"(this situation seems exciting to me, allowing one to believe God while going door to door, a challenge, no doubt, in any neighborhood)"
HA! Oh, gawd, Phil, that's just rich. I had no idea that you STILL subscribed to the "law of believing" nonsense to this degree.
Maybe you could pull your head out every now and then and get a little sun? Really, it's gotta be unhealthy keeping it there ALL the time...
And another thought, geeze if it seems that exciting to you (Lord knows I"M getting aroused), why don't you just DO it?
George, I see you may need to get out of the house more. I do do it. I just don't witness... but I go door to door in my cooperative when comes time to vote for the BOD. I ask shareholders for their proxies. Got 28 last month, out of 104 units. :)
Were the expectations of the corps clear and consistent?
Well, let's hear from some participants...
GrouchoMarxJr:
...And another thing that bugged the .... out of me while in
residence, were their bait and switch tactics. When I signed up, I made a FOUR YEAR
commitment. That was it! It was optional to take assignments upon graduation...at
least, that's what they said in WRITING! A couple of months into the training, at
Emporia, they tell us all that we have made a LIFETIME commitment to the corps!...
and if we don't "understand THAT"...then we are "spiritually out to lunch." I sat
there listening to this crap, muttering under my breath that I only committed
for 4 years, getting angrier by the moment as everybody just sat there with a
glazed look on their faces saying "yup, yup"...not me! I regret not packing my
stuff up and splitting right then and there!
Skyrider replied
Manipulation-mongers! They waited a couple months and then, slam-dunk our
commitment level when we are behind CLOSED DOORS and surrounded by PEER PRESURE.
What a bunch of low-life tactics!
Was this tactic used in the zero corps? And, everyone left???
When the atrocities of the corps program are exposed...vpw was a major player in
scamming people. He may have been on the stage a lot, but some of us know that vpw
could easily hide in the shadows.
Skyrider also said
By the early 80s...the term cop out had
gained legs...and had evolved to mean...any corps person or corps grad who
quit taking assignments was a cop out.
Twi changed the parameters.
Now, it was a LIFETIME COMMITMENT to stand with twi.
And, that labelling is still in effect to this day.
And again
Yeah......I said it THEN, and I'll say it AGAIN.
When twi did their little corps promos....and sent out their literature....there was NO HINT of the corps program being a lifetime commitment to the way exaggerational.
I did NOT make a "lifetime commitment" to serve twi doctrine"......NO WAY. Only behind closed doors, did twi have the sleazy tactics to try and put their hooks into us young corps. And, yeah....for years, I kept taking on assignments to appease the guilt. But in my heart, I knew my allegiance was to God Almighty.
And, the further from hq....the BETTER my year. To avoid suck-up leaders and the bureaucratic cesspool of committee indulgence was NOT SOMETHING THAT APPEALED TO ME. I detested the lording over of God's heritage. I detested martinfail's scream-sessions. I detested the idolizing of the wierwille-owens-wierwille hierarchy. I detested the lcm-wannabes and the golf club gang.
Sure, I could have left......but, I kept waiting to see if "the new classes" and "sanctifying of the household" would produce godly results. I knew too much about cgeer to want to follow his groupies and his mentality. NO THANKS.
To me, the corps program was THE BEGINNING OF THE END. Yeah, it could have been a wonderful blessing....if godly agendas were backing it. But wierwille, in his lust for power formed and conformed THE CORPS PROGRAM INTO HIS IMAGE......an image of arrogance, and self-serving lust.
Signing on the line to go corps......was ONE of the worst decisions of my life. I deeply regret it......STILL.
Shazdancer said
I was committed to God long before I went into the Corps.
I signed up for Recognized Family Corps because I wanted the in-depth knowledge
that the Corps was supposedly being taught, before my husband and I were to join
Staff. We were accepted into the Corps on that basis. I still have a Recognized
Corps certificate to prove it.
Long after our in-res year, a couple of Corps leaders tried to explain to me that
I had made a lifetime commitment to the Corps program--to submit to evaluations,
and go to any and go to any Corps meetings that were required. Silly me for
requiring them to honor their agreement with me.
I am just as committed to doing good and respecting God as I ever was, I just don't
express it in the same way that I did while in TWI.
Igotout explained
what Skyrider is alluding to is that the Way Corps
"commitment" we originally made became a "we own you and you WILL do what we say
for the rest of your lives" commitment.
And if you didn't like it then you were dropped from the Corps if not kicked out
all together from TWI. That's pure BS.
Originally back when larger groups of us were going into the Corps by the hundreds
(I was in the 7th, I believe Sky was in the 9th) it was not implied that there
would be this "dog soldier leash" around your life after you graduated. Only
much later did this become specifically stated.
Heck I remember LCM stating one evening at a Corps meeting in Emporia...
