Did I believe VP when he said that in the class about David and Bathseba? Yes. But then I was only 19, easily swayed by anyone who seemed to be reputable and who seemed to know what they are talking about. That is not a strange phenomena since commercials like to use actors in white lab coats with clipboards to sway people into thinking they were experts.
As you mention a virus, either here or in your other post, it was just that. We had no idea what we accepted (some of us) and that just laid dormant until it sprung to life at the right time. It was like we had sleeper terrorist doctrines sleeping in our brains until the right stimuli came along to wake it up, ie VP and David, a man after God's own heart and all that jazz. Some of the most insidious doctrines were those we learned covertly. We didn't even realize what implications we were picking up and that were roosting in our brains as we weren't allowed to ask questions at the time to honestly evaluate what we just heard;nevertheless with all the countless new info we received in a very short time, many questions were left by the wayside.
Let's take it further. Did we believe VP and company were Kings and princes over their serfdom? I don't think anyone would ever say that they honestly thought that or believed that, not then and definitely not now. But actions speak louder than words. Someone on the other thread said that some posts sounded like a D/s board, and I agree and I even think that the structure of TWI was set up with Dominants to be served by submissives or Kings and servants.
Jesus said in the gospels that the minister was to be the servant of all and the greater should be the lesser or something to that effect. I can't tell you how many times I found it to be just the opposite in TWI with us lessers serving the greaters at all times. I lived in branch Way Homes, worked full time, came home, cleaned for PFAL (even if the house was clean, which is was, it was not obssessively clean enough for PFAL) and then sat down to eat a sandwich before people arrived for the class and was publicly reamed in front of the entire Way Home and class staff for daring to eat before the man of God did.
fok you MOG.
I have been to churches since then, I don't go now, but when I did and we had pot luck suppers, guess who was the LAST in line on purpose? The minister and his wife. Always. On purpose too.
How about how we used to set up (in the 1980's) for visiting/teaching leadership? A nice table, cold glass of water (no ice it makes the glass sweat) How about bowls of cloves (when that was the fad) or mints, cigarettes nicely displayed in a serving dish. Ever try offering a MOG an instant cup of coffee?
I wonder if the prophet with the Shunamite woman was thankful for his little bowl of gruel or got in a huff about what to serve a MOG?
A limb leader came to town several times and I had the priviledge of living with Corps then who stripped MY MY MY room without MY permission of MY plants, my rugs and my books to haul to some building to set up this MOG's office who like to oogle me with his eyes when I sat in the front row for the class he was teaching live. Witnessing and Undersheperding. Hell even natural men didn't eat me alive with his eyes like that. Oh how about when we all had to go help an area leader's wife cook, because she sat home all day and needed to go to the hair salon, so I went and cleaned her house and cooked her share of the buffet/pot luck dinner for her minus mushrooms because this very MOG could not stand mushrooms so NO ONE could make a dish with mushrooms.
Kings and queens, princes and princesses? You bet. VP was King, every one else was either vassals or serfs.
We may not have said it aloud but we sure practiced it.
That lie about the kingdom and all the women in it went further in practical application than we knew.
An unrelated, or is it really unrelated, topic- vic was FURIOUS about Romans 13 translations, which said that people needed to be subject to secular government. By golly, it's gotta be gawd, or gawd's representatives that people should humble themselves before.
I think there is a connection.
"All the women (and everything else for that matter) of the kingdom belongs to the king.."
The king represented government, did he not?
OH. Naw, its gotta be gawd, or his representative..
Whether or not people were brow beaten with this verbally may or may not be documentable, but practically, I think the behavior and actions of loy, vic and others demonstrate it.
Hamm, I think that he DID feel that he was entitled....from the time he was a kid. He didn`t work the farm with his brothers like he was supposed to...he snuck off and supposedly preached to the trees...
He didn`t feel he was required to follow his churches tennents when under their employ...he was entitled to preach what HE felt like...(remember when the elders asked him not to preach about tithe?)
He felt entitled to fullfill every base desire....he started researching *I* believe...to find ways in the scripture AROUND the rules he didn`t like....
He twisted scripture to make adultery ok, to make alcoholism ok, to make drug usage ok, to make wicked treatment of people ok...
He started his own ministry because he felt he was entitled to these things. He also allowed anybody who was *spiritually mature enough to handle it* to partake also....
The laws did not apply to him...you are right...he DID resent the *worldly* government. He DID resent having to follow the *worldly* laws...don`t you remember how we were under NO circumstances to go through the court systems...even when crimes had been committed....
I remember something like that.. called some governmental officials about something that really DEMANDED the call to be made. Yep, I got a call.. "shoulda called ME FIRST".
Wasn't much more than a pimple on the arse of twi hierarchy for a long time after that..
But, I wonder if it's printed in the pfal book that way. I think it was modified to something like "all the resources of the kingdom" or something. Maybe somebody could kindly look it up, I don't have a pfal book anymore..
How some people even today think vic's the "real deal", all he had to do is make an offhand suggestion like that, and merely leave it to his followers to take it where he wanted it really to go.
Then his royal smugness could sit back and let them do the dirty work and recruit the women into the mog's service..
Quite a few learned to satisfy themselves as well.
"...That lie about the kingdom and all the women in it went further in practical application than we knew"
Yeah, too right, perhaps it's also the basis for the later demands for submission of women to men (not just wives to their husbands, but fiancees to their fiances - setting the standard (ha) early), but the wider application of belittling women at every opportunity and always taking the man's side.
Many here have seen (and experienced), or know of suffering friends. Much has been shared about how the abuse of women by their men - women whose very lives have been threatened - has been supported unquestioningly by leadership, but the women have been told to be more submissive to their men and it is their own fault for not being submissive enough. And no-one takes the offending men to task about their treatment of women.
Chattels, belongings, possessions, things - the talk was about the wonderfulness of women (VPW even made a poem/song about the Wonderful Woman of God) but the practicality was completely different - simply no respect at all. VPW also said that a man should be "king in his own home." So following David's example, then, does that mean he legitimized adultery, David-style, for every man?
Further question: did men believe this lie (all women belonged to the king) more than women? Or were we all equally browbeaten?
Hamm, I think that he DID feel that he was entitled....from the time he was a kid. He didn`t work the farm with his brothers like he was supposed to...he snuck off and supposedly preached to the trees...
