John Juedes

[Ham]

Well, for me..

I was involved for twenty two years. You could say that I had quite a bit "invested" in the organization.

My exit was not under the best of circumstances.. I was eyeball to eyeball with a madman. Come to think of it, that's how I got involved to begin with. "They" just had better table manners back then.

I felt like part of me died.

At least I am "enabled" to put the pieces together, know why and how a LUNATIC could be and was set in charge of a whole state.

I think some people would rather swallow the blue pill, and wake back up the next morning in twi la-la land..

can't really go back "home"..

:)

[Ham]

Even the Beatles lamented..

Can you take me back where I came from

Can you take me back

Can you take me back where I came from

Brother can you take me back

Can you take me back?

Mm can you take me where I came from

Can you take me back?

[oldiesman]

I was with twi almost my whole life, I don't need websites or anything to convince me something is terribly wrong with twi. There were no "good times" for me to look back on (I missed the 70s).

What are you defending? (It's just no making sense to me)

Bolshevik, were you one of the children of twi that had no choice but to be there? If so, then you have legitimate victim status! Kind of reminds me of my time in the church of my youth. I had no choice... my parents said I had to go, so I went. :D

I guess I'm defending my perceptions and experience of twi. My own opinions. Everyone has them, and of course, you have a right to defend yours.

But, I am sorry you had no "good times" in twi. I wish you did. I wish you were never involved and I'm sure Dr. Wierwille wished the same. I believe he didn't want folks to be there who didn't want to be.

[sprawled out]

the GOOD news is, i had absolutely no idea what was taught in session 7!

back in the day, i probably could've written a detailed outline, at the very least. thank god, it's pretty much all forgotten now.

[excathedra]

oldies, TWItville doesn't condemn anyone ? i guess you're just referring to their exciting website ?

"Dr. Wierwille" ugh

[oldiesman]

Right. Twi doesn't have a website as Dr. Juedes, for example, devoted to condemning a particular religion and / or presenting a disparaging view of a group. If it had one, well, you could condemn it if you want.

[Ham]

No, they don't condemn anybody on a website, do they.. they just assasinate people's characters in closed meetings and behind their backs.

Edited July 6, 2007 by Mr. Hammeroni

[Sunesis]

I've watched Mr. Juedes site for years.

All I have ever seen there is fact, fact, fact, fact.

From death certificate, to peoples' testimonies of life in TWI. As someone who spent years in TWI, corps, etc., those testimonies are not made up.

I think Mr. Juedes has done a great service.

He gave us fact, documents to look at, articles by ex-top leadership, more documents.

He has done a great service.

[Oakspear]

Yeah, so? TWI doesn't allow varying opinions on their website, nor do most sites run by current or former members. He's giving information, not inviting debate. You want to write glowing information about TWI? Start your own website.

Apples and oranges. TWI has a website that supports their own belief and product; they are not condemning anyone else. In contrast, where twi is concerned, Dr. Juedes communicates only negative and poisonous information. Big difference. He's on a mission. It's one thing to have a website to promote your own belief and product, and its entirely another to condemn another ministry, providing only one side of an argument.

TWI doesn't condemn anyone? B*ll..... No, maybe not on their website, but it has always been part of their agenda, even back in the golden years when you were invoved.

So again I say "So what?" TWI's "positive" presentation of their own beliefs is (at least in my opinion) a distraction from all the negative and poisonous things that they do and teach. Hooray for someone who presents the other side. Why the heck should he present the good that happened in TWI when there are other sources for that. TWI presents their side, Juedes presents another side and people get to decide.

Oldies, not everyone is going to be as evenhanded as pawtucket and allow information that undermines the message of the website to be deseminated.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Oakspear

[1 john 3:1]

There were no "good times" for me to look back on (I missed the 70s).

What are you defending? (It's just no making sense to me)

Since you missed the 70's perhaps that is what Oldies is defending. I was there too and I had great experiences until the 90's. So we do not all agree and I believe that if you look into ANY ministry you will find areas that are not functioning on the Word and others that perhaps may be. So I do not defend TWI today, nor do I condone some things that were done in the past but it was not all bad and the Word was taught so that most could understand it. Was it all accurate, hell no, it's not all accurate today either.

Peace.............

[1 john 3:1]

I do not endorse TWI at this time and I think their website stinks of old people in long drab clothes, however we are talking about the past and John's view be it fact or fiction, he does not have ALL the facts and chooses only to put the negative side on his site.

I had some great times, met some wonderful people who are still in my life, I spoke in tongues and manifest the power of God in my life and for that I am eternally grateful to those who helped me along the way and yes Dr. Wierwille did too. That does not condone bad examples that people may have been. I appreciate that some went thru hell, earlier than other did but some did not and we do not have ALL the facts.

And as for Eve, she saw it was good, she considered, desired and took it and ate. I do the same thing today with Krispie Cremes................and love them. Thank God our sins are forgiven.

[dmiller]

Ironic (isn't it???) ------

Twi allows NO dissension/ discussioin on their website.

GreaseSpot Cafe welcomes both, in the interest of free discussion.

