...For those who have changed their beliefs, how did the circumstances of your exit from TWI influence your subsequent religious/spiritual beliefs?
The thing that drove me to leave was the frustration and confusion generated by TWI's top leadership after Passing of the Patriarch - as factions battled for power, avoided issues and shifted blame. The only way to appease my troubled mind was to start re-assessing everything I held to be true from TWI. Activating and developing an analytical thinking process has definitely shaped my current beliefs. As you can see below.
...My thesis has been that in 1942 God intervened to settle this issue of the impossibility of scripture recovery, but He chose to do it an a MOST non-traditional way, kinda secretive until it was all done, like a thief in the night even...
Yeah – I used to believe VPW's nonsense of God talking to him and making it snow…But now in re-evaluating everything I have a different opinion of TWI. I believe in 1986 God intervened on behalf of every person that had even a smidgen of intelligence and conscience left – by exposing the deceased founding president and current top leadership for what they really were – a bunch of hypocritical, egotistical, power-hungry, mean-spirited bozos. It happened in a non-traditional way – it imploded from within – as they attacked one another. God - like a thief in the night – merely opening the door - and a gust of wind blew down this household of cards.
From what I've read and heard, some folks left TWI because someone wasn't "doing the Word". They left because the organization and/or its leaders weren't living up to "the standard". No change in belief system took place, other than believing that TWI was "where the Word was taught".
Other folks left because they saw that TWI doctrine didn't line up with what they understood the bible to say.
Still others were thrown out with no choice in the matter.
For those who have changed their beliefs, how did the circumstances of your exit from TWI influence your subsequent religious/spiritual beliefs?
In an attempt to get this back *on topic*, I did change a few of my beliefs.
While the *circumstances of my exit from twi* had little (if anything) to do with it,
I started attending other churches and listened to a positive message instead.
I'm still of the opinion that some of what twi taught was correct,
but I no longer take it as *Gospel*, just because they taught it.
Docvic and lcm taught a lot with no *proof*, other than their say-so.
I used to be able to live with that, but not anymore.
Of the various churches I've attended since my exit from twi,
I've been confronted with doctrine that I disagreed with.
However -- given the overall attitude of love and community I saw there,
it made me think that perhaps doctrine wasn't the *end-all* that I used to think it was.
While I still hang on to certain beliefs, seeing those folks walking the talk,
helped me see that doctrine is a small slice of this pie called life.
As it stands now for me -- doctrine is on the back burner.
I see sincerity in a lot of folks (and yes -- sincerity is NO guarantee for truth),
but given the collective actions of the various denominations I've been to,
they offer MUCH more than twi ever did.
So when they say something that rubs me the wrong way (theologically),
instead of immediately criticizing, I try to look at it from their perspective.
For me --- that is a GIANT leap forward.
Those churches are similar to this site here.
There's a multitude of opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc., here at GSC.
If I choose to read here (and I do), I need to learn to accept other's viewpoints.
Mine is nice, but that doesn't negate someone else's which can be equally valid.
I'm not the *Gung-Ho* wayfer I used to be.
I actually like hearing differing viewpoints (these days).
Life would be boring, if it only consists of *yes* men.
Well DMiller, it's a healthy thing to hear a different point of view without instantly thinking they are wrong. I would still be in twi if I weren't willing to change my mind and hear a different point of view (thank you Waydale!!!!!!!!!!!). Of course different points of view expressed in an obnoxious way take more patience.
But back to topic....re-evaluate to a degree. More like chunking it all and starting over. My biggest challenge in Bible study right now is keeping my mouth shut (Greek, Hebrew, yada, yada). Why confuse or mislead them with something that did it to me? That is my course for now. I may put some twi stuff back later. I may not.
My plea is “Not Guilty” to the derailing charge. I waited for this thread to run it’s hot course and then cool down before posting. Then I posted DIRECTLY to a most recent comment by Oakspear (the thread’s originator), then I posted directly to Oakspear’s first post.
Sure, my posts carry more tangential temptations for other posters, and if I answer them, it can get away from the original topic easily. That’s why I waited for the thread to cool down a little before posting.
Now in the process of my posting yesterday, a few tangential comments were made posters addressed to me, and I’d like to address them here, briefly. If these comments are dealt with further b y other posters, they yes, a slight derailing occurs until those tangents are finished.
*******
Mike,
Welcome back! Glad to see you around and still plugging on it!
Hi Mark,
It’s good to be back, albeit temporary. I’m taking a short “post-taxes” break from work.
Hey, I’m sure what I said is a shock to both you and the Church Lady, but think it through a little and it’s not so bad.
Are you under the impression that there IS a bookstore Bible available that is authoritative? If so, I’d like to have it’s Library of Congress number.
*******
Mike
Can you be a bit more specific on that "He added a bunch to PFAL too." statement?
What things do you think God added via PFAL that were unknown previously?
For one, the KJV Canon cannot be found in the KJV text.
Things like “the mechanics of speech” cannot be found explicitly in the KJV and the traditional canon of ancient scriptures, but were crucial to help untangle the SIT camouflage.
At the time the ancient scriptures were written the Return of Christ and his Second Coming were in the distant and secret future. That time has finally come, the Return is underway (albeit, not like we imagined it) and it’s no longer needed to keep our post-Return instructions secret. In other words, the KJV contains nothing that will tell you “Now! It’s time NOW to rise and meet the Lord in the air.” The KJV won't tell you how to do it, it just says wait for it.
