No you definitely did not imagine it, as to the purpose I don't particularly see one either. My guess they started out in the early camps as a feedback thing and became part of the machinery that just rolled along. They did not update the class enough to use them for that which the said they were for, in fact they did not update the class period since it was filmed in 1975. I'd think that any comparisons if made would have been more on a local level where people would have known others handwriting especially in their fellowship, when I did home studies they were graded and returned to me and were done on a state level, that may have changed later on . But I suppose they could take a sign up card for the class and maybe sit down with a list of 12 papers and try to piece it together, seems like a lot of work for not much end result to me though. The other thing is I think most people put down what they thought was the right answer that they wanted to hear. I know in my class I remember students talking about it and that was the case anyway, we had a pretty large class as it was the first one run since the video was out and they had moved away from the camps.
I guess. As long as I dont hear something like, "I see abortion as the ending of a life; that makes the coerced abortions in TWI even worse", then whe outside of TWI it becomes "I see abortion as the ending of a life, but I dont want to make that judgement for someone else".
I think I get what you're saying Lifted Up. In other words, someone who believes in pro-choice should be consistent and carry that belief over into twi.
i.e., condemning twi for murder because abortions were allegedly "forced", not because "abortion is murder", would be inconsistent.
or, someone who believes in pro-life should be just as consistent with all groups and everyone, as with twi
But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism?
I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter.
OM... have you ever considered that maybe she 'went back a second time' becuause maybe she didn't want to believe that what happened the first time could ever happen again that maybe, just maybe (since he was the MOG) she could confront him or that he would apologize for his behavior or... or...
There are a number of possibilities as to WHY she went back the second time, only she knows why she did... yet you ALWAYS automatically assume that she was going back for one reason... did you ever consider that most of the thoughts in her mind and heart were that veepee was her teacher and protector? and that she should dismiss the thoughts of evil about him?
... you have no way of knowing but since your life's mission is to defend veepee that is what you assume without considering that ultimately, always, veepee was the one in a position of authority and power over her and is entirely culpable for the act.
So nice to see our resident veepee defender and our resident hitler defender joining up on this thread... tells me a lot about both of them...
I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.
For heavens sakes...if the women had stripped themselves naked and were doing cart wheels back and forth in front of his bus....begging for the man of God to come out and bless them with his healing member....His actions STILL would have been heinous and wrong....
Even if God forbid I was a party animal slut that got exactly what she deserved....anything LESS than a comforting arm around the shoulders, with offers of compassionate councel from those who CLAIMED to be God`s representative..is simply inexcusable.
Not that this was the case....we were told that GOD....not vp, not, twi, but GOD required this of us...that is what is so visciously cruel about the whole thing....
I mean who wants to disobey God?? Who wants to die because they are no longer under God`s protection???...or WORSE face the danger of becoming posessed by NOT complying with the man of God`s orders???
It was sick and it was wrong :(
This propensity to try to make what vp and twi seem right by painting the ones who suffered at their hands as the wrong doers is to me completely incomprehensible.
I don't think you know the meaning of what you just said, Oldies.
Debate on a higher level + Oldies = the ultimate oxymoron.
I just now read through (most) of this thread -- and your comments sicken me!
You're dissing just about every person (except WTH and John/ Jean) here.
Being a *semantic athlete*, and gyrating through the questions asked point blank --
without giving a definitive answer. Ya wearing rainbow spandex?????
Oldies (Phil) -- When are ya gonna get yer head outta yer rear end???
What the hell did you do with the material I sent you about twi???????
I don't even remember all the documents I sent you, but you requested them,
and I sent them all your way for you to look at. And I paid for the copies and shipping.
And the stuff I sent you was from those *in the know*.
I know you got them. What did ya do with them?? Use them for toilet paper??
And it was all about stuff happening during the POP years, and before.
You got the info you requested, and (given your posts currently),
you must've ignored, thrown out, or wiped yer @$$ with them ----
because you obviously didn't READ them.
For (willing) ignorance --- I give you a 15 on the 1 to 10 scale.
For (willing) acceptance of what others have to say ----
You get a -5 on a 1 to 10 scale.
You REALLY need to remove the head, and smell some fresh air once in a while.
I (for one) would be pleased if you did.
.
.
.
.
.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Scuze me! It's Friday!
Yer gonna be busy doing whatever.
Have a nice weekend.
David
David,
Now before you go patting yourself on the back for such a kewl post;
the papers you sent me really were not that much more valuable than toilet paper.
You sent me two items, the 37-page letter to the Trustees of 1987 by John Lynn, et al.; and the Notes to the Clergy meetings of November 1986.
The Clergy Meetings pretty much were vague condemnations from Chris Geer, with no real substance. The Patron Saint of Aloofness at his best. I mean, I've gotten more wisdom from one of Rascal's sentences on a bad day.
Such statements by Chris Geer like:
--the Corps is going to sleep, forsaking biblical responsibility
--there has been abundant insanity at the level of the trustees
--massive upsurge of insanity in the Way of the USA resulting in a virtual neglect of God's Word
--you wrongly took an action that was not scriptural.
