "go and run some pfal classes on the field"

or "clean up the grounds",

with some breaks for "go hitchhike over there" and some other things.

Now,

in case people out there need documentation of this,

since I haven't typed out the exact wording vpw used when he said he wasn't

concerned about the risk of rape to LEAD hitchhikers,

I'll use some documentation I have handy.

lcm on someone in the corps having an attack, and what vpw

thought was the appropriate response to it.

"There was an incident of a guy in the Corps who all of a sudden went

'gooney-bird'. He started to babble and not make sense. LCM worked hard

with the guy to help him but he was incoherent. Dr, when he met him,

confronted him by asking- 'Son, how come you're letting your mind get

all scrambled?' The guy answered unintelligibly and Dr told him that it would

be best for him just to pack his bags and go home. The guy understood

that. He left.

LCM spent many hours and many long distance phone calls trying to make

sure the guy had gotten home from his bus ride home safely. Not being

able to verify his location, he was concerned. Dr told him to move on.

There's nothing you can do, he'll show up at home soon enough. A week

later the guy did show up at home."

INCOHERENT.

TOLD TO PACK HIS BAGS AND GO HOME.

SHOVED ON A BUS.

TOOK A WEEK TO GET HOME BY BUS.

God only knows all the wanderings he had,

and what the attack even WAS.

Just shove him off-grounds then "MOVE ON, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO."

In a word, DISPOSABLE.

And all the multisyllabic terms someone retrieved from their thesaurus

can't change the HEARTLESS, UNCHRISTIAN attitude the "program"

was run with.

Edited by WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah... you see lawsuits all the time these days for stuff we willingly accepted and let slide by...

One question I ask would be:

How noble is it to sue for something one has willingly accepted?

I would opine that that would indicate a total lack of responsibility and/or of owning up to one's own decisions and actions, on the part of the suer.

Finger pointing blame. It's always someone else's fault, in this case twi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WordWolf:

"Walking along the median strip of the highway, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.

I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-

like a driver jumps the median at the wrong moment.

Walking through Central Park late at night, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.

I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-

like, say, a guy with a knife and a black cape is hanging out in that area at that moment.

Getting your evening excercise by wandering up and down the stairs in the projects,

in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous

if something goes amiss-like a drug-user or mugger finds you.

Now,

if a program claimed to BENEFIT you insisted that you would be REQUIRED to do each,

most sensible people would-at the very least-insist on discussing the possible benefits

of engaging what is known to be a dangerous activity

(whether or not it dangerous "in and of itself".)

Most programs, you may be surprised to know, DON'T require things like those or

hitchhiking. Of course, most programs are designed by people who actually

know something ABOUT leadership programs,

and don't view the participants as DISPOSABLE."

George Aar:

"Then there's also a thing called "risk/benefit analysis". A thing that was entirely disregarded at WayWorld, near as I can tell.

Like - a couple of girls hitchhiking alone through Texas in the winter. I can definitely see a markedly increased risk. But what were the benefits? I mean, other than the fact that it was a way to transport the girls somewhere at no cost to VPW?"

This isn't rocket science for most people....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question I ask would be:

How noble is it to sue for something one has willingly accepted?

Skipping the highly subjective label "noble"

(else I ask how "noble" it is to do all the things vpw did),

let's ask a question that is NOT subjective:

Could one successfully sue twi for injuries taken in LEAD,

or for requiring hitchhiking, resulting in being hit with a car or raped,

or suing on behalf of a participant murdered on their way to/from LEAD?

Well, judging from OM,

you would think a judge would see the dead body, or the injured

or raped party, say "he who consents cannot receive an injury"

and close the case immediately.

That, of course, would NOT happen.

That's because those running a program-or ANY institution-

have a responsibility to ensure their institution or program is SAFE.

There's a LaZerTag arena I used to frequent.

The walls and partitions are all covered with low-density plastic.

If you ran fullspeed into either, you'd bounce.