*******
Listener,
Yes, I’m serious.
So is God when He had Paul write: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”
And as far as village idiots go, I can hold a conversation better than you can, so be careful. Answer me this, why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down?
I’m very serious about investigating what no one else wants to look into or even think about.
*******
Now watch the length of this thread grow ..... exponentially.
Thanks Smikeol!
No, Garth, I don’t have the time to do this day after day like before. This village idiot has better things to do than debate with people who want to suppress debate.
I checked in here because I like Oakspear and I had some pertinent things to say to him.
*******
Is this a JOKE? You can't really be saying that PFAL is the real Bible????????
Let me ask you this, where IS the real Bible?
Do you have a real Bible?
I mean one that is authoritative, unchallengeable, and not needing any research to clarify any passages.
For that matter, do you have any finished Biblical research, that needs no more work, and that is repeatedly arrived upon by numerous researchers cranking the keys? If so, please inform me and Oakspear of this breakthrough!
Most people find my thesis radical because they have never deeply contemplated what their own “only rule for faith and practice” really IS!
So, wrdsandwrks, what’s the authority YOU look up to as bigger than you?
*******
OK, that’s it for the derailing tangents. Posters can PM me if they have burning comments, or even start a new thread.
Just to reflect back on my ON-TOPIC posts here, isn’t it odd that Dr warned us TWICE in his last written messages to us that there was a great need for us to re-evaluate everything we believed?!
I wish I had taken him seriously back then. I was 11 years late in my re-evaluations.
Do you GreaseSpotters ever re-evaluate your MODERN positions?
For instance, it’s a given here that VPW was evil. Do those of you who think he was evil ever re-evaluate THAT position? How many GreaseSpotters went from an unquestioning TWI lover to an unquestioning hater?
I find that it’s often scary to look at one’s own foundations. However, in my science training I learned long ago that when things aren’t working right, challenging one’s own fundamental assumptions can unclog many a roadblock. Einstein was a master at this, tinkering with fundamental assumptions.
Re-evaluation is a good process to try out, and to keep it installed ongoing, running in the background.
As Mike pointed out, his participation on this thread is not derailing it at all.
If you're re-evaluating something, you're either going to conclude that it was valuable or that it wasn't. Some people go to one extreme (none of it is valuable), some moderate (some is valuable, some isn't). Mike goes to the other extreme. To him, all of it is valuable and holy, divine, what have you.
This thread will only be about Mike if everyone makes it about Mike.
There is only one way off the merry go round, at least that I know of..
admit that there may be at least a possibility that a person is wrong.
My thought is that if you re-evaluate what you supposedly believe with the same set of tools you used the first time, it really is a fruitless exercise.
Yeah. I think for some, it is nearly impossible to re evaluate, with any different tools. Their identity is entirely dependent upon the beliefs learned in der vey. Loss of what they view as the standard equals loss of themselves, loss of their ego, loss of control. Or the illusion of it. Or even the perceived loss of reality itself.
It’s good to be back, albeit temporary. I’m taking a short “post-taxes” break from work.
Hey, I’m sure what I said is a shock to both you and the Church Lady, but think it through a little and it’s not so bad.
Are you under the impression that there IS a bookstore Bible available that is authoritative? If so, I’d like to have it’s Library of Congress number.
*******
For one, the KJV Canon cannot be found in the KJV text.
Things like “the mechanics of speech” cannot be found explicitly in the KJV and the traditional canon of ancient scriptures, but were crucial to help untangle the SIT camouflage.
At the time the ancient scriptures were written the Return of Christ and his Second Coming were in the distant and secret future. That time has finally come, the Return is underway (albeit, not like we imagined it) and it’s no longer needed to keep our post-Return instructions secret. In other words, the KJV contains nothing that will tell you “Now! It’s time NOW to rise and meet the Lord in the air.” The KJV won't tell you how to do it, it just says wait for it.
*******
Mike,
It's not so much the issue of the authoritative Bible but the relative authority of anything taught by Wierwille that I question and caused me to get Church Lady's comments.
Unlike fundamentalists, I believe that the purpose of the written Bible is to reveal Christ, with Whom we should have our relationship...therefore, the subject of the accuracy of translations, the validity of the manuscripts compiled, the existence of the originals penned by Luke, Mark, etc., are placed into context. Since I don't have the issue about basing each and every decision in my life upon what is written in a KJV, NIV, NASB, or whatever, it is not as critical to me. A relationship with Christ is the critical issue, not some special gnosis that I might gain from conjugating Aramaic verbs.
As to the Canon of the New Testament, accepted almost universally within the Christian Church and by other groups that call themselves Christian (to include TWI), it developed slowlly over time but was first codified (canonized, if you will) by the Catholic Church in the Council of Carthage a few hundred years AD (I can look the date up if you'd like). Carthage was a regional synod, not an ecumenical council...but was the first time that the entire canon was documented and voted upon by any body (as opposed to anybody).