According to his own father, his work ethic on the farm was lacking.
He slipped off while SUPPOSED to be doing chores like everyone else.
The only account of him preaching to the trees came from "Uncle Harry".
Who, according to his own account, never actually SAW vpw preaching to the trees.
This is mentioned in "The Way:Living in Love".
Some people here have heard vpw say there were different careers he was considering,
and did not have "ministry" as his sole focus.
However, this IS a story that seems lifted from Billy Graham's life.
Some people saw him go off and preach to trees while a Divinity student,
to overcome problems addressing a crowd (shyness.)
Why we're supposed to believe a kid who's not obsessed with the ministry
"preached to the trees" when nobody even claimed to SEE him do it is
beyond me- unless it's
"vpw said it,
that settles it,
I believe it."
He didn`t feel he was required to follow his churches tenets when under their employ...he was entitled to preach what HE felt like...(remember when the elders asked him not to preach about tithe?)
According to him, they said to teach on anything except tithing-
and he spent the next FOUR SUNDAYS teaching on tithing.
Supposedly, they spoke to him about this-the location changed when he told this more than once-
and he smart-mouthed them, and they dropped the subject,
and the membership didn't all leave when the minister fixated on money,
but rather gave more when he made that his sole focus.
Forgive me for thinking that's a load of horse-manure.
The elders just dropped the subject after he gave a smart remark?
The congregation just bent over to his whims and did whatever he said?
If that was true, he'd never have LEFT them!
He would have had exactly what he'd wanted right in the beginning!
He felt entitled to fullfill every base desire....he started researching *I* believe...to find ways in the scripture AROUND the rules he didn`t like....
He twisted scripture to make adultery ok, to make alcoholism ok, to make drug usage ok, to make wicked treatment of people ok...
When he met the House of Acts, he'd already twisted I Corinthians 7:1-
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."-
into saying it was ok with God.
There were other verses later for blanket permissions to do anything.
Romans 14:22b.
"...Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
Romans 8:1a
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..."
And so on.
All of these were taught under his watch to mean people could get away with all sorts of stuff
they WANTED to do.
He started his own ministry because he felt he was entitled to these things. He also allowed anybody who was *spiritually mature enough to handle it* to partake also....
The laws did not apply to him...you are right...he DID resent the *worldly* government. He DID resent having to follow the *worldly* laws...don`t you remember how we were under NO circumstances to go through the court systems...even when crimes had been committed....
He invented-and NAMED- "the lockbox" for the code of silence kept by these premeditated sinners
so that everyone else would be kept unwilling dupes.
And yes, in one sentence, he considered himself ABOVE THE LAW,
and thought that neither MAN'S LAWS nor GOD'S LAWS applied to him.
Note that VPW never gave any actual support to this proposition - no cultural background, of this or any other
cultural group of the time.
Clearly Nathan the prophet did not believe this was the case, even right at the time. The lie was denounced before it was uttered.
Oakspear:
"
quote:Originally posted by CompletelyComplete:
3. How many times were we taught that the Old Testament was "for our learning" but that we were not bound by the law, being made free by Our Lord Jesus Christ? How could they then use the verses in Samuel that "all of the women in the kingdom belongs to the king" - in essence claiming the "Man of God" as the king??
IS there a verse anywhere in the bible that says "all women in the kingdom belong to the king"?
I was pretty sure that there wasn't, but that VP claimed it during his exposition of the David/Bathshebva/Uriah/Nathan record without citing a verse.
There have been some good threads in the past discussing the droit de signeur (right of the lord?) that was exercised during feudel times in Europe.
I can't see God sanctioning adultery for the king, when it would contradict everything else the bible says about marriage."
insurgent had saved the following posts from one of the older boards and reposted,
deleting the poster names.
"Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them.
(By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.)
This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember).
Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself.
Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple:
1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried)
2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today
3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried)
THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there."
"Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps
that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New
Testament "ruling" minister or MOG.
LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure."
The higher-ups were confronted with the truth years ago when John S on the research team wrote his paper showing that adultery is wrong according to Gods' Word.
He was kicked out and others lost their positions simply from reading the paper or receiving it in the mail. The upper echelon convicted themselves by their own reaction to a simple research paper.
If you were a simple believer who already understood that adultery was wrong, it was hard to comprehend this kind of reaction....unless you thought about why.
They have had no interest in the Truth for years. If it interferes with their own lust and selfishness, they will resist the Truth and harm those that confront them with it.
They are not shepherds, they are wolves in sheeps clothing, not sparing the flock. Innocent believers have been and are condemned and maligned for insignificant infractions while those at the top of the heirarchy think nothing of taking their money, time and labor.
TWI had their chance years ago to repent and change their ways. They did not and they will not.
XXXXX
You mentioned, "It has been well reported that Martindale had sex with nearly half of the cast of Athletes of the Spirit."
I didn't know that! Two friends of mine who were in that production!!!
It make me sick to think that LCM may have been stalking these 2 wonderful women.
I hate to admit this, that statement has been the most troubling thing I have read. Because, at this point you are talking about friends of mine. These were friends I laughed with, ate with and enjoyed each others company. I lost track of them after they went into the WC. I was very proud to see them as they were doing the credits, and they danced across the stage. These friends are Sara B. and Connie M. I knew them in Utah. I pray they are doing well
Xxxx
I cannot say whether your friends are part of the group of women who Martindale had sex with. But I do know, that it is common knowlege that he had sex with many of them, and at least one of them was a main character. This person is now divorced. I don't know how many of the others got divorced or had other personal problems related to what happened. But it has been reported that one of the things Chris Gee r confronted LCM on was this issue regarding dancers in the Athletes production.
XXXX
I can confirm this regarding the AOS knowledge...and there are records on other sites of this exact scenario....I will try to dig the links up when I have more perusing time
xxxxxx
Rosey Lie had to have known about extramarital sexual activity at top leadership level because it was DOCTRINE as well as practice. I've posted this before, but it might be of some value to lurkers now.
Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them.
(By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.)
This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember).
Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself.
Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple:
1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried)
2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today
3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried)
THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there.
Get out.
xxxx
Excellent Points!!
Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps
that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New
Testament "ruling" minister or MOG.
LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure."
"It was at Word In Business 1994 in Chicago that LCM taught TWC the night before it opened, that in the OT, that the King was synonymous with the minister in today's administrations, and that many of the things that you read, that applied to the King in the OT, applied to the minister in the NT. I was personally present when he taught it.
It was a multi-leveled teaching. If you had no idea what was going on, it was simply a great teaching regarding leadership principles. But if you were privy to the sexual goings-on, it was the doctrinal justification to what was allowed."
WordWolf:
"If you had sat thru pfal, you would have seen vpw mention the incident of
Nathan the prophet confronting David about the incident with Bathsheba.
(Had sex with her, then had her husband killed to cover his tracks.)
vpw's explanation was..original, to say the least.
He said that, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king."
This was a VERY peculiar statement.
First off all, you will note it does NOT appear in Scripture. No Bible verse
was cited for this, for there IS no verse for this. The Old Testament laws
are very clear on adultery being a sin. There is NO verse saying the king is
exempt from being charged for any sin he committed, nor excused from having
sin imputed when he committed it. The concept was extra-Biblical. It's known
as the "droit de seigneur" and has been used by pagan tyrants in many places
in the world as a prerogative of their office. The Bible does NOT endorse it,
nor does it endorse the treating of women as merchandise or without respect.
Those who insist on vpw's innocence are unable to explain, using the Bible,
WHY this claim was made, why this statement appears in his signature work."
George St George:
"I believe the point was that if someone knowingly sins, he'll develop a doctrinal "cover" to explain it away. For example, a "man of God" commits adultery. If he can twist an OT reference where a king commits adultery along with the medieval practice of "droit de seigneur," and then somehow contrive that a religious leader equals the "king" of our day, then BOOM! It's okay for him to be an adulterer. Practical error has led to doctrinal error.
Does this mean that it ALWAYS happens? No. The sinner could simple recognize his sin and repent. Or, it could be pointed out to him (as Nathan did to David in the OT record alluded to above); and he could repent. Without godly sorrow, though, doctrinal error is almost sure to follow."
Oakspear again:
"We may disagree as to the purpose of including that remark in the class, but there is no argument as to its inaccuracy. There is no part of the O.T. law that gives the king the right to all the women in the kingdom, "technically" or otherwise, and the prohibition against adultery specifically would argue against it. Granted, there have been times and places where the droit de signeur was the custom, but one can hardly argue that a culture where "God's Law" was the law of the land was one of them.
There is simply no evidence outside of Wierwille's statement in PFAL that "all of the women belong to the king".
So, no, I don't need a better argument than that "bro" - we may reasonably disagree on why Wierwille included that remark, but it's wrong, unless you have something to prove me wrong.
This does, however, illustrate another point about PFAL: Wierwille's propensity for pulling things like this out of his ear, or citing "old documents" that no one else has ever seen to make his point. For a guy who claimed he was showing us how to research the bible on our own, he sure made a lot of undocumented statements."
"Droit de seigneur (IPA pronunciation: ['dʀwa d(ə) sɛ'ɲœʀ]), French for the lord's right, is a term now popularly used to describe the purported legal right of the lord of an estate to deflower its virgins. It is also spelled droit du seigneur (['dʀwa dy sɛ'ɲœʀ]); (but native French prefer the term droit de cuissage or droit de jambage) a related term is ius primae noctis (also jus primae noctis) (['ju:s 'pri:maɪ 'nɔktɪs]), Latin for law (or right) of the first night.
Droit du seigneur is often interpreted today as a synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and farming."
"
The existence of a "right of the first night" in the Middle Ages was a disputed topic in the nineteenth century. Although most historians today would agree that there is no authentic proof of the actual exercise of the custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of symbolic gestures referring to this right.
In fact the ius primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of a manor to share the bed with his peasants' newlywed brides on their wedding nights. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of disappearing status differences. Actual intercourse on behalf of the alleged right is difficult to prove.
The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th century, Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins dwelling on the same". Legend has it that Saint Margaret procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called merchet. King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece included much clearly mythical material in his account. In literature from the 13th and 14th centuries and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th centuries, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. There is good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Germanic marriage customs."
"Some scholars have speculated that the jus primae noctis of the Medieval European tradition did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia or 13th century Tibet (Evans 1979:30). In Mesopotamian literature, the right of the first night, in the sense of the privilege of a powerful man to deflower another man's bride, is a very old topos, present at least as early as Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2000 B.C.). Although the literary descriptions from ancient Mesopotamia and the legends of ius primae noctis in Medieval Europe stem from very different cultural traditions, they meet in the fact that, in both cases, persons of high social rank were involved.
Herodotus writes that virgins in 5th century B.C. Babylon were obliged to prostitute themselves in the temple of Ishtar, allowing a stranger to deflower them before they were allowed to marry (Herodotus I.199).
Marco Polo, in his Il Milione, observed that in 13th century Tibet, "The people of these parts are disinclined to marry young women as long as they are left in their virgin state, but on the contrary require that they should have had commerce with many of the opposite sex." (Evans 1979:30) Scholars have argued by analogy to the Tibetan custom recorded by Marco Polo and similar customs from other cultures that the ius primae noctis of Medieval Europe and the Mesopotamian custom alluded to in the Epic of Gilgamesh were not instances of the tyrant imposing his will on his female subjects, but a kind of "ritual defloration," in which "the community rallied around to support the individual," i.e., the deflowerer (Evans 1979:30)."
The only difference between LCM and VP, well actually there are two, VP was a lot more discrete and did his programming through inuendo, suggestion and covert thought implants and was a lot smarter than LCM. LCM in his stupidity and arrogance, was not discrete and let the cat out of the bag of things he was taught by his Master, one of them equating MOGS with the kings of the OT.
So all we speculated on and wondered about and thought using David was planned, we find out from the above posts is true. PFAL was a facade, poorly designed and stolen facade, of course it was stolen and why bother to hide it, VP wasn't interested in biblical research but rather a polished up, dressed in religious garb trap to satisfy and prey among the female sheep that would be available to him.
News flash, they, VP and all those that succumbed to his practices walked and stalked among those that VP and his henchmen were not worthy of, did not deserve to be in the presence of.