They TELL people there's no running, nor climbing on the partitions,

nor crawling thru the arena.

They have referees monitoring the match, and they are looking

specifically for infractions of this.

WHY?

There's a release on all the applications, saying the person accepts

responsibility for their own actions.

But if you were playing in the arena, and suddenly tripped over

another player, and a running opponent crushed your left hand

under his fat boot, you could sue the arena-and win.

WHY?

Because they're supposed to ensure the safety IN the arena.

There's supposed to be nobody to trip OVER.

There's supposed to be nobody running at ALL.

They're running the session-therefore they accept the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY

to ensure the safety of the participants.

You participated willingly, correct.

You knew there would be other players, correct.

However,

if there's danger present,

then the organization has MISREPRESENTED themselves

and held forth that this is safe and not dangerous.

==========

Let's say you join an adults organization-

the Princes of Magellan or something.

They organize a get-together involving a mountain-climb.

You agree.

To get there, you are REQUIRED to hitchhike, and you'll

be expected to mountain-climb.

One person never gets there-he was mugged hitchhiking

and he's in the hospital.

One person takes a 30-foot fall off the mountain due to

insecure supports.

Both will sue the organization-and win.

The courts of the USA KNOW (they see it as self-evident)

that the group in charge of the event is required to MINIMIZE

risks-and this one MAXIMIZED some of them.

(PLUS required someone to break the law.)

And just because you have a deep, unshakeable loyalty for the

Princes of Magellan, that does not change their responsibility.

I would opine that that would indicate a total lack of responsibility and/or of owning up to one's own decisions and actions, on the part of the suer.
Try opining that in a court of law and see how far that goes.

Experts in what is acceptable risk and responsibility would disagree,

to the tune of lots of money.

Finger pointing blame. It's always someone else's fault, in this case twi.

Oversimplifying. It's never twi's-or vpw's-fault. EVER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OM,

I am truly happy for you. That you can be so steel-minnded, so self-confident that you have no need for the approval of leadership. You were not moved to be fear-motivated. You were content with your place in the world and your life with your God.

OTOH - there were many, many others, who got into the ministry to escape broken homes and disfunctional families. Ohters who followed the love and came for the promise of the "more than abundant life" with all the prosperity and health and promises that the Word had to offer.

Yes, this was a choice. Yes, they were free to leave at any time. Do you have any idea, can you empathize in the least, with how hard it is for someone who has come seeking love and approval to turn from the very ministry that promised to give them health, prosperity, love, a meaningful life - all through the FOUNDATIONAL class?

And.. how easy it is to manipulate a person who wants approval? Whether intentional or not, a person who has been starved for love and approval - a person who seeks such from God Almighty, is hard put to "just leave."

Remember, that the MOG represented God to us. NO?

He spoke for God, he acted for God, he listened to God.....supposedly.

How, pray tell, is a person who came seeking love, who came seeking approval, who came seeking answers supposed to leave it all behind without having to face a major PERSONAL FAILURE? This person has to admit personal defeat, and face the rejection of the very God that they were told loved them.

Oh - but we were not to have condemnation.... ri-i-i-ight.

So if a person gets sick and then gets prayed for and then gets prayed for again, then goes to the doctor, then maybe gets healed - finally - it that person's fault??? What? You are really going to blame that person for not believing "big enough?" (whatever THAT meant!)

Geez Louise - that person is already sick. Seems to me they need healing and comfort. Doesn't the Word say in SEVERAL places that we are to administer mercy?

Shoot, why is it that vpw could be moved to change after his sermon about alcoholism while the drunkard was at the back of the chapel - But! - later became that very same person who condemned sin and weakness (not to mention becoming the alcoholic himself.)

You can say that these people made a choice - just be aware that you know not of what you speak. Find some compassion and some mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might offer the same challenge -- see how far your perpetual allegations of alleged crimes at the hands of twi implementing its corps program go in a court of law.

Personal accounts of the victims, and of eyewitnesses, go a long way in a court

of law.....