But I, too, do not really intend to engage you in a debate on the relative merits of TWI, the teachings of VPW, or whatever else. Frankly, we do not have a common basis of reference by which we could intelligently have a discussion with any hope to develop a consensus. As long as you rely upon references that I do not consider as valid (PFAL, the PFAL collaterals, VPW's writings in the Way Mag, etc.), you cannot develop a thesis to which I could subscribe. It would be about as ludicrous as me asserting that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian Church and arguing the point with you using Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctum as my prima facie authority proving my point. You would say that my argument was just plain Bull. And, considering the audience, you'd be right in doing so.
Bottom line: let's not waste each other's time.
Having said that, the question is still open that is on the topic of the thread: when you left did you re-evaluate what you were taught while in TWI? Don't believe I ever saw an answer to that question.
Yes because the teachings of some ministers on TV began to make practical sense. They were actually teaching me how to live life. How to apply the Word and even giving tools to thinking things through. I was forced to go over my mind's thinking patterns. (Since I've always been in twi, well, that's all I know) I began to get excited about going out in the world and dealing with problems, now that I had some tools. I could now live amoungst other humans. This made me seriously doubt twi's teachings. Perhaps they didn't have the answers.
No because I never really understood most of their teachings. I've read all the books many times. The collaterals especially, are not written in english that communicates to me. So it was hard re-evaluate something I never understood. Some doctrines (J.C. not God, Dead not alive, four crucified) I just don't give a hoot. Who cares? So I don't really spend much time re-evaluating those except for discrediting twi's credibility.
To answer your question, I left around 1988 but it was a leaving TWI to join Geer, so it was pretty seamless as far as my fundamental beliefs.
I did my big re-evaluation in 1998, ten years later.
At that time I discarded my own research, and the research of all others, and discarded all the TVTs I could identify. TVTs are my symbol for Twi Verbal Traditions. I’m still running across a few deeply buried TVTs in me every now and then.
That same year I also decided to accept (for the first time) written PFAL as my written authority, seeing there were no others to choose from, hardly.
Many years prior to 1998 I had utilized some of the written PFAL texts as KJV Bible aids, but never as authoritative in themselves. My utilization of them was relatively short-lived (as was with us all), being concentrated in the early 70’s and pretty sparsely by the mid 80’s, to none n the early 90’s.
There was a tiny bit of general recognition by us all that the collaterals were given by revelation in the very early 70’s, but that died out in less than ten years.
To answer your question, I left around 1988 but it was a leaving TWI to join Geer, so it was pretty seamless as far as my fundamental beliefs.
I did my big re-evaluation in 1998, ten years later.
At that time I discarded my own research, and the research of all others, and discarded all the TVTs I could identify. TVTs are my symbol for Twi Verbal Traditions. I’m still running across a few deeply buried TVTs in me every now and then.
That same year I also decided to accept (for the first time) to written PFAL as my written authority, seeing there were no others to choose from, hardly.
Many years prior to 1998 I had utilized some of the written PFAL texts as KJV Bible aids, but never as authoritative in themselves. My utilization of them was relatively short-lived (as was with us all), being concentrated in the early 70’s and pretty sparsely by the mid 80’s, to none n the early 90’s.
There was a tiny bit of general recognition by us all that the collaterals were given by revelation in the very early 70’s, but that died out in less than ten years.
Fair enough answer. Of course, not one that many others would agree with, but it is useful to understand the evolution in your thought process.
Maybe I can help you out on the mirror question(Left/right;Up/down)
The answers you seek to that question can be found in any Physics 101 class.
Pay particular attention to the properties of light and lenses.
Some areas you may want to focus on(no pun intended) are:
1.) Snell's law of refraction
2.)The differences between "real" images and "virtual" images.Those are physics terms, Mike, and as such are objective and quantitatve in nature. They are not subjective or profane terms.
3.)Internal reflection and critical angle
Hope that helps
On the PFAL= revelation thought:
Are you suggesting that B.G. Leonard originally got this revelation directly from God and since VPW "borrowed" it from him, it is therefore "new" revelation? Just curious.
I mean one that is authoritative, unchallengeable, and not needing any research to clarify any passages...
This is one of the many assumptions I re-evaluated after leaving TWI. Followers of TWI accepted so many things without proof or intellectual standards, like: TWI rightly divides the Word more so than any other group on earth, we can get back to the "original" Word of God through TWI's "research", God revealed to VPW the Word like it hadn't be known for centuries, TWI's "research" is accurate, thorough [maybe even "throughly"], scholarly, unbiased, exhaustive, authoritative and is spiritually right-on.
At the core of VPW's theology was a worship of the Bible and an overdose of Gnosticism. It basically set up a relationship between the TWI follower and a book. Presently the priesthood, gateway, or mediator between Bible worshippers and the Bible is of course TWI leadership adhering to VPW's standards of "scholarship."
Seeing how the simple message of the Bible is the same in any manuscript, translation, version, etc., I get the idea its message is about a person and not a book – and about developing a relationship with a person and not a book.
Is the Bible authoritative? To me it is – I believe the author is God! Is the Bible unchallengeable? Nope – we humans frequently disobey it or don't believe it. Do I need to research Scripture in order to understand it better? You bet! That's why I have a modest library [in book form and on CD/DVD]with lots of versions of the Bible, biblical languages references and commentaries by authors of various doctrinal positions – besides all the stuff that's available on the Internet!
...Do you GreaseSpotters ever re-evaluate your MODERN positions?