If they truly believed in a God, they should be found on their hands and knees begging forgiveness of that God and of those they exploited. To do anything less is unthinkable, nevertheless start up new ministries with new doctrines and new books.
And people still want to worship him and think he was the real deal.
The only difference between LCM and VP, well actually there are two, VP was a lot more discrete and did his programming through inuendo, suggestion and covert thought implants and was a lot smarter than LCM. LCM in his stupidity and arrogance, was not discrete and let the cat out of the bag of things he was taught by his Master, one of them equating MOGS with the kings of the OT.
So all we speculated on and wondered about and thought using David was planned, we find out from the above posts is true. PFAL was a facade, poorly designed and stolen facade, of course it was stolen and why bother to hide it, VP wasn't interested in biblical research but rather a polished up, dressed in religious garb trap to satisfy and prey among the female sheep that would be available to him.
The main difference between vpw and lcm is that vpw KNEW what he was doing was wrong,
and KNEW others knew it was wrong,
so he concealed his actions-
he concealed the sources that made him look competent (Stiles, Leonard, Bullinger, Kenyon),
he concealed his "I can help myself to any woman I want" doctrine,
he concealed his "my suggestions are commands" thing,
he concealed his criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
lcm, however, was educated by vpw to the point (some would call it brainwashing)
that he was UNABLE TO TELL that it was wrong to rape women, have his brother's wife,
bark out orders and expect BLIND OBEDIENCE,
and maintain a criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
So, he covered his tracks less, which helped him get caught.
(The internet helped a lot.)
And people still want to worship him and think he was the real deal.
Or otherwise put forth that God gave imaginary snowstorms and actually spoke to vpw
and made him the greatest Christian in nearly 2 millenia.
"Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Not sure who I just quoted, and sorry if I missed the answer to this question but,
Where in the syllabi (what specific pages, sections etc.) was this taught?
You won't find it written in a syalbus or book. "every woman in da kingdom belongs to da king" was an off the cuff, cutsie little remark vic made in pfal. Kinda like, "well, we ALL know this little tidbit, it's logcical and everything.." was what I perceived his demeanor as he spoke it.
Just another rotten little seed, and it was allowed to fester and grow..
I don't have the book anymore, somebody else will have to look it up to see what the printed statement actually was.
vic was surrounded with people who would act as a pimp. It is documented how they hustled, recruited and coerced women, and ushered them into the camper and waiting greasy arms of der mog.
It was a kind of esoteric spoken tradition passed along. They wouldn't dare put it directly in a book..
A few people knew about the sequence of events leading to David's marriage, but nobody had a right to say anything because David was king and every woman in the kingdom was technically the property of the king or belonged to the king.
Power For Abundant Living, Chapter 6- That Man May Be Perfect, pg. 86
Here in the forums, and also comments of the Judge and court documents and "stuff" in the A**en case. Rivenbark KNEW about the trail of women being hustled to loy's doorstep.
The main difference between vpw and lcm is that vpw KNEW what he was doing was wrong,
and KNEW others knew it was wrong,
so he concealed his actions-
he concealed the sources that made him look competent (Stiles, Leonard, Bullinger, Kenyon),
he concealed his "I can help myself to any woman I want" doctrine,
he concealed his "my suggestions are commands" thing,
he concealed his criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
lcm, however, was educated by vpw to the point (some would call it brainwashing)
that he was UNABLE TO TELL that it was wrong to rape women, have his brother's wife,
bark out orders and expect BLIND OBEDIENCE,
and maintain a criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
So, he covered his tracks less, which helped him get caught.
(The internet helped a lot.)
Or otherwise put forth that God gave imaginary snowstorms and actually spoke to vpw
and made him the greatest Christian in nearly 2 millenia.
I have been thinking and I do think we are both correct as there many factors why LCM went down over this type of behavior.
I am sure VP did try to teach LCM to be discrete about what he was doing, or to hide it. There then are the factors of us getting older made some of us wiser, also that at this point if we had several years of TWI under our belts along with TWI programs, we also had more than enough crap done to us (many of us anyway) and tired of putting up with more crap. I know that is the one thing I put my foot down, is when I got married and had a child and the local TWI tried to interfere with my family. Enough was enough.
Also, I know LCM did not hold the same sway and power over us that VP did. He was much more easily confronted then VP in that we, the other leaders did not hold him in the same regard that they did VP.
When I returned from being a WOW 1985-1986 at the ROA, we had a WOW meeting in the WOW auditorium with some high up leadership that sat in chairs on the stage. During the meeting, LCM walked out of the wings and onto the stage. Everyone in the audience stood up and cheered for him. (We had NO idea what was going on) NOT ONE of the leadership who sat in chairs stood up, not one of them even gave LCM a decent greeting. LCM let it slide. Can anyone envision VP doing the same if that happened to him? (Heck I remember the film from Advanced Class 1979 where VP gave a few clues he was going to stand up and when he did, the camera guy didn't notice and cut off VP's head on the film and VP practically accused the camera man of being possessed by implication--No devil spirit is going to ruin my class) Can anyone envision anyone wanting to risk VP's wrath by treating him the same way as they did LCM that night.
All this standing up whenever a Rev entered the room got to me big-time in rez. Especially if you were in a room where some kind of set-up or meeting or presentation was going to take place shortly afterwards. Got so confused about when one should and shouldn't stand up that quite often if at all possible I left the room altogether.
But that's a little "off topic" ...
Isn't what we are talking about, whether women should rather lie down (not stand up), when a Rev (or certain of them) entered a room? (tongue in cheek).
And it is obvious that David also had "hustlers" - after all, 1 Kgs 1:2-4 describes their actions in finding a "young virgin" to keep him warm (the dirty old lecher). He obviously thought his right to any woman in the kingdom continued for the rest of his life and perhaps only stayed off married woman after the prophet Nathan's warning...
Recommended Posts
rascal
Wrong thread...d`oh.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
Did I believe VP when he said that in the class about David and Bathseba? Yes. But then I was only 19, easily swayed by anyone who seemed to be reputable and who seemed to know what they are talking about. That is not a strange phenomena since commercials like to use actors in white lab coats with clipboards to sway people into thinking they were experts.