About the only thing of any specificity in that paper was Geer's condemnation of John Schoenheits paper on adultery, and the concurrence of the Trustees.
Then there was the 37-page letter to the Trustees on February 1987 by John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Ralph Dubofsky & Robert Belt.
An abundance of vague and ambiguous pious platitudes, quoting and praising our father in the word and the teachings of Dr. Wierwille throughout the entire letter, and how the Trustees should get back to them; with no real substance or specific reproof about anything.
Nothing specific confronting the sexual promiscuity, adultery, fornication, druggings, plagiarism. Nada.
Now about the vast amount of funds you sacrificed to send me this information, you wrote in a cover letter:
A friend I used to work with, works at a copy place, and the price for what you have here was a mere $2.00! They gave me the bubble packs to mail these out also. Thanks for offering to pay, but (as you see) it really was nothing!
David, I think you reminded me about this money you sacrificed in a previous post, and also mention it now again. SO I am going to send you $5.00; the $2.00 for the copying costs and $2.67 for the postage fee and throw in a tip.
This way I don't have to hear your whining anymore.
Now if you would please excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.
This questionaire came out in the 70's when VP was on top of everything. So he either put it together himself, or had someone else put it together. It was a part of CF&S because VPW want it to be.
So what was it's real purpose?
What is most interesting to me, is that the survey had questions related to sexual morality, yet the CF&S class didn't address that much, if at all.
In others words, there was no direct teaching that adultery "extramarital intercourse" was immoral or contrary to the Bible, at least not that I can recall.
No wonder, because lawsuit testimony, shows that VPW taught Martindale that extra marital sex was acceptable to the spiritually mature and to "consider all the women in the kingdom to be his- he was the king."
I can only surmise that the survey was to take a general pulse, and/or or to identify fwomen that might later be candidates to be initiated in to the ranks of the spiritually mature.
It seems to me that with VPW/TWI knowing and teaching the word like it handn't been taught since the 1st Century, that there would have been clear cut teachings on many of the things asked in the survey.
He had no problem teaching Jesus is not God and other doctrines that were certain to be unpopular, so why didn't he teach the masses that extramarital sex was ok for the spiritually mature? -- Because, it would have given many of us guys (that stayed) a lot of motivation to grow up spritually and then there would have been to many spiritualy mature men for VPW/HA/LCM ,et al to compete with? Because it would have been to far over the top and caused too much outside attention?
Where did these surveys eventually end up? Certainly someone here has first-hand knowledge of that.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they ended up right on VPW's desk.
Wasn't this class being run right about the same time that the wife-swapping was going on among certain initiated and spiritually mature Way Corps?
That was a nasty kick to the teeth for someone who went out of their way to provide information that you requested oldies...
Not that I believe for an instant that you even wanted to know the truth....no doubt, you were once again scouting for ways to discredit people and bolster your theories excusing these men of the flesh.
Now before you go patting yourself on the back for such a kewl post;
the papers you sent me really were not that much more valuable than toilet paper.
You sent me two items, the 37-page letter to the Trustees of 1987 by John Lynn, et al.; and the Notes to the Clergy meetings of November 1986.
The Clergy Meetings pretty much were vague condemnations from Chris Geer, with no real substance. The Patron Saint of Aloofness at his best. I mean, I've gotten more wisdom from one of Rascal's sentences on a bad day.
Such statements by Chris Geer like:
--the Corps is going to sleep, forsaking biblical responsibility
--there has been abundant insanity at the level of the trustees
--massive upsurge of insanity in the Way of the USA resulting in a virtual neglect of God's Word
--you wrongly took an action that was not scriptural.
About the only thing of any specificity in that paper was Geer's condemnation of John Schoenheits paper on adultery, and the concurrence of the Trustees.
Then there was the 37-page letter to the Trustees on February 1987 by John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Ralph Dubofsky & Robert Belt.
An abundance of vague and ambiguous pious platitudes, quoting and praising our father in the word and the teachings of Dr. Wierwille throughout the entire letter, and how the Trustees should get back to them; with no real substance or specific reproof about anything.
Nothing specific confronting the sexual promiscuity, adultery, fornication, druggings, plagiarism. Nada.
Now about the vast amount of funds you sacrificed to send me this information, you wrote in a cover letter:
David, I think you reminded me about this money you sacrificed in a previous post, and also mention it now again. SO I am going to send you $5.00; the $2.00 for the copying costs and $2.67 for the postage fee and throw in a tip.
This way I don't have to hear your whining anymore.
Now if you would please excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.
I guess I thought I could get this post on (the one I am replying to) and the post that was fully quoted on it...so refer back to Oldies' recent post to see both...
So, speaking of sticking points, its another reason I hacent gottem more involved on this thread...as Oldies mentioned before, the level of the debate...on both sides. And not being the one who sunk first doesnt change that.
I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.
I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.
You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances.
So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?
Let me take a stab at this.
I don't think WW is representing that at all.
As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place.
You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises.
Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?