For instance, it's a given here that VPW was evil. Do those of you who think he was evil ever re-evaluate THAT position? How many GreaseSpotters went from an unquestioning TWI lover to an unquestioning hater?
I find that it's often scary to look at one's own foundations. However, in my science training I learned long ago that when things aren't working right, challenging one's own fundamental assumptions can unclog many a roadblock. Einstein was a master at this, tinkering with fundamental assumptions.
Re-evaluation is a good process to try out, and to keep it installed ongoing, running in the background.
Speaking for myself – reviewing my position on anything is a habit I've developed over the years…One assumption I've noticed in your post is that you think something as complicated as one's sum of TWI-experiences and impact can be dismissed with an extremely simplistic either a love it/hate it decision. That thinking is in itself a paradigm for TWI's decision-making process on even the most complex issue. Typically, the TWI-mindset IGNORES the following: details, looking at the WHOLE picture, hearing all sides of the story, identifying/specifying/quantifying/qualifying any relevant aspects, sorting/categorizing/articulating thoughts by any method that does not follow TWI's parameters. It is a lot easier and simpler for a follower to check with leadership on what they should think about the person, issue, etc.
Personally, I do not hate VPW, LCM, or anyone associated with or in support of TWI. I try not to harbor ill will towards anyone. Being a Christian I try to follow the Bible's directives on confronting evil, sin, character assessment – in my own life first and then working out from there. Not only is the Bible VERY CLEAR on what is evil, sinful and true indicators of character – it also specifies how offenses are to be handled – whether one-on-one, small group or the whole congregation – and what details/responses/issues would escalate the offense from one level to the next.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, sinless or never have evil thoughts. I'm just a typical God-fearing Christian – have been as far back as I can remember [probably not a good reference point since the older I get the less I remember ]. What baffles me is when the TWI-defenders ignore TWI's hypocrisy or minimize the despicable behavior of sexual predators. Have I ever had lustful thoughts? Sure! But I have NEVER followed through on them – like cheat on my wife or drug and rape a woman. The struggle with tempting thoughts has gotten easier over the years – don't know if that's an indication of Christian maturity or just…advanced maturity . Geez – it's not very long into some fantasy that alarms are sounding all over my head – I've got my Catholic upbringing to thank for that. So how is it - a little ol' follower of TWI is to submit to the moral standards of the Bible but TWI leadership doesn't have to? That's another area that I reviewed in this re-evaluation process after I got out – spanning a bunch of related topics: TWI's minimizing sin to broken fellowship, fixating on "sonship rights" versus an accurate view of self, deeming the flesh of little consequence so it doesn't matter what you do, a false confidence of spiritual maturity that leads to lasciviousness, a code of ethics that says the end justifies the means, doing anything is okay if done in the love of God.
I don't think I've gotten the idea from anyone at GSC that they feel VPW or LCM or any TWI leadership are the devil incarnate, possessed or wrong seed. I don't play God and make a judgment call like "they're not even Christian" or "they're going to hell." Actions speak louder than words. I re-evaluated the persona I was "issued" [always a soft-sell process, mind you] by TWI of these leaders. Being Corps I have been privy to the way they conducted themselves and the attitudes they revealed during unguarded moments or in an atmosphere unhampered by those of less commitment [non-Corps].
I don't think your analogy of Einstein tinkering with assumptions applies here. Inventors, discoverers, scientists, researchers usually address a real problem, something based in reality – and success may sometimes come through unconventional means – perhaps by even disregarding traditional assumptions. They may reveal a new aspect of reality [E=MC2] or a different way to interact with reality [nuclear power] – but they do not ignore or change reality. However, ignoring or "changing" reality is a significant tenet of TWI and I would not label it as "tinkering with assumptions" but put it more on the order of a presupposition of major design.
Are you suggesting that B.G. Leonard originally got this revelation directly from God and since VPW "borrowed" it from him, it is therefore "new" revelation? Just curious.
No, he's not suggesting it. He's stating it outright. God gave the revelation to Leonard, who didn't do a good enough job and inserted his own junk, so God went to Wierwille next. God told Wierwille what to plagiarize from Leonard, Kenyon and Bullinger, and since God was the original author, no one could accuse Him of plagiarism!
Dude, you can't even MAKE this up! The funnier you try to make it sound, the more shocked you are to learn that, yeah, that's pretty much what Mike is telling you.
I'd love to re-evaluate whether Wierwille was a cold, calculating, manipulative sex predator, but that would be judging his accusers, and I don't want to judge. Besides, i have a life.
From what I've read and heard, some folks left TWI because someone wasn't "doing the Word". They left because the organization and/or its leaders weren't living up to "the standard". No change in belief system took place, other than believing that TWI was "where the Word was taught".
Other folks left because they saw that TWI doctrine didn't line up with what they understood the bible to say.
It seems that there are two parts to Oakspear's query, 1. What are the circumstances of your leaving TWI and 2. Did you re-evaluate your beliefs after leaving? So I'm splitting my reply into two parts at least.
First the circumstances of leaving:
It started when I went on the Bible Lands Tour, I believe it was 1985 or 86. VPW had recently died and we had been reassigned from CA to Wisconsin. I was miserable in Wisconsin. I had to leave the work I was doing at UCLA on my Ph.D. and I was struggling with depression over that. On the tour in Israel, an old friend confided in me something that she told me she had never told anyone else, not even her husband, that she had had sex with VP on the motorcoach and that there were many others that had similar experiences. I would never have believed her were it not for the obvious distress that she was in over this and her need for someone to confide in. I did my best to help her with it but it overloaded my brain. Here I was, miserable in Wisconsin and this was what the “man of God” was all about.