As you mention a virus, either here or in your other post, it was just that. We had no idea what we accepted (some of us) and that just laid dormant until it sprung to life at the right time. It was like we had sleeper terrorist doctrines sleeping in our brains until the right stimuli came along to wake it up, ie VP and David, a man after God's own heart and all that jazz. Some of the most insidious doctrines were those we learned covertly. We didn't even realize what implications we were picking up and that were roosting in our brains as we weren't allowed to ask questions at the time to honestly evaluate what we just heard;nevertheless with all the countless new info we received in a very short time, many questions were left by the wayside.
Let's take it further. Did we believe VP and company were Kings and princes over their serfdom? I don't think anyone would ever say that they honestly thought that or believed that, not then and definitely not now. But actions speak louder than words. Someone on the other thread said that some posts sounded like a D/s board, and I agree and I even think that the structure of TWI was set up with Dominants to be served by submissives or Kings and servants.
Jesus said in the gospels that the minister was to be the servant of all and the greater should be the lesser or something to that effect. I can't tell you how many times I found it to be just the opposite in TWI with us lessers serving the greaters at all times. I lived in branch Way Homes, worked full time, came home, cleaned for PFAL (even if the house was clean, which is was, it was not obssessively clean enough for PFAL) and then sat down to eat a sandwich before people arrived for the class and was publicly reamed in front of the entire Way Home and class staff for daring to eat before the man of God did.
fok you MOG.
I have been to churches since then, I don't go now, but when I did and we had pot luck suppers, guess who was the LAST in line on purpose? The minister and his wife. Always. On purpose too.
How about how we used to set up (in the 1980's) for visiting/teaching leadership? A nice table, cold glass of water (no ice it makes the glass sweat) How about bowls of cloves (when that was the fad) or mints, cigarettes nicely displayed in a serving dish. Ever try offering a MOG an instant cup of coffee?
I wonder if the prophet with the Shunamite woman was thankful for his little bowl of gruel or got in a huff about what to serve a MOG?
A limb leader came to town several times and I had the priviledge of living with Corps then who stripped MY MY MY room without MY permission of MY plants, my rugs and my books to haul to some building to set up this MOG's office who like to oogle me with his eyes when I sat in the front row for the class he was teaching live. Witnessing and Undersheperding. Hell even natural men didn't eat me alive with his eyes like that. Oh how about when we all had to go help an area leader's wife cook, because she sat home all day and needed to go to the hair salon, so I went and cleaned her house and cooked her share of the buffet/pot luck dinner for her minus mushrooms because this very MOG could not stand mushrooms so NO ONE could make a dish with mushrooms.
Kings and queens, princes and princesses? You bet. VP was King, every one else was either vassals or serfs.
We may not have said it aloud but we sure practiced it.
That lie about the kingdom and all the women in it went further in practical application than we knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
vic apparently did. And loy, and all the rest they could convince.
On the surface "all the women of the kingdom, belong to the king" was a slightly "off" remark in the pfal class. Seemingly innocent..
but they took it to extremes in the inner circle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
EXACTLY!!! What seemed a little *off* or innocuous at the time...was taken to extremes when behind closed doors.
Good lord how many times did THAT happen???
I believed it ALL. I assumed that any lack of understanding or appearance of impropriety was in my unrenewed mind.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
An unrelated, or is it really unrelated, topic- vic was FURIOUS about Romans 13 translations, which said that people needed to be subject to secular government. By golly, it's gotta be gawd, or gawd's representatives that people should humble themselves before.
I think there is a connection.
"All the women (and everything else for that matter) of the kingdom belongs to the king.."
The king represented government, did he not?
OH. Naw, its gotta be gawd, or his representative..
Whether or not people were brow beaten with this verbally may or may not be documentable, but practically, I think the behavior and actions of loy, vic and others demonstrate it.
They felt that they were ENTITLED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Hamm, I think that he DID feel that he was entitled....from the time he was a kid. He didn`t work the farm with his brothers like he was supposed to...he snuck off and supposedly preached to the trees...
He didn`t feel he was required to follow his churches tennents when under their employ...he was entitled to preach what HE felt like...(remember when the elders asked him not to preach about tithe?)
He felt entitled to fullfill every base desire....he started researching *I* believe...to find ways in the scripture AROUND the rules he didn`t like....
He twisted scripture to make adultery ok, to make alcoholism ok, to make drug usage ok, to make wicked treatment of people ok...
He started his own ministry because he felt he was entitled to these things. He also allowed anybody who was *spiritually mature enough to handle it* to partake also....
The laws did not apply to him...you are right...he DID resent the *worldly* government. He DID resent having to follow the *worldly* laws...don`t you remember how we were under NO circumstances to go through the court systems...even when crimes had been committed....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I remember something like that.. called some governmental officials about something that really DEMANDED the call to be made. Yep, I got a call.. "shoulda called ME FIRST".
Wasn't much more than a pimple on the arse of twi hierarchy for a long time after that..
But, I wonder if it's printed in the pfal book that way. I think it was modified to something like "all the resources of the kingdom" or something. Maybe somebody could kindly look it up, I don't have a pfal book anymore..
How some people even today think vic's the "real deal", all he had to do is make an offhand suggestion like that, and merely leave it to his followers to take it where he wanted it really to go.
Then his royal smugness could sit back and let them do the dirty work and recruit the women into the mog's service..
Quite a few learned to satisfy themselves as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Yeah, too right, perhaps it's also the basis for the later demands for submission of women to men (not just wives to their husbands, but fiancees to their fiances - setting the standard (ha) early), but the wider application of belittling women at every opportunity and always taking the man's side.
Many here have seen (and experienced), or know of suffering friends. Much has been shared about how the abuse of women by their men - women whose very lives have been threatened - has been supported unquestioningly by leadership, but the women have been told to be more submissive to their men and it is their own fault for not being submissive enough. And no-one takes the offending men to task about their treatment of women.
Chattels, belongings, possessions, things - the talk was about the wonderfulness of women (VPW even made a poem/song about the Wonderful Woman of God) but the practicality was completely different - simply no respect at all. VPW also said that a man should be "king in his own home." So following David's example, then, does that mean he legitimized adultery, David-style, for every man?
Further question: did men believe this lie (all women belonged to the king) more than women? Or were we all equally browbeaten?
Edited by TwinkyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
According to his own father, his work ethic on the farm was lacking.