"not all of you can become branch leaders. Many of you need to go out and get
jobs and careers and go to college."
Well some of us did. Later we were resented for it. Yes it was implied that once
Corps always Corps. No prob. Think Marine Corps. You have had the training and
served your country and now you serve in society as a better man for it.
It was more promoted as another program like WOW or other such ministry
commitments. A Wow Vet was not under this short leash and control, for example to
move every three years and such. Yet he is still a Wow Vet. I still have one of
the old Corps Vet tee shirts which I would bet they discontinued in latter years.
A lifetime of Christiand service? No prob...Still doing the best I can. A
lifetime of volunteer enslavement on a dog's leash?
No way, Rosie!
Were these inconsistent expectations FAIR?
Let's here from lcm himself, about how vpw ran the show....
After talking with LCM one day, Dr dismissed all the corps for bad attitude problems.
He told them
'Ok, as of right now, you're all out of the corps.'
He then made it available to all of them to reapply to him by filling out a 3 x 5 card,
The card had to express their willingness to obey leadership. Some of them
decided to leave rather than obey.
Follow the money in THIS story from lcm....
"Discussions with Dr regarding Corps with low levels of sponsorship. Dr allowed
LCM to sit with him for a week as he (Dr) talked with each corps person in
that predicament. Dr came up with suggestions to help people and
challenged them to figure out things themselves. He told the corps that
smoked that they needed to quit if they wanted to stay. The money they
saved could go towards their sponsorship. Dr required committment from
people. Then he helped them with their believing. He made smoking
agreements with a number of people."
"Later on that year, one of the people came to LCM to confess that they had
breached the no-smoking agreement. That spurred LCM to ask each one of
the people involved if they had kept the committment. Had they, at any time
since the agreement, had a cigarette. 15 of them said that they had smoked."
"After some careful deliberation, LCM dismissed the 15 from the Corps for
the breach. He felt he didn't need to ask Dr. W. for clearance. Dr had told
them they could stay if they hept their part of the deal. Once they broke
it, they had disqualified themselves.
Dr, upon hearing the news, agreed with LCM's decision but a few days later
decided to offer these people a new chance, He challenged them to get all
of their money together in one week and re-commit to the agreement if they
wanted back in. A number of them did come back in."
Incident of a guy not taking notes during a session in the BRC. Dr stopped and told him to pack up
and go home.
Funny- paperwork for the corps never said "notetaking is mandatory for all sessions"...
Oakspear summed this all up.
What I'm seeing here is how much "doctor" dry.gif jerked people around: you're in the Corps, you're out of the Corps, aaw, you can have a second chance...
Feel free to disbelief me on being able to design better. (Frankly, I DID design better once, and I could vastly improve on the process NOW.)
Not only design, but action, is required.
twi took action... WOWs took action, Corps took action. Special thumbs up for do-ers.
It's not the critic that counts
Press On - No matter what they say to you
It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or when the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worth cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
(this situation seems exciting to me, allowing one to believe God while going door to door, a challenge, no doubt, in any neighborhood)
George Aar:
HA! Oh, gawd, Phil, that's just rich. I had no idea that you STILL subscribed to the "law of believing" nonsense to this degree.
Maybe you could pull your head out every now and then and get a little sun? Really, it's gotta be unhealthy keeping it there ALL the time...
And another thought, geeze if it seems that exciting to you (Lord knows I"M getting aroused), why don't you just DO it?
Oldies again:
George, I see you may need to get out of the house more. I do do it. I just don't witness... but I go door to door in my cooperative when comes time to vote for the BOD. I ask shareholders for their proxies. Got 28 last month, out of 104 units. smile.gif
WordWolf now:
So, then,
you witness for your cooperative unit or for BOD candidates,
but NOT for the greatness of God's Word?
You allow yourself the challenge of going door-to-door for them but not God?
What happened to the courage of your convictions?
It's good enough for temporal things but not eternal things?
Golly, I thought you were going to give advice on how to do it better; not discontinue it.
I don't know... perhaps waiting around on the outside of the 'projects'/'dangerous area'? Instead of going into it? Using smarts? (which may include scrapping it as planned and taking a different route)
As crazy as that logic and concept may sound today, I don't see any evil in that. It was part of doctrine of twi and we all bought into it at the time. Today I wouldn't do it.
And WHY wouldn't you do it? Wisdom? Knowledge? seasoned with age?
WE (INCLUDING YOU) RELIED UPON AND TRUSTED THEM TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM NOT TO PUT US IN HARM'S WAY, TO DO WHAT WAS BEST FOR US.
How come you ACT like you can't understand that? It's there in black and white... what does it hurt you to acknowledge that? What are you trying to protect? TWI was not what you, I or anyone else thought it was... ever.