The statute of limitations would be more of an obstacle.

BTW,

do you really think you're convincing anyone this is really about being fair?

Personally,

I liked it better when you were candid and said things like

"Has nothing to do with the integrity of the Word, but believing something very evil about a person who means something to you and you love."

when addressing discussions about the evil, criminal, unChristian actions of vpw.

At least there was no pretense you were doing other than trying to protect your mental image of

what "the good old days" were like.

OM,

I am truly happy for you. That you can be so steel-minnded, so self-confident that you have no need for the approval of leadership. You were not moved to be fear-motivated. You were content with your place in the world and your life with your God.

OTOH - there were many, many others, who got into the ministry to escape broken homes and disfunctional families. Ohters who followed the love and came for the promise of the "more than abundant life" with all the prosperity and health and promises that the Word had to offer.

Yes, this was a choice. Yes, they were free to leave at any time. Do you have any idea, can you empathize in the least, with how hard it is for someone who has come seeking love and approval to turn from the very ministry that promised to give them health, prosperity, love, a meaningful life - all through the FOUNDATIONAL class?

And.. how easy it is to manipulate a person who wants approval? Whether intentional or not, a person who has been starved for love and approval - a person who seeks such from God Almighty, is hard put to "just leave."

Remember, that the MOG represented God to us. NO?

He spoke for God, he acted for God, he listened to God.....supposedly.

How, pray tell, is a person who came seeking love, who came seeking approval, who came seeking answers supposed to leave it all behind without having to face a major PERSONAL FAILURE? This person has to admit personal defeat, and face the rejection of the very God that they were told loved them.

Oh - but we were not to have condemnation.... ri-i-i-ight.

So if a person gets sick and then gets prayed for and then gets prayed for again, then goes to the doctor, then maybe gets healed - finally - it that person's fault??? What? You are really going to blame that person for not believing "big enough?" (whatever THAT meant!)

Geez Louise - that person is already sick. Seems to me they need healing and comfort. Doesn't the Word say in SEVERAL places that we are to administer mercy?

Shoot, why is it that vpw could be moved to change after his sermon about alcoholism while the drunkard was at the back of the chapel - But! - later became that very same person who condemned sin and weakness (not to mention becoming the alcoholic himself.)

You can say that these people made a choice - just be aware that you know not of what you speak. Find some compassion and some mercy.

Dooj,

I applaud your goals,

but he hasn't found compassion in his heart for the last few years (at the very least)

for vpw and lcm's victims, so if I was a betting man, I'd put all my money on

"heart of stone" for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question I ask would be:

How noble is it to sue for something one has willingly accepted?

I would opine that that would indicate a total lack of responsibility and/or of owning up to one's own decisions and actions, on the part of the suer.

Finger pointing blame. It's always someone else's fault, in this case twi.

Well OM (I could easily get upset with you if I didn't think you were totally devoid of reason and compassion) I see it happen all of the time... there are lawsuits happening everyday where 'those in charge' neglected to correct practices that had resulted in harm and injury before.

And while you're so comfortable living in your land of make believe... you really need to censure your use of the word WILLINGLY... I think the courts would have found the term COERCION more applicable.

Here ya go:

Main Entry: co·er·cion

Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n

Function: noun

: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will

Your view of TWI is exponentially more skewed than that of almost every poster here.. your refusal to allow TWI to be guilty is your defense mechanism...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the opposite is the case. Some posters have the unrelenting mindset for blaming twi for most everything bad that happened to a participant, while in twi. TWI is always guilty, or nearly always guilty. It is always their fault. Well, I think that mindset is skewed, biased, unmerciful, and unChristian, and I am glad I think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you WW, Dooj and others who have tried to knock some sense into those who do not view the hitchhiking requirement as "foolhardy behaviour" or believe that we are unjustly holding TWI responsible for this practice. Remember the old saying-"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"? Obviously, there will be those who will never get the point we are trying to make.