John Juedes has asked PERSONALLY for clarification on certain points,

so that he might correct and amend any erroneous statements he might have made.

So you tell me -- WHO HAS THE AGENDA here???????

Clue for those who think slow like myself -- it isn't GSC, nor is it empirenet.com

Ya got one guess remaining. :)

Edited July 7, 2007 by dmiller

[Bolshevik]

I do not endorse TWI at this time and I think their website stinks of old people in long drab clothes, however we are talking about the past and John's view be it fact or fiction, he does not have ALL the facts and chooses only to put the negative side on his site.

I had some great times, met some wonderful people who are still in my life, I spoke in tongues and manifest the power of God in my life and for that I am eternally grateful to those who helped me along the way and yes Dr. Wierwille did too. That does not condone bad examples that people may have been. I appreciate that some went thru hell, earlier than other did but some did not and we do not have ALL the facts.

And as for Eve, she saw it was good, she considered, desired and took it and ate. I do the same thing today with Krispie Cremes................and love them. Thank God our sins are forgiven.

But the work on plagerism. How would I know otherwise? It connects the dots. Helps put the pieces together.

[waysider]

Oldies-------------

I don't think anyone really doubts that you had some good times in the old days.

Lots of us did. I'm among them. Some of the people with whom I shared those good times post here on GSC.

None of that negates the fact that lots of very unGodly activity took place behind the scenes where the average twig goer never had an opportunity to investigate.

I never saw any of this stuff either until I left my local area(after 3 years of local involvement) to enter Fellowlaborers.

Even then, I had no idea it was anything more than isolated incidents.

Had I known how widespread and typical it was, I probably would have packed my bags, or at least I like to think I would have considered that course of action.

The concept of closing one's mind to any conflicting data is quite typical of how cults are able to gain the allegiance of devotees. The Way not only admonished us to do this, they suggested that failure to follow this concept would result in tragedy.(hence the session #7 reference)

In Fellowlaborers, it was strictly taboo to discuss doubts about the program or the ministry amongst ourselves.And, you never knew who would sell you out if you did. That's one of the reasons we would walk together(2 or 3 of us) under the cover of darkness to The Wayside Truck Stop and discuss our concerns during the trek,to and fro.

Even the concept of searching the scriptures becomes a moot point when you stop to realize that you are using THEIR rules to do so.

My personal recommendation is to stop trying to convince me your good times were real. You're preaching to the choir on that one. Instead, try to at least consider that the picture you saw may have been viewed through a distorted lens. There is no guilt or shame in admitting you may have been hoodwinked. Embarrassment, yes, but guilt and shame, no.

food for thought.

[templelady]

Posting facts is just that, posting facts. If the facts discredit TWI whose fault is it???

The one who posted the facts?

OR

The organization that created the situations that the facts are about??

It isn't about agreeing with PFAL or session 7 or even a discussion about the ratio of good times versus bad times in any posters life in TWI --it's about facts.

Now if anyone can post facts that will discredit the facts posted on John Juedes website--Please do so.

If you can't because they don't exist--you have only TWI to blame if the facts cast TWI in an unfavorable light.

My take on the whole issue

[dmiller]

Agreeing with TempleLady. Facts are facts. There is no *hidden agenda* there.

Click THIS, , and tell me it's an agenda, and not facts.

Oh --- and by the way -- tell me how come I didn't hear this from *headquarters*, eh??????

How's come (sorry for the Wierwille-ism there) I never knew that from HQ, back in 1985??

Docvic died from cancer (which he taught was DIRECTLY DUE to devil spirit possesion),

and when he finally died, headquarters didn't have the balls to admit the truth?

It was glossed over, with NO MENTION OF CAUSE.

For those who think JohnJ has an *agenda*, take a *check-up from the neck-up*.

He's offered nothing but proof (printed evidence) that debunks the *myth that was twi*.

Good times?? Yea. I had them too. Bad times? Yea, I had those too.

Good times were with the locals, bad times were with the org.

Presenting the facts that those (such as I) weren't *privy to know about*,

doesn't constitute an *agenda* by johnj.

He's offering a service, to those of us who were kept in the dark,

fed bu!!$h!t, and were expected to *grow*, as a result.

I guess some here engage in Ostrichization.

If one can't look at his site, and see it for what it is ----

your head is in the sand, which might cause the fear, in your machinery of life.

Edited July 7, 2007 by dmiller

[WhiteDove]

Some facts in dispute here........

Here

Here

[JavaJane]

Good times?? Yea. I had them too. Bad times? Yea, I had those too.

Good times were with the locals, bad times were with the org.

That about sums it up my entire experience with twi in one sentence. Thanks, dmiller!

[templelady]

Thank you White Dove for posting links to correct erroneous facts.

Truth is what is needed here.

So we have two cases where JJ was not in posession of the FACTS or at least not all the FACTS.

It is good that there were these clarifications.

Anyone of us may make honest mistakes or believe people who should not be believed or even perceive things in a way that makes them appear different than they actually are.