Doojable, I just think they were following a different path. I think they looked at these incidents as the adversary ripping us off, and saying "we aren't stopping our training program because we do not admit defeat to the adversary." If they stopped hitchhiking, they would be admitting that the adversary won in that situation and stopped the corps from training individuals to abandon their fear of hitchhiking and confidence building ...something that the corps wasn't about. The corps was about pushing the envelope, as you well know.
OM, they very well could have been saying/thinking those exact things... and that's the crux of the biscuit!
Sometimes a plan or idea is wrong, bad, ill conceived (whatever you want to call it) and should be scrapped.
In the TWI of those days they would never reconsider or admit a plan was wrong... even though it was.
It was much easier to say "it's the adversary" or "where's your believing?" than to ever admit they were wrong.
George, I see you may need to get out of the house more. I do do it. I just don't witness... but I go door to door in my cooperative when comes time to vote for the BOD. I ask shareholders for their proxies. Got 28 last month, out of 104 units. :)
OOOOH! You actually go and meet/talk to your neighbors! How BOLD of you!
WE (INCLUDING YOU) RELIED UPON AND TRUSTED THEM TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM NOT TO PUT US IN HARM'S WAY, TO DO WHAT WAS BEST FOR US.
Tom, the way you write, twi could simply have a program and you'd blame them if something goes wrong in the participation of that program because someone was harmed.
If it wasn't hitchhiking, it be driving cars and falling asleep, then you'd blame twi.
When something goes wrong in twi, blame twi.
Do you ever blame the devil, our spiritual adversary, for evil happenings?
or does it always have to be twi?
Who do you blame today when something does wrong? At least you can't blame twi now, but who knows, maybe you do find a way?
Oldies THAT is some of the wierdest garbage that you have come up with yet.
Attempting to insinuate that God would betray our trust and place us in harms way, with no regards to the consequences.
and yet...I suppose that this is EXACTLY what twi did. Said that God required these dangerous activities, required our suffering the consequences of acting out on these foolish orders....required that we endure sever hardships.
God required us to behave foolishly...
God required us to ignore all common sense and obey leaderships orders...
God required meekness from us while enduring viscious face meltings...
God required our time...our money our resources our lives....our children to die
THIS is why we put up with the crap...we thought that we were serving God...in truth we were fascillitating great evil.
It is the difference between the genuine and the counterfit.
A loving parent, not to mention God all mighty would never put his children in harms way.
there's big differences between at least 3 different things,
and someone-for reasons they keep avoiding-
keeps trying to say the 3 things are nearly identical,
whereas their differences often strike at the heart of the discussion.
For example:
There ARE orders where Christians make lifelong commitments to
go where they are told to go,
serve where they are told to serve,
and leave when they are told to leave.
Those are referred to by many names,
among them Holy Orders, the Priesthood, and so on.
Now, THOSE people don't just make ONE decision to enter
one program and now they're the property of the organization.
(No matter WHAT you were told.)
They receive training, and counseling.
They are questioned as to their commitment and reasoning.
They receive more training, and are REQUIRED to
meditate upon, and consider deeply, over and over,
the consequences of their decision.
It is FAR better for the organization to lose 90% of their
candidates than for them to place unstable, corrupt people
in all their offices.
Those that decide to go ahead swear their oaths,
and leave modern society, in a sense.
THEY'VE sworn oaths of poverty and chastity and stuff
I don't know about because I've never sworn their oaths.
Now,
THEY signed up for a lifetime serving their organization.
Clear.
Unambiguous.
Everything spelled out for YEARS long before they sign up.
THEIR programs don't get the participants raped or killed.
They actually CARE when someone gets hurt during the process.
Mark!
Can you give us something about what goes into THAT?
I'd bet my life it's more than
"pay us money"
"sign your name"
"write out your biography"
and then you're committed to 4 years of involuntary servitude
that you PAID FOR,
followed by a lifetime where you must obey our whims whenever
we declare them...
It's a VERY complicated subject to deal with, but here's a go at it:
First of all, there are two completely different processes. Becoming diocesan clergy and joining a religious order are very different processes. They also have different missions in life.
Second, there are fundamentally different theologies that highlight the differences between Catholic and (most) Protestant clergy. Only a few Protestant denominations have any kind of religious orders, so that is almost a non-sequitor for comparison.
Keeping that in mind, let me first discuss the process in becoming a member of the Catholic clergy:
The sacrament making a man a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church is called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1536 Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.
When one is ordained initially as a deacon, we believe that when one receives the sacrament of Holy Orders, the ordinand receives an imprint upon his soul that cannot be removed. Permanent (if you ever hear of a "former" priest, he isn't...he's either been released from his vows, has been laicized, or has abandoned them, but he is still a priest)
To become a member of the clergy, there is an extended process of formation. For permanent deacons, the process lasts for four years studying several evenings a week while maintaining the day job and increasing the involvement in the ministry in the candidate's parish. For men studying for the priesthood, the process involves at least four years of seminary work (if the person already has a bachelor's degree and required undergrad coursework) and can last as long as eight years.