He slipped off while SUPPOSED to be doing chores like everyone else.
The only account of him preaching to the trees came from "Uncle Harry".
Who, according to his own account, never actually SAW vpw preaching to the trees.
This is mentioned in "The Way:Living in Love".
Some people here have heard vpw say there were different careers he was considering,
and did not have "ministry" as his sole focus.
However, this IS a story that seems lifted from Billy Graham's life.
Some people saw him go off and preach to trees while a Divinity student,
to overcome problems addressing a crowd (shyness.)
Why we're supposed to believe a kid who's not obsessed with the ministry
"preached to the trees" when nobody even claimed to SEE him do it is
beyond me- unless it's
"vpw said it,
that settles it,
I believe it."
According to him, they said to teach on anything except tithing-and he spent the next FOUR SUNDAYS teaching on tithing.
Supposedly, they spoke to him about this-the location changed when he told this more than once-
and he smart-mouthed them, and they dropped the subject,
and the membership didn't all leave when the minister fixated on money,
but rather gave more when he made that his sole focus.
Forgive me for thinking that's a load of horse-manure.
The elders just dropped the subject after he gave a smart remark?
The congregation just bent over to his whims and did whatever he said?
If that was true, he'd never have LEFT them!
He would have had exactly what he'd wanted right in the beginning!
When he met the House of Acts, he'd already twisted I Corinthians 7:1-
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."-
into saying it was ok with God.
There were other verses later for blanket permissions to do anything.
Romans 14:22b.
"...Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth."
Romans 8:1a
"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus..."
And so on.
All of these were taught under his watch to mean people could get away with all sorts of stuff
they WANTED to do.
He invented-and NAMED- "the lockbox" for the code of silence kept by these premeditated sinners
so that everyone else would be kept unwilling dupes.
And yes, in one sentence, he considered himself ABOVE THE LAW,
and thought that neither MAN'S LAWS nor GOD'S LAWS applied to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oakspear:
"
quote:Originally posted by CompletelyComplete:
3. How many times were we taught that the Old Testament was "for our learning" but that we were not bound by the law, being made free by Our Lord Jesus Christ? How could they then use the verses in Samuel that "all of the women in the kingdom belongs to the king" - in essence claiming the "Man of God" as the king??
IS there a verse anywhere in the bible that says "all women in the kingdom belong to the king"?
I was pretty sure that there wasn't, but that VP claimed it during his exposition of the David/Bathshebva/Uriah/Nathan record without citing a verse.
There have been some good threads in the past discussing the droit de signeur (right of the lord?) that was exercised during feudel times in Europe.
I can't see God sanctioning adultery for the king, when it would contradict everything else the bible says about marriage."
insurgent had saved the following posts from one of the older boards and reposted,
deleting the poster names.
"Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them.
(By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.)
This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember).
Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself.
Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple:
1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried)
2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today
3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried)
THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there."
"Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps
that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New
Testament "ruling" minister or MOG.
LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure."
The higher-ups were confronted with the truth years ago when John S on the research team wrote his paper showing that adultery is wrong according to Gods' Word.
He was kicked out and others lost their positions simply from reading the paper or receiving it in the mail. The upper echelon convicted themselves by their own reaction to a simple research paper.
If you were a simple believer who already understood that adultery was wrong, it was hard to comprehend this kind of reaction....unless you thought about why.
They have had no interest in the Truth for years. If it interferes with their own lust and selfishness, they will resist the Truth and harm those that confront them with it.
They are not shepherds, they are wolves in sheeps clothing, not sparing the flock. Innocent believers have been and are condemned and maligned for insignificant infractions while those at the top of the heirarchy think nothing of taking their money, time and labor.
TWI had their chance years ago to repent and change their ways. They did not and they will not.
XXXXX
You mentioned, "It has been well reported that Martindale had sex with nearly half of the cast of Athletes of the Spirit."
I didn't know that! Two friends of mine who were in that production!!!
It make me sick to think that LCM may have been stalking these 2 wonderful women.
I hate to admit this, that statement has been the most troubling thing I have read. Because, at this point you are talking about friends of mine. These were friends I laughed with, ate with and enjoyed each others company. I lost track of them after they went into the WC. I was very proud to see them as they were doing the credits, and they danced across the stage. These friends are Sara B. and Connie M. I knew them in Utah. I pray they are doing well
Xxxx
I cannot say whether your friends are part of the group of women who Martindale had sex with. But I do know, that it is common knowlege that he had sex with many of them, and at least one of them was a main character. This person is now divorced. I don't know how many of the others got divorced or had other personal problems related to what happened. But it has been reported that one of the things Chris Gee r confronted LCM on was this issue regarding dancers in the Athletes production.
XXXX
I can confirm this regarding the AOS knowledge...and there are records on other sites of this exact scenario....I will try to dig the links up when I have more perusing time
xxxxxx
Rosey Lie had to have known about extramarital sexual activity at top leadership level because it was DOCTRINE as well as practice. I've posted this before, but it might be of some value to lurkers now.
Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Recall the teaching from PFAL (and WOAP) of David, Bathsheeba, and Uriah. We were taught that God was angry with David because he had Uriah killed . . . NOT because David had sex with the married Bathsheeba. VPW taught (and LCM continued teaching) that it was the right for the king to have any woman in the kingdom. This un-Biblical teaching has been promoted for decades by TWI for the express purpose of softening people up so that leaders could more easily convince women to have sex with them.
(By the way, this was formalized in the middle ages with the "Droit du Seignor" or "Right of the Leader" to have sex with any woman in his kingdom. Remember Braveheart when Mel Gibson's and his woman try to avoid having the local duke screw his woman, even though it was technically his right and duty to do so.)
This doctrinal depravity continued in the 1990's with Martindale teaching that the Ministers of today are the equivalent of the Kings of the Old Testament. Recall that he taught that OT verses referring to the King should be applied to Way Corps Ministers of today (This is in WOAP if you don't remember).
Women who resisted Martindale's sexual advances were EXPLICITLY told that it was his right as "king" (man of god) to have ANY woman in the "kingdom" (ministry). Resistance to him was equivalent to resistance to God Himself.