I “lockboxed” the information but it weighed heavily on my brain for months. Then came Corps Week and the Passing of the Patriarch. At that point, I was done, and left Wisconsin for California to finish my degree. I didn’t leave my husband,but we were separated while he stayed behind to tend to the “ministry” work in Wisconsin. Finally in January of 1987 we officially resigned from our position and moved back to CA. We left Wisconsin behind on New Year’s Day of 1987, with everything we owned in the world packed into a small U-haul truck.
Bramble and Full Cirlce-thanks for those great sharings.
Good question-did I re-evaluate what I was taught? Yes
For me it was a process. When I first left I still thought the ministry was right in doctrine but wrong in practice. But now I've come to realize that there were some wrong teachings. Many have been exposed here such as tithing vs. grace, the law of believing, etc. so I won't reiterate.
Now I've come to realize that it's not so much about right doctrines but right living. The way did nothing to help me live with love and compassion. I've learned more about life since I left.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
11
5
7
Popular Days
Apr 17
37
Apr 18
21
Apr 20
10
Apr 15
10
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 6 posts
Mike 11 posts
markomalley 5 posts
T-Bone 7 posts
Popular Days
Apr 17 2007
37 posts
Apr 18 2007
21 posts
Apr 20 2007
10 posts
Apr 15 2007
10 posts
dmiller
wrdsandwrks ---HERE'S JUST ONE OF THE PFAL THREADS. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The thing that drove me to leave was the frustration and confusion generated by TWI's top leadership after Passing of the Patriarch - as factions battled for power, avoided issues and shifted blame. The only way to appease my troubled mind was to start re-assessing everything I held to be true from TWI. Activating and developing an analytical thinking process has definitely shaped my current beliefs. As you can see below.
Yeah – I used to believe VPW's nonsense of God talking to him and making it snow…But now in re-evaluating everything I have a different opinion of TWI. I believe in 1986 God intervened on behalf of every person that had even a smidgen of intelligence and conscience left – by exposing the deceased founding president and current top leadership for what they really were – a bunch of hypocritical, egotistical, power-hungry, mean-spirited bozos. It happened in a non-traditional way – it imploded from within – as they attacked one another. God - like a thief in the night – merely opening the door - and a gust of wind blew down this household of cards.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Eagle, it's my soon to be Mrs!
Raf, looks like she is a total babe and a lady. How fortunate for the both of you! You look great together in the photo.
My utmost congratulations!
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
Yes, I'm now an Atheist. Life is more fun now.
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Yep, total derail! So much for this thread actually accomplishing anything now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Gee, and I'd hoped Mike might have grown beyond this when he stopped shoehorning it into
every thread.
Mike, continue to derail this thread and I will start replying to your posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"Thou shalt not run Greasespot by moderators alone."
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
In an attempt to get this back *on topic*, I did change a few of my beliefs.
While the *circumstances of my exit from twi* had little (if anything) to do with it,
I started attending other churches and listened to a positive message instead.
I'm still of the opinion that some of what twi taught was correct,
but I no longer take it as *Gospel*, just because they taught it.
Docvic and lcm taught a lot with no *proof*, other than their say-so.
I used to be able to live with that, but not anymore.
Of the various churches I've attended since my exit from twi,
I've been confronted with doctrine that I disagreed with.
However -- given the overall attitude of love and community I saw there,
it made me think that perhaps doctrine wasn't the *end-all* that I used to think it was.
While I still hang on to certain beliefs, seeing those folks walking the talk,
helped me see that doctrine is a small slice of this pie called life.
As it stands now for me -- doctrine is on the back burner.
I see sincerity in a lot of folks (and yes -- sincerity is NO guarantee for truth),
but given the collective actions of the various denominations I've been to,
they offer MUCH more than twi ever did.
So when they say something that rubs me the wrong way (theologically),
instead of immediately criticizing, I try to look at it from their perspective.
For me --- that is a GIANT leap forward.
Those churches are similar to this site here.
There's a multitude of opinions, beliefs, ideas, etc., here at GSC.
If I choose to read here (and I do), I need to learn to accept other's viewpoints.
Mine is nice, but that doesn't negate someone else's which can be equally valid.
I'm not the *Gung-Ho* wayfer I used to be.
I actually like hearing differing viewpoints (these days).
Life would be boring, if it only consists of *yes* men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Well DMiller, it's a healthy thing to hear a different point of view without instantly thinking they are wrong. I would still be in twi if I weren't willing to change my mind and hear a different point of view (thank you Waydale!!!!!!!!!!!). Of course different points of view expressed in an obnoxious way take more patience.
But back to topic....re-evaluate to a degree. More like chunking it all and starting over. My biggest challenge in Bible study right now is keeping my mouth shut (Greek, Hebrew, yada, yada). Why confuse or mislead them with something that did it to me? That is my course for now. I may put some twi stuff back later. I may not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Belle,
My plea is “Not Guilty” to the derailing charge. I waited for this thread to run it’s hot course and then cool down before posting. Then I posted DIRECTLY to a most recent comment by Oakspear (the thread’s originator), then I posted directly to Oakspear’s first post.