Seminarians perform a considerable amount of pastoral work when they are not actually in class. They will go to a parish during their time off, may work with chaplains of hospitals, prisons, etc. or may go to mission fields either domestically or overseas to serve. All the while, their supervisor reports on their progress back to the seminary director.
There is also a process of profiling and investigation of candidates. Obviously, since the clergy sex abuse scandals of the late 60s through the early 80s (that went public in 2002 and following), it's obvious that they need to make sure that candidates have the right psychological disposition. As a result, from what I understand, the screening process has been made significantly more rigourous in the past decade or two. (Note: initial indications are that it has been; however, it will be a couple of decades before we know that for sure)
Once a person is ordained, the person receives a stipend for personal support (in our diocese, it's about $12k per year). Food and housing is provided, in the form of a rectory attached to the parish. The clergyman also receives compensation for providing additional services: performing weddings, baptisms, etc. (Note: this compensation is custom, not mandatory and the clergyman may not deny performing the sacrament if the recipient cannot pay). He can also earn extra money through writing books, teaching at high schools or colleges, performing missions (revivals) at other parishes, and in other ways. Note: permanent deacons typically have their own families, houses, and regular jobs. Therefore, there is usually no need to provide them a stipend.
One other thing, once a man has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he may not lawfully be married. This is not to say that a married man may not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but once he's received the sacrament, he may no longer get married. In the Eastern Rites (e.g., Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, Maronite, Melkite, etc.), married men may receive the sacrament and be admitted into the diaconate and the presbyterate, but not the episcopate. In the Latin Rite, married men may be admitted into the diaconate and, with a dispensation from the Holy See, may be admitted into the presbyterate, but may not be admitted into the episcopate. (Note: a dispensation is routinely granted for men who were previously ordained in the Anglican church and some who were ordained in the Lutheran church and who, following their ordination, converted)
For what I can see, here are the contrasts:
1) Diocesan clergy are intended to serve within a single diocese for their entire lives. Exceptions are made, but they are truly exceptions, not the norm.
2) Diocesan clergy know, up front, that they make a lifetime commitment.
3) Diocesan clergy do not take on additional family responsibilities after their ordination.
4) Diocesan clergy (with the sole exception of permanent deacons) are full-time clergy. They are not expected to work both a full time day job and a full time church job.
Religious Orders (which I believe VPW was really trying to emulate) have a far more stringent process.
First of all, a man or woman who desires to be in a religious order basically has to go through the screening process described above. There is a period of postulation, which normally lasts for about a year. During this period, the person sees what the charism of the religious order is (what they do for a living: teach, work with poor, work with aged, or if they are contemplative). During this postulation period, either the religious superior or the postulant can terminate the relationship at any time. Following the period of postulation, the candidate enters a period of being a novice {Note: that would be the equivalent of in-residence training}. That time lasts for generally two or three years, but, depending on the order, might be as long as seven (I believe the Jesuits are seven years). Again, the vows taken are strictly temporary and the person can honorably leave during or at the end of the novitiate. After the novitiate, the person takes temporary vows (the specific terms vary from order to order). This period of temporary vows is from 4-10 years. You are bound to those vows at that time, but you are also released from those vows at the end of the temporary period. Finally, after that period, you would take your perpetual vows...which are binding until death.
The vows taken by religious brothers and sisters are vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. (Please note: diocesan clergy do not take vows, they make solemn promises of chastity (according to their station in life; i.e., if married, be faithful; if single, be celibate) and obedience. Diocesan clergy can own property. Religious brothers and sisters may not. The difference between solemn promises and vows are that a person can honorably be released from a solemn promise (by the person to whom you made the promise; i.e., the bishop) -- a vow is a bit more difficult to be released.
And, this should be common sense but let me point out: members of religious orders do not have earthly marriages. Men in religious orders who have professed their vows are considered to be married to the Church. Women in religious orders who have professed their vows are consdiered to be married to Christ.
So what's the contrasts here?
1) There is a pretty thorough screening process
2) There are several breakpoints in the process where either side can terminate the relationship
3) The process takes a whole lot longer
4) There is no conflict between family and Church responsibilties: there are no family responsibilities, as you've abandoned all to serve God
5) There is no question about making a lot of money or being (worldly) successful: you've taken a vow of poverty and have given up all you own to serve God
6) There are religious orders that have different charisms (missions). If you don't like one order, go find another order with a different charism. If you go to a contemplative order, you're not going to be told to work in a hospital. If you are in a missionary order, you're not going to be shipped someplace to perform 18 hours of contemplative prayer a day on a recurrant basis.