Think about it. The logical steps between the public doctrine and this last paragraph is simple:
1) Premise: The King of the OT has the right to have sex with any woman in the kingdom (married or unmarried)
2) Premise: The King of the OT = Minister of today
3) Conclusion: The Minister of today has the right to have sex with any woman in the ministry (married or unmarried)
THE TWO PREMISES ARE STILL TAUGHT TODAY IN THE WAY OF ABUNDANCE AND POWER. If you think TWI ministers of today aren't drawing the same logical conclusion today then you are not thinking logically. The problem did not go away when Martindale was kicked out. It is still there.
Get out.
xxxx
Excellent Points!!
Yes, just prior to my exiting twi.....LCM was explicitly teaching the corps
that the OT king (rulership) was equally synonymous with the New
Testament "ruling" minister or MOG.
LCM was rapidly paving a "six-lane highway" for his sexual driving pleasure."
"It was at Word In Business 1994 in Chicago that LCM taught TWC the night before it opened, that in the OT, that the King was synonymous with the minister in today's administrations, and that many of the things that you read, that applied to the King in the OT, applied to the minister in the NT. I was personally present when he taught it.
It was a multi-leveled teaching. If you had no idea what was going on, it was simply a great teaching regarding leadership principles. But if you were privy to the sexual goings-on, it was the doctrinal justification to what was allowed."
WordWolf:
"If you had sat thru pfal, you would have seen vpw mention the incident of
Nathan the prophet confronting David about the incident with Bathsheba.
(Had sex with her, then had her husband killed to cover his tracks.)
vpw's explanation was..original, to say the least.
He said that, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king."
This was a VERY peculiar statement.
First off all, you will note it does NOT appear in Scripture. No Bible verse
was cited for this, for there IS no verse for this. The Old Testament laws
are very clear on adultery being a sin. There is NO verse saying the king is
exempt from being charged for any sin he committed, nor excused from having
sin imputed when he committed it. The concept was extra-Biblical. It's known
as the "droit de seigneur" and has been used by pagan tyrants in many places
in the world as a prerogative of their office. The Bible does NOT endorse it,
nor does it endorse the treating of women as merchandise or without respect.
Those who insist on vpw's innocence are unable to explain, using the Bible,
WHY this claim was made, why this statement appears in his signature work."
George St George:
"I believe the point was that if someone knowingly sins, he'll develop a doctrinal "cover" to explain it away. For example, a "man of God" commits adultery. If he can twist an OT reference where a king commits adultery along with the medieval practice of "droit de seigneur," and then somehow contrive that a religious leader equals the "king" of our day, then BOOM! It's okay for him to be an adulterer. Practical error has led to doctrinal error.
Does this mean that it ALWAYS happens? No. The sinner could simple recognize his sin and repent. Or, it could be pointed out to him (as Nathan did to David in the OT record alluded to above); and he could repent. Without godly sorrow, though, doctrinal error is almost sure to follow."
Oakspear again:
"We may disagree as to the purpose of including that remark in the class, but there is no argument as to its inaccuracy. There is no part of the O.T. law that gives the king the right to all the women in the kingdom, "technically" or otherwise, and the prohibition against adultery specifically would argue against it. Granted, there have been times and places where the droit de signeur was the custom, but one can hardly argue that a culture where "God's Law" was the law of the land was one of them.
There is simply no evidence outside of Wierwille's statement in PFAL that "all of the women belong to the king".
So, no, I don't need a better argument than that "bro" - we may reasonably disagree on why Wierwille included that remark, but it's wrong, unless you have something to prove me wrong.
This does, however, illustrate another point about PFAL: Wierwille's propensity for pulling things like this out of his ear, or citing "old documents" that no one else has ever seen to make his point. For a guy who claimed he was showing us how to research the bible on our own, he sure made a lot of undocumented statements."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those of you curious about the "droit de signeur",
I offer this link and its contents...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_seigneur
"Droit de seigneur (IPA pronunciation: ['dʀwa d(ə) sɛ'ɲœʀ]), French for the lord's right, is a term now popularly used to describe the purported legal right of the lord of an estate to deflower its virgins. It is also spelled droit du seigneur (['dʀwa dy sɛ'ɲœʀ]); (but native French prefer the term droit de cuissage or droit de jambage) a related term is ius primae noctis (also jus primae noctis) (['ju:s 'pri:maɪ 'nɔktɪs]), Latin for law (or right) of the first night.
Droit du seigneur is often interpreted today as a synonym for ius primae noctis, although it originally referred to a number of other rights as well, including hunting, taxation, and farming."
"
The existence of a "right of the first night" in the Middle Ages was a disputed topic in the nineteenth century. Although most historians today would agree that there is no authentic proof of the actual exercise of the custom in the Middle Ages, disagreement continues about the origin, the meaning, and the development of the widespread popular belief in this alleged right and the actual prevalence of symbolic gestures referring to this right.
In fact the ius primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of a manor to share the bed with his peasants' newlywed brides on their wedding nights. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of disappearing status differences. Actual intercourse on behalf of the alleged right is difficult to prove.
The origin of this popular belief is difficult to trace. In the 16th century, Boece referred to the decree of the Scottish king Evenus III that "the lord of the ground shall have the maidenhead of all virgins dwelling on the same". Legend has it that Saint Margaret procured the replacement of jus primae noctis with a bridal tax called merchet. King Evenus III did not exist, and Boece included much clearly mythical material in his account. In literature from the 13th and 14th centuries and in customary law texts of the 15th and 16th centuries, jus primae noctis is also closely related to specific marriage payments of (formerly) unfree people. There is good reason to assume that this relation goes back to the early medieval period and has its roots in the legal condition of unfree people and Germanic marriage customs."
"Some scholars have speculated that the jus primae noctis of the Medieval European tradition did exist, and that it might have been similar to defloration rituals in Ancient Mesopotamia or 13th century Tibet (Evans 1979:30). In Mesopotamian literature, the right of the first night, in the sense of the privilege of a powerful man to deflower another man's bride, is a very old topos, present at least as early as Epic of Gilgamesh (circa 2000 B.C.). Although the literary descriptions from ancient Mesopotamia and the legends of ius primae noctis in Medieval Europe stem from very different cultural traditions, they meet in the fact that, in both cases, persons of high social rank were involved.