For the record: I ran away from "home" in 1972 at age 16. Technically, we were between homes at the time and were overnighting in a motel on our way to somewhere. Because of circumstances I won't get into now, I had to run away in fear of my life, and found myself standing on a freeway off ramp with my thumb out in order to get away. I was terrified, but I had no choice. I didn't pray or "believe": I just did it. And somehow survived. I don't consider myself a "wuss". I did what I had to do, as many young people did during that time, but it's not something I was anxious to repeat. Just because I made it to my destination in one piece doesn't make that action any less dangerous. Until I went into the Corps, I never had to repeat that action again.

WW listed brilliantly the steps taken for many of us in our path through TWI. It wasn't even a choice: if you wanted to stay actively involved in the growth of the ministry, there was a logical progression of steps which culminated in enrollment in the Corps program. I did not know, prior to entering the program, that we would be required to hitchhike, specifically to LEAD. If you had a car, other trips like Lightbearers and transfers between campuses were made a little easier, but if you didn't have a car or couldn't get a ride, you stuck out your thumb. NO CHOICE. Would I have entered the program if I had known? I don't know, but I'm betting the answer was yes, simply because of the expectation from leaders and peers. I would have, however, liked to have been given the choice. However, once there, I was committed.

Much has been made of the "fact" that we did have a choice, that we could have refused. Refusal meant dismissal from the Corps program. If you were lounging in your arm chair, playing at participating in the things of the ministry, this might seem like a no-brainer. For those of us who were there, it wasn't that simple.

It has been mentioned that the program was designed to toughen us up spiritually. Ok. I expected that. I expected to be challenged. I expected to be pushed. I bought into all of that. I, like many others, was ignorant of the "behind the scenes" stuff, or of the tragedies that had occurred before. I bought the glitzy side of the ministry. And for that, even though I was young and relatively immature, I take responsibility for.

I do not subscribe, in anyway, that the requirement of hitching to LEAD was delibrately designed to "push us spiritually". It was simple matter of dollars and percentages. The program of LEAD was designed to challenge us, and that was enough. But in order to take advantage of it, we had to get there, and the only cost effective method was for us to stick out our thumbs. And damn the consequences. The percentage of those who made it without incident vs those who did not was very high: therefore there was no need to abandon the practice.

If you did not make there, you were dismissed. Period. However, in my case, I was not dismissed. Why? It had to be my fault, right? Didn't my failure of believing cause what happened to me? I was assured, upon my return, that, indeed, I had failed in my believing, but what had happened to me was punishment enough. Oh, and that because I did not fulfill my LEAD requirement, I probably wouldn't graduate. (You know, I'd give a lot to know what was recorded in my file.)

Shortly after my return, a Corps meeting was held to address the issue of LEAD. There were several individuals who had made it, but were late in getting there. They had to stand up and stay standing as they were raked across the coals. Why? For failing in their believing. They were, of course, assured that they would have no second chances. If they failed again, they were out. As the meeting went on, I was terrified, absolutely terrified, that my name would be called, that I would have to stand, and that my failing would be revealed and mocked. You know what? It wasn't. IMO, it wasn't because they were protecting me. It was because they did not want what happened to me to be common knowledge. Percentages, right?

Why didn't I leave? Why didn't I sue? IT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND!!!! If the whole thing was MY fault, who am I gonna sue??? If it was MY fault, then I had to correct my own unbelieving behaviour.

Tell me how you justify an organization's programs, policy's and processes by allowing someone who had been kidnapped off the highway and raped by two men, while in route to a required class, to so convince herself that it was all her fault to the point that all common sense was erased??

To show you how much of a "wuss" I was, I continued on with the program, which included hitchhiking several more times for other required activities.

Sorry this has become a book: just had to say what I have to say. And, my dear OM, for the record-I was a victim, so I have the right to speak like the victim I was. What happened to me could have happened inside or outside TWI-I know that. But getting a thumb ride to a concert is a world away from getting a thumb ride to a required class with an organization that gave you no other option if you wished to remain. Or an organization that did not change the practice after what happened to me and others.