The other BIG difference is this: a person can be considered to be a fully successful and very spiritual Catholic without becoming a priest or joining a religious order. A person can, particularly in the modern Church, be considered a leader in the Church without becoming a priest or religious.
Were non way corps considered to be fully successful, fully spiritual, etc.? (I seem to recall a certain snootiness among many Way Corps to "joe believers" when I was in. Don't know if that was the case before then or after then)
Hopefully this answered your questions, WW. Sorry for the length, but wanted to make sure to provide a complete answer.
One other thing I didn't mention: the money aspect.
For seminarians, the diocese pays the tuition to the seminary. The seminarian's family, friends, or supporters pay for out-of-pocket expenses (car, clothes, and pocket money).
We prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. We trusted in God. We believed God was protecting us.
But when things went wrong, when harm happened, did you blame God?
Do you blame God now?
He created the world. He created people, who do harm to other people.
Are you just as unmerciful and condemning with God, who failed to protect you, as you are with twi who failed to protect you?
I guess you don't see any similarity between the devil telling Jesus it's okay to jump off the Temple because an angel will catch him and TWI telling people God's going to protect you as you hitch to Tinney, New Mexico...Ever heard any of the horror stories of people [especially women] that went L.E.A.D.? Who's idea was that - to have people hitch to Tinney? Is that not putting people in harm's way?...Would you please show me in the Bible where we are directed to intentionally put ourselves in risky or even dangerous situations - on a routine basis at that!!!!!!!!!! Why - oh why is there so much wisdom in the book of Proverbs on making smart decisions, looking ahead and avoiding dangerous situations, pondering the path of your feet?.....In my opinion it is rather presumptuous of TWI to expect God to cover for every bonehead move followers make - I also get the idea that TWI really thought people were - gasp - expendable!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
53
44
23
Popular Days
Aug 1
66
Aug 2
64
Aug 3
57
Jul 27
33
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 20 posts
oldiesman 53 posts
WordWolf 44 posts
doojable 23 posts
Popular Days
Aug 1 2006
66 posts
Aug 2 2006
64 posts
Aug 3 2006
57 posts
Jul 27 2006
33 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
Rhino posted on the roa thread about driving while exhausted putting himself, his passenger and other drivers at serious risk in order to get to roa (wish I knew how to cut and cross post) Here's th
outandabout
If we're not supposed to use our "five senses", why did God give them to us?
WordWolf
Frankly,
since you asked,
the program was instituted poorly and on a whim,
was designed by a few people with NO training nor experience with training programs,
was designed far too quickly (especially for people with no skill at such),
was executed poorly,
and was NEVER evaluated with a view towards redesigning it with improvements.
That it was MADE to work for many participants (many people came out and managed
to gain benefit while in it) is a testimony to many participants and many staff.
The WORST program can be MADE to work by SOMEBODY,
and the BEST program will never be 100% effective.
Therefore,
it should never have been instituted in the first place.
If it was GOING to be set up, it should have been designed completely differently,
by people with experience, training and skill.
(In short, not vpw, who designed this one mostly single-handedly
and added some stuff later with the input of a few.)
That having been said,
Yes, I PERSONALLY could design a program superior in most (or all) ways.
I will not POST such advice because I don't put a loaded pistol in the hands of a toddler,
and I don't tell twi how to improve fleecing people.
Feel free to disbelief me on being able to design better.
(Frankly, I DID design better once, and I could vastly improve on the process NOW.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
George, I see you may need to get out of the house more. I do do it. I just don't witness... but I go door to door in my cooperative when comes time to vote for the BOD. I ask shareholders for their proxies. Got 28 last month, out of 104 units. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Were the expectations of the corps clear and consistent?
Well, let's hear from some participants...
GrouchoMarxJr:
Skyrider repliedSkyrider also said
And againShazdancer said
Igotout explainedWere these inconsistent expectations FAIR?
Let's here from lcm himself, about how vpw ran the show....
Follow the money in THIS story from lcm.... Funny- paperwork for the corps never said "notetaking is mandatory for all sessions"...Oakspear summed this all up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Not only design, but action, is required.
twi took action... WOWs took action, Corps took action. Special thumbs up for do-ers.
It's not the critic that counts
Press On - No matter what they say to you
Theodore Roosevelt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldiesman:
George Aar:Oldies again:
WordWolf now:
So, then,
you witness for your cooperative unit or for BOD candidates,
but NOT for the greatness of God's Word?
You allow yourself the challenge of going door-to-door for them but not God?
What happened to the courage of your convictions?
It's good enough for temporal things but not eternal things?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I don't know... perhaps waiting around on the outside of the 'projects'/'dangerous area'? Instead of going into it? Using smarts? (which may include scrapping it as planned and taking a different route)
And WHY wouldn't you do it? Wisdom? Knowledge? seasoned with age?