Herodotus writes that virgins in 5th century B.C. Babylon were obliged to prostitute themselves in the temple of Ishtar, allowing a stranger to deflower them before they were allowed to marry (Herodotus I.199).
Marco Polo, in his Il Milione, observed that in 13th century Tibet, "The people of these parts are disinclined to marry young women as long as they are left in their virgin state, but on the contrary require that they should have had commerce with many of the opposite sex." (Evans 1979:30) Scholars have argued by analogy to the Tibetan custom recorded by Marco Polo and similar customs from other cultures that the ius primae noctis of Medieval Europe and the Mesopotamian custom alluded to in the Epic of Gilgamesh were not instances of the tyrant imposing his will on his female subjects, but a kind of "ritual defloration," in which "the community rallied around to support the individual," i.e., the deflowerer (Evans 1979:30)."
================
Frustratingly enough,
the one really interesting comment there-
the reference to GERMANIC marriage customs-
LACKS A CITATION.
(So, it may be just made-up.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
The only difference between LCM and VP, well actually there are two, VP was a lot more discrete and did his programming through inuendo, suggestion and covert thought implants and was a lot smarter than LCM. LCM in his stupidity and arrogance, was not discrete and let the cat out of the bag of things he was taught by his Master, one of them equating MOGS with the kings of the OT.
So all we speculated on and wondered about and thought using David was planned, we find out from the above posts is true. PFAL was a facade, poorly designed and stolen facade, of course it was stolen and why bother to hide it, VP wasn't interested in biblical research but rather a polished up, dressed in religious garb trap to satisfy and prey among the female sheep that would be available to him.
News flash, they, VP and all those that succumbed to his practices walked and stalked among those that VP and his henchmen were not worthy of, did not deserve to be in the presence of.
If they truly believed in a God, they should be found on their hands and knees begging forgiveness of that God and of those they exploited. To do anything less is unthinkable, nevertheless start up new ministries with new doctrines and new books.
And people still want to worship him and think he was the real deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The main difference between vpw and lcm is that vpw KNEW what he was doing was wrong,
and KNEW others knew it was wrong,
so he concealed his actions-
he concealed the sources that made him look competent (Stiles, Leonard, Bullinger, Kenyon),
he concealed his "I can help myself to any woman I want" doctrine,
he concealed his "my suggestions are commands" thing,
he concealed his criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
lcm, however, was educated by vpw to the point (some would call it brainwashing)
that he was UNABLE TO TELL that it was wrong to rape women, have his brother's wife,
bark out orders and expect BLIND OBEDIENCE,
and maintain a criminal gang of "lockbox" conspirators.
So, he covered his tracks less, which helped him get caught.
(The internet helped a lot.)
Or otherwise put forth that God gave imaginary snowstorms and actually spoke to vpw
and made him the greatest Christian in nearly 2 millenia.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Since PFAL and continuing through WOAP -- even until today -- TWI has taught that it is the right of the man of god to have sex any woman in the way. This is a doctrinal teaching folks, and has been since VP was at the helm.
Not sure who I just quoted, and sorry if I missed the answer to this question but,
Where in the syllabi (what specific pages, sections etc.) was this taught?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
You won't find it written in a syalbus or book. "every woman in da kingdom belongs to da king" was an off the cuff, cutsie little remark vic made in pfal. Kinda like, "well, we ALL know this little tidbit, it's logcical and everything.." was what I perceived his demeanor as he spoke it.
Just another rotten little seed, and it was allowed to fester and grow..
I don't have the book anymore, somebody else will have to look it up to see what the printed statement actually was.
vic was surrounded with people who would act as a pimp. It is documented how they hustled, recruited and coerced women, and ushered them into the camper and waiting greasy arms of der mog.
It was a kind of esoteric spoken tradition passed along. They wouldn't dare put it directly in a book..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Power For Abundant Living, Chapter 6- That Man May Be Perfect, pg. 86
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe I misunderstand, and I don't mean to nic pit, but "documented" as in the forums here or some other source?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here in the forums, and also comments of the Judge and court documents and "stuff" in the A**en case. Rivenbark KNEW about the trail of women being hustled to loy's doorstep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
can that be ? if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black..... nothing is !!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
I have been thinking and I do think we are both correct as there many factors why LCM went down over this type of behavior.
I am sure VP did try to teach LCM to be discrete about what he was doing, or to hide it. There then are the factors of us getting older made some of us wiser, also that at this point if we had several years of TWI under our belts along with TWI programs, we also had more than enough crap done to us (many of us anyway) and tired of putting up with more crap. I know that is the one thing I put my foot down, is when I got married and had a child and the local TWI tried to interfere with my family. Enough was enough.
Also, I know LCM did not hold the same sway and power over us that VP did. He was much more easily confronted then VP in that we, the other leaders did not hold him in the same regard that they did VP.
When I returned from being a WOW 1985-1986 at the ROA, we had a WOW meeting in the WOW auditorium with some high up leadership that sat in chairs on the stage. During the meeting, LCM walked out of the wings and onto the stage. Everyone in the audience stood up and cheered for him. (We had NO idea what was going on) NOT ONE of the leadership who sat in chairs stood up, not one of them even gave LCM a decent greeting. LCM let it slide. Can anyone envision VP doing the same if that happened to him? (Heck I remember the film from Advanced Class 1979 where VP gave a few clues he was going to stand up and when he did, the camera guy didn't notice and cut off VP's head on the film and VP practically accused the camera man of being possessed by implication--No devil spirit is going to ruin my class) Can anyone envision anyone wanting to risk VP's wrath by treating him the same way as they did LCM that night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
All this standing up whenever a Rev entered the room got to me big-time in rez. Especially if you were in a room where some kind of set-up or meeting or presentation was going to take place shortly afterwards. Got so confused about when one should and shouldn't stand up that quite often if at all possible I left the room altogether.
But that's a little "off topic" ...
Isn't what we are talking about, whether women should rather lie down (not stand up), when a Rev (or certain of them) entered a room? (tongue in cheek).
And it is obvious that David also had "hustlers" - after all, 1 Kgs 1:2-4 describes their actions in finding a "young virgin" to keep him warm (the dirty old lecher). He obviously thought his right to any woman in the kingdom continued for the rest of his life and perhaps only stayed off married woman after the prophet Nathan's warning...
... a lesson LCM failed to learn.
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.