Sure, my posts carry more tangential temptations for other posters, and if I answer them, it can get away from the original topic easily. That’s why I waited for the thread to cool down a little before posting.
Now in the process of my posting yesterday, a few tangential comments were made posters addressed to me, and I’d like to address them here, briefly. If these comments are dealt with further b y other posters, they yes, a slight derailing occurs until those tangents are finished.
*******
Hi Mark,
It’s good to be back, albeit temporary. I’m taking a short “post-taxes” break from work.
Hey, I’m sure what I said is a shock to both you and the Church Lady, but think it through a little and it’s not so bad.
Are you under the impression that there IS a bookstore Bible available that is authoritative? If so, I’d like to have it’s Library of Congress number.
*******
For one, the KJV Canon cannot be found in the KJV text.
Things like “the mechanics of speech” cannot be found explicitly in the KJV and the traditional canon of ancient scriptures, but were crucial to help untangle the SIT camouflage.
At the time the ancient scriptures were written the Return of Christ and his Second Coming were in the distant and secret future. That time has finally come, the Return is underway (albeit, not like we imagined it) and it’s no longer needed to keep our post-Return instructions secret. In other words, the KJV contains nothing that will tell you “Now! It’s time NOW to rise and meet the Lord in the air.” The KJV won't tell you how to do it, it just says wait for it.
*******
Listener,
Yes, I’m serious.
So is God when He had Paul write: “But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”
And as far as village idiots go, I can hold a conversation better than you can, so be careful. Answer me this, why does a mirror reverse left and right but not up and down?
I’m very serious about investigating what no one else wants to look into or even think about.
*******
No, Garth, I don’t have the time to do this day after day like before. This village idiot has better things to do than debate with people who want to suppress debate.
I checked in here because I like Oakspear and I had some pertinent things to say to him.
*******
Let me ask you this, where IS the real Bible?
Do you have a real Bible?
I mean one that is authoritative, unchallengeable, and not needing any research to clarify any passages.
For that matter, do you have any finished Biblical research, that needs no more work, and that is repeatedly arrived upon by numerous researchers cranking the keys? If so, please inform me and Oakspear of this breakthrough!
Most people find my thesis radical because they have never deeply contemplated what their own “only rule for faith and practice” really IS!
So, wrdsandwrks, what’s the authority YOU look up to as bigger than you?
*******
OK, that’s it for the derailing tangents. Posters can PM me if they have burning comments, or even start a new thread.
Just to reflect back on my ON-TOPIC posts here, isn’t it odd that Dr warned us TWICE in his last written messages to us that there was a great need for us to re-evaluate everything we believed?!
I wish I had taken him seriously back then. I was 11 years late in my re-evaluations.
Do you GreaseSpotters ever re-evaluate your MODERN positions?
For instance, it’s a given here that VPW was evil. Do those of you who think he was evil ever re-evaluate THAT position? How many GreaseSpotters went from an unquestioning TWI lover to an unquestioning hater?
I find that it’s often scary to look at one’s own foundations. However, in my science training I learned long ago that when things aren’t working right, challenging one’s own fundamental assumptions can unclog many a roadblock. Einstein was a master at this, tinkering with fundamental assumptions.
Re-evaluation is a good process to try out, and to keep it installed ongoing, running in the background.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
modcat5
As Mike pointed out, his participation on this thread is not derailing it at all.
If you're re-evaluating something, you're either going to conclude that it was valuable or that it wasn't. Some people go to one extreme (none of it is valuable), some moderate (some is valuable, some isn't). Mike goes to the other extreme. To him, all of it is valuable and holy, divine, what have you.
This thread will only be about Mike if everyone makes it about Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
I did some reading of past threads and see that "debating" him is completely pointless.
I see no profit in engaging him, any more that I would in engaging a brick wall, in conversation.
T'was good for a laugh, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Some people call it circular reasoning.
There is only one way off the merry go round, at least that I know of..
admit that there may be at least a possibility that a person is wrong.
My thought is that if you re-evaluate what you supposedly believe with the same set of tools you used the first time, it really is a fruitless exercise.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Listener
Yeah, Ham, I agree. Re-evaluation would be pointless if the same procedures are used as when the initial valuation was done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah. I think for some, it is nearly impossible to re evaluate, with any different tools. Their identity is entirely dependent upon the beliefs learned in der vey. Loss of what they view as the standard equals loss of themselves, loss of their ego, loss of control. Or the illusion of it. Or even the perceived loss of reality itself.
At one point, everybody has to let go.
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mike,
It's not so much the issue of the authoritative Bible but the relative authority of anything taught by Wierwille that I question and caused me to get Church Lady's comments.
Unlike fundamentalists, I believe that the purpose of the written Bible is to reveal Christ, with Whom we should have our relationship...therefore, the subject of the accuracy of translations, the validity of the manuscripts compiled, the existence of the originals penned by Luke, Mark, etc., are placed into context. Since I don't have the issue about basing each and every decision in my life upon what is written in a KJV, NIV, NASB, or whatever, it is not as critical to me. A relationship with Christ is the critical issue, not some special gnosis that I might gain from conjugating Aramaic verbs.