WE (INCLUDING YOU) RELIED UPON AND TRUSTED THEM TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM NOT TO PUT US IN HARM'S WAY, TO DO WHAT WAS BEST FOR US.
How come you ACT like you can't understand that? It's there in black and white... what does it hurt you to acknowledge that? What are you trying to protect? TWI was not what you, I or anyone else thought it was... ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No sh*, Sherlock.
The initial design was made with intent to be used.
I'm not running a program NOW because no one's beating down my door
to sign up for one.
Maybe if I snowed a bunch of youngsters and convinced them I and I alone
had a UNIQUE and SPECIAL knowledge, then I'd get demand.
We all know it worked GREAT for vpw....
I reserve my thumbs-up for those whose action was CORRECT.NO thumbs up for leaders who raped and molested the followers-
although technically that qualified as "action."
NO thumbs up for stealing the work of others and passing it off as your own-
although technically that qualified as "action."
NO thumbs up for ANY corrupt leader of ANY kind in ANY organization-
no matter how much "action" they take.
Of course not- the policeman who arrests the criminal counts,
and the whistleblower who exposed the danger and evil counts,
and the one who warned the others not to leap into danger counts
but NOT the critic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM, they very well could have been saying/thinking those exact things... and that's the crux of the biscuit!
Sometimes a plan or idea is wrong, bad, ill conceived (whatever you want to call it) and should be scrapped.
In the TWI of those days they would never reconsider or admit a plan was wrong... even though it was.
It was much easier to say "it's the adversary" or "where's your believing?" than to ever admit they were wrong.
OOOOH! You actually go and meet/talk to your neighbors! How BOLD of you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
And there we have it.
Pressing on gets applause from Oldiesman.
The worth of the action gets NO MENTION.
Whether, even, the action is good or evil gets NO MENTION.
Whether it is smarter to return, reassess, retool, and try again later gets NO MENTION-
and in fact, would be heartily discouraged.
Press on-no matter what!
=====
Here's a story for you.
The Light Brigade of the song was a "light" infantry unit.
That means they're good for fast actions, but not pitched combat like a "heavy" unit.
They were given orders to advance upon the enemy by travelling thru the valley.
The opposite end of the valley was the high ground,
occupied by enemy ARTILLERY.
That's the stuff that blows stuff up.
It was pointed at the valley.
The sides of the valley were also occupied by the enemy,
specifically the enemy ARTILLERY.
This is what's referred to as a "killing field"-
passing thru it is a huge invitation to be blown to bits by lots of cannon.
Chances of survival in a killing field: not so good.
Odds of success associated with passing thru a killing field THEN engaging the enemy
with the survivors: slim to none.
Anyone should be able to see why it's a STUPID idea to just take a bunch of
guys with swords and run them thru a gauntlet of cannons blowing them up,
to engage the rested fighters on the other side after running thru the gauntlet.
However,
this was a fine example of "don't think-just follow orders."
Don't evaluate the situation and see if this is a SMART or EFFECTIVE thing to do-
just go out and do it with everything you've got.
So, they did.
And the enemy blew the cr@p out of them.
And they lost the battle. Big surprise.
Alfred Lord Tennyson immortalized the account,
and a sentiment OM has already endorsed ends it.
The Charge of the Light Brigade
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
"1.
Half a league, half a league, Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade! "Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
2.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!" Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.
3.
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
4.
Flash'd all their sabres bare, Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there, Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd: Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke; Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not Not the six hundred.
5.
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell, While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell, All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
6.
When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered. Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
WordWolf:
I'm not running a program NOW because no one's beating down my door
to sign up for one.
Maybe if I snowed a bunch of youngsters and convinced them I and I alone
had a UNIQUE and SPECIAL knowledge, then I'd get demand.
We all know it worked GREAT for vpw....
WordWolf - I"LL sign up
Ummmm - I don't have to hitch to get there, do I?
Tongue firmly planted in cheek......
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tom, the way you write, twi could simply have a program and you'd blame them if something goes wrong in the participation of that program because someone was harmed.
If it wasn't hitchhiking, it be driving cars and falling asleep, then you'd blame twi.
When something goes wrong in twi, blame twi.
Do you ever blame the devil, our spiritual adversary, for evil happenings?
or does it always have to be twi?
Who do you blame today when something does wrong? At least you can't blame twi now, but who knows, maybe you do find a way?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You are free to show us how twi could have done it better, Lord Wordwolf. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yeah I think it is. I heard one guy say if I knocked on his door again, he'd kick my a$$.
I blame the co-op for putting me in harm's way. I'll stay home next time.
Tom, is there a way you can blame twi for the heat outside? :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Golly, here's a thought (food for thought):
Let's replace the word "them", with "God."
We prayed to God to keep us out of harm's way.
We prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. We trusted in God. We believed God was protecting us.
But when things went wrong, when harm happened, did you blame God?
Do you blame God now?
He created the world. He created people, who do harm to other people.
Are you just as unmerciful and condemning with God, who failed to protect you, as you are with twi who failed to protect you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I want to learn:
how to never make a mistake;
how to never get fooled;
how to never be taken advantage of;
how to never be a victim in any way, shape, or form
how to be absolutely perfect and always make the right decisions
how to never find myself in a situation where I'm in danger
how to never miss an opportunity to make the right decision
Would that we could ALL be as perfect and smart as some seem to think they are. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Oldies THAT is some of the wierdest garbage that you have come up with yet.
Attempting to insinuate that God would betray our trust and place us in harms way, with no regards to the consequences.
and yet...I suppose that this is EXACTLY what twi did. Said that God required these dangerous activities, required our suffering the consequences of acting out on these foolish orders....required that we endure sever hardships.
God required us to behave foolishly...
God required us to ignore all common sense and obey leaderships orders...
God required meekness from us while enduring viscious face meltings...
God required our time...our money our resources our lives....our children to die
THIS is why we put up with the crap...we thought that we were serving God...in truth we were fascillitating great evil.
It is the difference between the genuine and the counterfit.
A loving parent, not to mention God all mighty would never put his children in harms way.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
It's a VERY complicated subject to deal with, but here's a go at it:
First of all, there are two completely different processes. Becoming diocesan clergy and joining a religious order are very different processes. They also have different missions in life.
Second, there are fundamentally different theologies that highlight the differences between Catholic and (most) Protestant clergy. Only a few Protestant denominations have any kind of religious orders, so that is almost a non-sequitor for comparison.
Keeping that in mind, let me first discuss the process in becoming a member of the Catholic clergy:
The sacrament making a man a member of the clergy in the Catholic Church is called the Sacrament of Holy Orders. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
When one is ordained initially as a deacon, we believe that when one receives the sacrament of Holy Orders, the ordinand receives an imprint upon his soul that cannot be removed. Permanent (if you ever hear of a "former" priest, he isn't...he's either been released from his vows, has been laicized, or has abandoned them, but he is still a priest)
To become a member of the clergy, there is an extended process of formation. For permanent deacons, the process lasts for four years studying several evenings a week while maintaining the day job and increasing the involvement in the ministry in the candidate's parish. For men studying for the priesthood, the process involves at least four years of seminary work (if the person already has a bachelor's degree and required undergrad coursework) and can last as long as eight years.
Seminarians perform a considerable amount of pastoral work when they are not actually in class. They will go to a parish during their time off, may work with chaplains of hospitals, prisons, etc. or may go to mission fields either domestically or overseas to serve. All the while, their supervisor reports on their progress back to the seminary director.
There is also a process of profiling and investigation of candidates. Obviously, since the clergy sex abuse scandals of the late 60s through the early 80s (that went public in 2002 and following), it's obvious that they need to make sure that candidates have the right psychological disposition. As a result, from what I understand, the screening process has been made significantly more rigourous in the past decade or two. (Note: initial indications are that it has been; however, it will be a couple of decades before we know that for sure)
Once a person is ordained, the person receives a stipend for personal support (in our diocese, it's about $12k per year). Food and housing is provided, in the form of a rectory attached to the parish. The clergyman also receives compensation for providing additional services: performing weddings, baptisms, etc. (Note: this compensation is custom, not mandatory and the clergyman may not deny performing the sacrament if the recipient cannot pay). He can also earn extra money through writing books, teaching at high schools or colleges, performing missions (revivals) at other parishes, and in other ways. Note: permanent deacons typically have their own families, houses, and regular jobs. Therefore, there is usually no need to provide them a stipend.
One other thing, once a man has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, he may not lawfully be married. This is not to say that a married man may not receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but once he's received the sacrament, he may no longer get married. In the Eastern Rites (e.g., Byzantine, Coptic, Chaldean, Maronite, Melkite, etc.), married men may receive the sacrament and be admitted into the diaconate and the presbyterate, but not the episcopate. In the Latin Rite, married men may be admitted into the diaconate and, with a dispensation from the Holy See, may be admitted into the presbyterate, but may not be admitted into the episcopate. (Note: a dispensation is routinely granted for men who were previously ordained in the Anglican church and some who were ordained in the Lutheran church and who, following their ordination, converted)
For what I can see, here are the contrasts:
1) Diocesan clergy are intended to serve within a single diocese for their entire lives. Exceptions are made, but they are truly exceptions, not the norm.
2) Diocesan clergy know, up front, that they make a lifetime commitment.
3) Diocesan clergy do not take on additional family responsibilities after their ordination.
4) Diocesan clergy (with the sole exception of permanent deacons) are full-time clergy. They are not expected to work both a full time day job and a full time church job.