JJ has posted a life experiences that were related to him from former TWIers.

Can anyone bring FACTS to the table that prove these experiences did not happen and/or if they did happened in ways that were substantially different then what was told to JJ???

If you can--now is the time--- I for one would like to get this matter cleared up!

[WhiteDove]

Mo

I doubt anyone would be able to dispute an anonymous letter. That's the thing , how would one respond you could guess I suppose? as to whose story it just might be . That's the thing that makes it so safe post letters that have no real way of being disputed. If anyone did that here it would be immediately called on the carpet. Yet because it fits with some peoples view it is accepted as truth without question.

I for one would like to see the data on who and how many people he really contacted for his research. Did he only hear from disgruntled exways? I see no pro opinions so I would assume so at least from the data. That if so could hardly be considered a fair assessment. I know many people that were involved in groups over the years, for instance Amway it was just the greatest thing since sliced bread couldn't say enough about it. Next time you saw them when their vision did not come to pass, it was the worst thing on earth. If you take their word for it you have a skewed view of the company. I know a couple of people PFAL grads in fact by the way that are multi millionaires from Amway. But the data will reveal that they sold their soul to get there and they had sales ability that those walking in off the street did not have like previously being a Million Dollar sales club member in the insurance business. They would present a different view of the company as well. Additionally there are many things to consider in who you gather facts from like prior history, mental state and so forth as it will affect their experience and outcome. Even here at the GreaseSpot Cafe excluding all the double and triple name changes and one shot posters is but a very small percentage( estimate 1,500? ) of those who were involved in the Way less than maybe 2% of the rumored 100,000. Although here it appears to be a large contingent simply because those of the same view have gathered in one spot. Just some things to consider when reading six or seven anonymous letters. I'll be waiting to see some more concrete data before I would accept John's view based on what he offered so far.

Edited July 8, 2007 by WhiteDove

[johnj]

I doubt anyone would be able to dispute an anonymous letter. That's the thing , how would one respond you could guess I suppose? as to whose story it just might be . That's the thing that makes it so safe post letters that have no real way of being disputed. If anyone did that here it would be immediately called on the carpet. Yet because it fits with some peoples view it is accepted as truth without question.

I

I recognize the problem of publishign anonymous letters. Anonymity reduces accountablity (as you've seen here on greasespot, where everyone is anonymous, except for me). I don't like to publish anonymous letters, but do so for a few reasons: First, the stories in some of them are very private, sexual abuse being a good example. By comparison, law courts commonly do not publish the names of alledged victims (such as when Kobe Bryant was accused). So the choice is to insist on publishing names and embarrassing people, or not publishing. Not publishing protects the abusers and (in some cases when they were still in power) allowing them to continue to abuse. This doesn't serve justice or help the vulnerable.

I don't publish all stories sent to me. I satisfy myself that the ones I do publish have the earmarks of being accurate and true. I can't prove every detail, just as a jury in a sexual abuse case generally cannot prove all details of a crime that happened with only the perp and the victim present. In some cases stories have been corraborated by other people in some way before publication. I know the real names of those who posted anonymous letters.

I don't publish letters or accept them as truth without question just because they fit with my view, but because they atre important and appear to me to be credible. This isn't a perfect system, but I think it works fairly well.

The post above mentioned disputing letters. This actually is possible to some degree. I do not give out the names or email addresses of people who post letters (anonymous or signed), but sometimes I forward a response to the anonymous letter writer so that they can correspond directly. The anonymous writer has the option to respond driectly or not. This allows some communication or potential correction while protecting the identity of the writer (and gives her/him the option of identifying herself in private email).

For more on this, see my Editors Staement on Sex Stories in which I explain why we published them. It's well thought out, not just being anxious to attack TWI blindly.

Note also that TWI and its leaders have NEVER once challenged any of the anonymous letters, even though they would have more desire to squelch them than anyone.

However, anonymity is a very small part of our web site. I sign everything I write. I answer email and criticisms (Ive missed a few over the years, but very few). My email and office addresses are published and easily found. I'm the only person I know of on greasespotcafe who uses his real name and who "everybody" knows who he is. Overall, www.abouttheway.com very much supports accountability and responsibility, as much or more than you'll find elsewhere.

[dmiller]

I'm the only person I know of on greasespotcafe who uses his real name and who "everybody" knows who he is.

Make that several of us -- myself included.

Some here use our real names as screen names.

David

(edited to add my first name, which most know already).

;)

Edited July 8, 2007 by dmiller

[dmiller]

Hmmmm. You got me thinking. Besides you and myself ----

there's Raf, Kit Sober, Garth, Mark Sanguinetti, Shellon, Abigail.

and TempleLady (who posts her name and address under her avatar),

who use their real names here at GSC.

Matter of fact -- so does JAL and Jeff (the supply guy) from CES.

And so does John R. and Hope R. use their real names as well.

Join the *club*!! :)

(My apologies to those I didn't mention!!)

[George Aar]

Yeah, and - believe it or not - that IS my real name.

[Linda Z]

I don't post my full last name, but I've never hid my real identity.