As to the Canon of the New Testament, accepted almost universally within the Christian Church and by other groups that call themselves Christian (to include TWI), it developed slowlly over time but was first codified (canonized, if you will) by the Catholic Church in the Council of Carthage a few hundred years AD (I can look the date up if you'd like). Carthage was a regional synod, not an ecumenical council...but was the first time that the entire canon was documented and voted upon by any body (as opposed to anybody).
But I, too, do not really intend to engage you in a debate on the relative merits of TWI, the teachings of VPW, or whatever else. Frankly, we do not have a common basis of reference by which we could intelligently have a discussion with any hope to develop a consensus. As long as you rely upon references that I do not consider as valid (PFAL, the PFAL collaterals, VPW's writings in the Way Mag, etc.), you cannot develop a thesis to which I could subscribe. It would be about as ludicrous as me asserting that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian Church and arguing the point with you using Boniface VIII's Bull Unam Sanctum as my prima facie authority proving my point. You would say that my argument was just plain Bull. And, considering the audience, you'd be right in doing so.
Bottom line: let's not waste each other's time.
Having said that, the question is still open that is on the topic of the thread: when you left did you re-evaluate what you were taught while in TWI? Don't believe I ever saw an answer to that question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'd have to say Yes and No.
Yes because the teachings of some ministers on TV began to make practical sense. They were actually teaching me how to live life. How to apply the Word and even giving tools to thinking things through. I was forced to go over my mind's thinking patterns. (Since I've always been in twi, well, that's all I know) I began to get excited about going out in the world and dealing with problems, now that I had some tools. I could now live amoungst other humans. This made me seriously doubt twi's teachings. Perhaps they didn't have the answers.
No because I never really understood most of their teachings. I've read all the books many times. The collaterals especially, are not written in english that communicates to me. So it was hard re-evaluate something I never understood. Some doctrines (J.C. not God, Dead not alive, four crucified) I just don't give a hoot. Who cares? So I don't really spend much time re-evaluating those except for discrediting twi's credibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Mark,
Ok, to not wasting each other’s time.
To answer your question, I left around 1988 but it was a leaving TWI to join Geer, so it was pretty seamless as far as my fundamental beliefs.
I did my big re-evaluation in 1998, ten years later.
At that time I discarded my own research, and the research of all others, and discarded all the TVTs I could identify. TVTs are my symbol for Twi Verbal Traditions. I’m still running across a few deeply buried TVTs in me every now and then.
That same year I also decided to accept (for the first time) written PFAL as my written authority, seeing there were no others to choose from, hardly.
Many years prior to 1998 I had utilized some of the written PFAL texts as KJV Bible aids, but never as authoritative in themselves. My utilization of them was relatively short-lived (as was with us all), being concentrated in the early 70’s and pretty sparsely by the mid 80’s, to none n the early 90’s.
There was a tiny bit of general recognition by us all that the collaterals were given by revelation in the very early 70’s, but that died out in less than ten years.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Fair enough answer. Of course, not one that many others would agree with, but it is useful to understand the evolution in your thought process.
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
Maybe I can help you out on the mirror question(Left/right;Up/down)
The answers you seek to that question can be found in any Physics 101 class.
Pay particular attention to the properties of light and lenses.
Some areas you may want to focus on(no pun intended) are:
1.) Snell's law of refraction
2.)The differences between "real" images and "virtual" images.Those are physics terms, Mike, and as such are objective and quantitatve in nature. They are not subjective or profane terms.
3.)Internal reflection and critical angle
Hope that helps
On the PFAL= revelation thought:
Are you suggesting that B.G. Leonard originally got this revelation directly from God and since VPW "borrowed" it from him, it is therefore "new" revelation? Just curious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This is one of the many assumptions I re-evaluated after leaving TWI. Followers of TWI accepted so many things without proof or intellectual standards, like: TWI rightly divides the Word more so than any other group on earth, we can get back to the "original" Word of God through TWI's "research", God revealed to VPW the Word like it hadn't be known for centuries, TWI's "research" is accurate, thorough [maybe even "throughly"], scholarly, unbiased, exhaustive, authoritative and is spiritually right-on.
At the core of VPW's theology was a worship of the Bible and an overdose of Gnosticism. It basically set up a relationship between the TWI follower and a book. Presently the priesthood, gateway, or mediator between Bible worshippers and the Bible is of course TWI leadership adhering to VPW's standards of "scholarship."
Seeing how the simple message of the Bible is the same in any manuscript, translation, version, etc., I get the idea its message is about a person and not a book – and about developing a relationship with a person and not a book.
Is the Bible authoritative? To me it is – I believe the author is God! Is the Bible unchallengeable? Nope – we humans frequently disobey it or don't believe it. Do I need to research Scripture in order to understand it better? You bet! That's why I have a modest library [in book form and on CD/DVD]with lots of versions of the Bible, biblical languages references and commentaries by authors of various doctrinal positions – besides all the stuff that's available on the Internet!
Speaking for myself – reviewing my position on anything is a habit I've developed over the years…One assumption I've noticed in your post is that you think something as complicated as one's sum of TWI-experiences and impact can be dismissed with an extremely simplistic either a love it/hate it decision. That thinking is in itself a paradigm for TWI's decision-making process on even the most complex issue. Typically, the TWI-mindset IGNORES the following: details, looking at the WHOLE picture, hearing all sides of the story, identifying/specifying/quantifying/qualifying any relevant aspects, sorting/categorizing/articulating thoughts by any method that does not follow TWI's parameters. It is a lot easier and simpler for a follower to check with leadership on what they should think about the person, issue, etc.