Religious Orders (which I believe VPW was really trying to emulate) have a far more stringent process.
First of all, a man or woman who desires to be in a religious order basically has to go through the screening process described above. There is a period of postulation, which normally lasts for about a year. During this period, the person sees what the charism of the religious order is (what they do for a living: teach, work with poor, work with aged, or if they are contemplative). During this postulation period, either the religious superior or the postulant can terminate the relationship at any time. Following the period of postulation, the candidate enters a period of being a novice {Note: that would be the equivalent of in-residence training}. That time lasts for generally two or three years, but, depending on the order, might be as long as seven (I believe the Jesuits are seven years). Again, the vows taken are strictly temporary and the person can honorably leave during or at the end of the novitiate. After the novitiate, the person takes temporary vows (the specific terms vary from order to order). This period of temporary vows is from 4-10 years. You are bound to those vows at that time, but you are also released from those vows at the end of the temporary period. Finally, after that period, you would take your perpetual vows...which are binding until death.
The vows taken by religious brothers and sisters are vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. (Please note: diocesan clergy do not take vows, they make solemn promises of chastity (according to their station in life; i.e., if married, be faithful; if single, be celibate) and obedience. Diocesan clergy can own property. Religious brothers and sisters may not. The difference between solemn promises and vows are that a person can honorably be released from a solemn promise (by the person to whom you made the promise; i.e., the bishop) -- a vow is a bit more difficult to be released.
And, this should be common sense but let me point out: members of religious orders do not have earthly marriages. Men in religious orders who have professed their vows are considered to be married to the Church. Women in religious orders who have professed their vows are consdiered to be married to Christ.
So what's the contrasts here?
1) There is a pretty thorough screening process
2) There are several breakpoints in the process where either side can terminate the relationship
3) The process takes a whole lot longer
4) There is no conflict between family and Church responsibilties: there are no family responsibilities, as you've abandoned all to serve God
5) There is no question about making a lot of money or being (worldly) successful: you've taken a vow of poverty and have given up all you own to serve God
6) There are religious orders that have different charisms (missions). If you don't like one order, go find another order with a different charism. If you go to a contemplative order, you're not going to be told to work in a hospital. If you are in a missionary order, you're not going to be shipped someplace to perform 18 hours of contemplative prayer a day on a recurrant basis.
The other BIG difference is this: a person can be considered to be a fully successful and very spiritual Catholic without becoming a priest or joining a religious order. A person can, particularly in the modern Church, be considered a leader in the Church without becoming a priest or religious.
Were non way corps considered to be fully successful, fully spiritual, etc.? (I seem to recall a certain snootiness among many Way Corps to "joe believers" when I was in. Don't know if that was the case before then or after then)
Hopefully this answered your questions, WW. Sorry for the length, but wanted to make sure to provide a complete answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
Mark,
I at least thank you for the post! I just started a topic thread which was seeking just this kind of information.
Cheers!
qt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Thank you, Mark! Very thorough and very interesting. Two totally different organizations, for sure!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
I don't know if this open to just anyone, Oldies...but for my 2 cents.
If something bad happens to me, and I was the root cause, I accept responsibility.
Conversely,
If someone else caused that harm to me, I assign responsibility to that camp....
If harm comes to me because of a string someone else pulled? I assign responsibility to the string-puller.
And my assignation of blame and $6.58 gets you a double caramel machiato with an extra shot where I live.
...sees where this could easily head,
qt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One other thing I didn't mention: the money aspect.
For seminarians, the diocese pays the tuition to the seminary. The seminarian's family, friends, or supporters pay for out-of-pocket expenses (car, clothes, and pocket money).
For religious, the order pays for everything.
Another big difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Well, if you believe you weren't serving God in twi, then that's a belief and image of your own life.
I disagree with it, but you are entitled to think what you want about yourself.
But, speak for yourself.
You can't speak for others who were serving God.
Minimally I think that'd have to be a decision in one's own soul to make.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I guess you don't see any similarity between the devil telling Jesus it's okay to jump off the Temple because an angel will catch him and TWI telling people God's going to protect you as you hitch to Tinney, New Mexico...Ever heard any of the horror stories of people [especially women] that went L.E.A.D.? Who's idea was that - to have people hitch to Tinney? Is that not putting people in harm's way?...Would you please show me in the Bible where we are directed to intentionally put ourselves in risky or even dangerous situations - on a routine basis at that!!!!!!!!!! Why - oh why is there so much wisdom in the book of Proverbs on making smart decisions, looking ahead and avoiding dangerous situations, pondering the path of your feet?.....In my opinion it is rather presumptuous of TWI to expect God to cover for every bonehead move followers make - I also get the idea that TWI really thought people were - gasp - expendable!
Edited by T-BoneLink 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.