Lots of words-I just don't know how else to say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I think hitching is dangerous, but back then I hitched all over the country way before TWI. So did Evan, George, and probably several other GSers. By the way, the first recollection I posted was a TWI deal. I wasn't "ordered" to drive but c'mon. Emporia to someplace? That was while in TWI.

So NO, I don't think hitchhiking was "tempting God". Some of you are just wusses.

OMG John I can't believe you are saying that. I could tell you stories of hitchhiking in the 70's for LEAD and other times of hitchhiking. And you say it wasn't dangerous? WOW!!!! :nono5:

I forgot how idiotic some thinking is. I'm sorry I posted and I'm out of this thread.... :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is legally right and what is morally right can be quite different. It is not legally wrong to seduce a young woman, plying her with alcohol, drugs, and flattery along with a hint of better things to come - "let me show you how to really love a man, honey". She succumbs, OM would say, of her own free will.

But is it morally right? Of course not.

wg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is legally right and what is morally right can be quite different. It is not legally wrong to seduce a young woman, plying her with alcohol, drugs, and flattery along with a hint of better things to come - "let me show you how to really love a man, honey". She succumbs, OM would say, of her own free will.

Please don't put words in my mouth, Watered Garden.

Drugs are always wrong. I've consistently held the position that those who were narcotized were victims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A respectible mission for all of us.

OM - With all the questions I have posed, you can only find this to say?

Yes we all need to find compassion and mercy. Can you start with those who you say "had a choice?"

I can see my way clear to have compassion and forgive those men.(Believe it or not.) Maybe its because I didn't suffer under their hands what other's have had to suffer, yet my heart still aches, (aches!) for those who did suffer as did Tops did. Can you not see that by controlling the information that this had ever happened before twi was controlling the response?

At the very least, there should have been meetings to warn the teams of the dangers they would face along the way and how to avoid them. - o-o-o-or, ummmm, maybe - "We will set you up in cars and you ride by FOURS and you take turns driving two staying up at a time and two sleeping." Now that would have been a solution that honored the program and the people. Teamwork, love, fellowship. Maybe it was too easy a solution. Maybe I should be the next President. (Tongue in cheek here.)

The Church that I now attend sends missions to Mexico and Cambodia, and South and Central America. You can bet that they make sure that safety of their people is a number one priority. Yes, these people know that they are entering sometimes dangerous situations - but that only makes the work of the Church to do everything to insure their safety even more important and needful. Every precaution is taken.

There is no hitching to a location. There is no test of their believing. (I can't even believe that I have to write those words - test of their believing :yawn1: )

Yes, Jesus sent out the 12 two by two. TWICE. This was not an everyday occurance. I doubt seriously that he would have sent Peter home had Peter been mugged along the way, or if he and his partner arrived later than the others. Why do we need to spell this out?????

Seriously, you can't be that dense and heartless. Please stop thinking about winning an argument for a moment (I have) and consider how you would have felt if TopoftheWorld was YOUR daughter. She is God's daughter - do you think HE says, "Well, you knew that was part of the program." ?

Edited by doojable
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, you can't be that dense and heartless. Please stop thinking about winning an argument for a moment (I have) and consider how you would have felt if TopoftheWorld was YOUR daughter. She is God's daughter - do you think HE says, "Well, you knew that was part of the program." ?

I would have felt terrible, but I wouldn't have blamed twi. I would have blamed the perpetrators of the crime.

And as Top pointed out, this type of thing could have happened in or out of twi.

Twi did not perpetuate this crime... they facilitated Top to strive to be her best in the corps, I believe that was the heart behind the corps.... not her having evils befall her.

Yes we all need to find compassion and mercy. Can you start with those who you say "had a choice?"
You say we all need to find compassion and mercy, but you yourself show little if none toward your twi brethren, so who are you to preach?
So what if she wasn't drugged?

Depends on the facts of the situation.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...