Personally, I do not hate VPW, LCM, or anyone associated with or in support of TWI. I try not to harbor ill will towards anyone. Being a Christian I try to follow the Bible's directives on confronting evil, sin, character assessment – in my own life first and then working out from there. Not only is the Bible VERY CLEAR on what is evil, sinful and true indicators of character – it also specifies how offenses are to be handled – whether one-on-one, small group or the whole congregation – and what details/responses/issues would escalate the offense from one level to the next.
I'm not saying I'm perfect, sinless or never have evil thoughts. I'm just a typical God-fearing Christian – have been as far back as I can remember [probably not a good reference point since the older I get the less I remember
]. What baffles me is when the TWI-defenders ignore TWI's hypocrisy or minimize the despicable behavior of sexual predators. Have I ever had lustful thoughts? Sure! But I have NEVER followed through on them – like cheat on my wife or drug and rape a woman. The struggle with tempting thoughts has gotten easier over the years – don't know if that's an indication of Christian maturity or just…advanced maturity 
. Geez – it's not very long into some fantasy that alarms are sounding all over my head – I've got my Catholic upbringing to thank for that. So how is it - a little ol' follower of TWI is to submit to the moral standards of the Bible but TWI leadership doesn't have to? That's another area that I reviewed in this re-evaluation process after I got out – spanning a bunch of related topics: TWI's minimizing sin to broken fellowship, fixating on "sonship rights" versus an accurate view of self, deeming the flesh of little consequence so it doesn't matter what you do, a false confidence of spiritual maturity that leads to lasciviousness, a code of ethics that says the end justifies the means, doing anything is okay if done in the love of God.
I don't think I've gotten the idea from anyone at GSC that they feel VPW or LCM or any TWI leadership are the devil incarnate, possessed or wrong seed. I don't play God and make a judgment call like "they're not even Christian" or "they're going to hell." Actions speak louder than words. I re-evaluated the persona I was "issued" [always a soft-sell process, mind you] by TWI of these leaders. Being Corps I have been privy to the way they conducted themselves and the attitudes they revealed during unguarded moments or in an atmosphere unhampered by those of less commitment [non-Corps].
I don't think your analogy of Einstein tinkering with assumptions applies here. Inventors, discoverers, scientists, researchers usually address a real problem, something based in reality – and success may sometimes come through unconventional means – perhaps by even disregarding traditional assumptions. They may reveal a new aspect of reality [E=MC2] or a different way to interact with reality [nuclear power] – but they do not ignore or change reality. However, ignoring or "changing" reality is a significant tenet of TWI and I would not label it as "tinkering with assumptions" but put it more on the order of a presupposition of major design.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No, he's not suggesting it. He's stating it outright. God gave the revelation to Leonard, who didn't do a good enough job and inserted his own junk, so God went to Wierwille next. God told Wierwille what to plagiarize from Leonard, Kenyon and Bullinger, and since God was the original author, no one could accuse Him of plagiarism!
Dude, you can't even MAKE this up! The funnier you try to make it sound, the more shocked you are to learn that, yeah, that's pretty much what Mike is telling you.
I'd love to re-evaluate whether Wierwille was a cold, calculating, manipulative sex predator, but that would be judging his accusers, and I don't want to judge. Besides, i have a life.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
It seems that there are two parts to Oakspear's query, 1. What are the circumstances of your leaving TWI and 2. Did you re-evaluate your beliefs after leaving? So I'm splitting my reply into two parts at least.
First the circumstances of leaving:
It started when I went on the Bible Lands Tour, I believe it was 1985 or 86. VPW had recently died and we had been reassigned from CA to Wisconsin. I was miserable in Wisconsin. I had to leave the work I was doing at UCLA on my Ph.D. and I was struggling with depression over that. On the tour in Israel, an old friend confided in me something that she told me she had never told anyone else, not even her husband, that she had had sex with VP on the motorcoach and that there were many others that had similar experiences. I would never have believed her were it not for the obvious distress that she was in over this and her need for someone to confide in. I did my best to help her with it but it overloaded my brain. Here I was, miserable in Wisconsin and this was what the “man of God” was all about.
I “lockboxed” the information but it weighed heavily on my brain for months. Then came Corps Week and the Passing of the Patriarch. At that point, I was done, and left Wisconsin for California to finish my degree. I didn’t leave my husband,but we were separated while he stayed behind to tend to the “ministry” work in Wisconsin. Finally in January of 1987 we officially resigned from our position and moved back to CA. We left Wisconsin behind on New Year’s Day of 1987, with everything we owned in the world packed into a small U-haul truck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
polar bear
Oak-great thread.
Bramble and Full Cirlce-thanks for those great sharings.
Good question-did I re-evaluate what I was taught? Yes
For me it was a process. When I first left I still thought the ministry was right in doctrine but wrong in practice. But now I've come to realize that there were some wrong teachings. Many have been exposed here such as tithing vs. grace, the law of believing, etc. so I won't reiterate.
Now I've come to realize that it's not so much about right doctrines but right living. The way did nothing to help me live with love and compassion. I've learned more about life since I left.
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.