WhiteDove, on that questionaire download number 1:
The last question regarding abortion, there's a choice (or more) that is cut off. I'd be real interested in what all of the choices were regarding attitude towards abortion. As it reads, every one of the options are all in the realm of "it's acceptable"... none of them, unless it's the one I can't read, say "not acceptable" or "not allowed"... the one's that are visible sure 'lead' the answerer towards "it's acceptable"... and of course, this is what I was taught throughout my time in TWI from the point of "there is no life until there is 'breath life'" forward...
Offer suggestion my arse...more of your verbal gymnastics (to borrow a term)
You have consistantly assaulted the character and veracity of the people here who HAVE come forth with personal first hand testimoney....then back peddled...who sweet lil ole me???
It sucks period...Adroitly phrasing your veiled insults and contempt for people who share what happened to them at the hands of vp and his leaders...those exposing twi`s evil doesn`t make your mean ness suck any less.
A vow doesn't necessarily have to originate with God in order for God wanting the person to fulfill it. (Numbers 30:2)
But if you are saying that all corps vows were ungodly.. well I just disagree with that opinion."
WordWolf:
QUOTE(WordWolf @ Oct 19 2007, 09:11 AM) *
Since you brought it up, Oldiesman, you're disagreeing with Jesus.
Matthew 5:33-37
" 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Another reason to gloss over the Gospels for vpw. Asking us to swear oaths was contradicting God's Word.
He required communication to be more than "yes" or "no", and, as we're discussing,
that certainly came of evil.
But don't let a little thing like God's Word stop you from insisting that the corps and its founder were the cutting
edge of God's Will....even though this requires you to say
"God's Word does NOT equal God's Will-but the corps requirements WERE God's Will."
Oldiesman:
QUOTE(oldiesman @ Oct 19 2007, 10:50 AM) *
Wordwolf,
So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?
Goey:
QUOTE(Goey @ Oct 19 2007, 12:32 PM)
Let me take a stab at this.
I don't think WW is representing that at all.
As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place.
You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises.
Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?
Goey is correct.
Oldiesman claimed that HIS God wants oaths to be fulfilled, and HIS God considers it important
to fulfill oaths, even if they had nothing to do with them.
He then referenced the Old Testament.
I countered- completely quoting in the New Testament- that Jesus nullified oaths, that he said to just
say things outright, but not to make oaths of any kind.
"Swear not at all", Jesus said, which is the opposite of what Oldiesman said.
Since the Word of God contradicted Oldies' doctrine, he was faced with a choice-
change his doctrine
hide that the Word of God contradicts his doctrine.
Oldiesman, in another example of intellectual dishonesty, attempted to hide that his doctrine contradicted
the Word of God that he supposedly believes.
His doctrine HAS to defend the ungodly actions done in the way corps
(and I'm not saying all actions there were ungodly, so you can save THAT misrepresentations)
and in this SPECIFIC case, the coercion (which he is unable to perceive ever existing or affecting anyone)
which used "making an oath" as a bludgeon to enforce conformity by women, and get them to
get abortions because vpw preferred abortions to
A) telling them "no sex during the corps"
B) allowing corps to leave peacefully when pregnant
(meaning young, sexually-able women, and their money, would leave his reach).
He HAS to defend the supposed making of oaths, even if he has to contradict the Bible to do so.
It's hypocritical to claim to believe the Bible, while intentionally contradicting it,
but it is the action he has chosen.
(He does the same thing trying to invalidate the concept of "leaven", so this is hardly a new tactic
of his, but that makes it no less shameful for being long-term.)
I guess I thought I could get this post on (the one I am replying to) and the post that was fully quoted on it...so refer back to Oldies' recent post to see both...
So, speaking of sticking points, its another reason I hacent gottem more involved on this thread...as Oldies mentioned before, the level of the debate...on both sides. And not being the one who sunk first doesnt change that.
Lifted Up, I'm willing to have a high level of debate, but when dealing with debaters who consistently engage in distracting personal attacks and character assassinations against me, I try to add a little humor once in a while. In my thread to Dave, I tried to be somewhat humorous and I hope some folks took it that way.
That was your impression, no doubt oldies. Never the less it doesn`t line up with the facts.
Comittment does not = vow=not completeing=lie to God=posession= death...shrug
When I am making an irrevocable vow, a promise that must be kept or risk annanias and saphiras fate...I usually am quite aware of the gravity of the commitment.
Heck I even took my promises when I signed the green card seriously.
Like I said...the corpes application was presented as my opportunity to learn to serve God to the very best of my ability. I never dreamed that it meant that I must complete the program or become possessed and die.
I would have never had the confidence to make that kind of commitment.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
49
68
30
33
Popular Days
Oct 19
97
Oct 18
73
Oct 17
50
Oct 22
46
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 49 posts
oldiesman 68 posts
WordWolf 30 posts
doojable 33 posts
Popular Days
Oct 19 2007
97 posts
Oct 18 2007
73 posts
Oct 17 2007
50 posts
Oct 22 2007
46 posts
dmiller
I don't think you know the meaning of what you just said, Oldies.
Debate on a higher level + Oldies = the ultimate oxymoron.
I just now read through (most) of this thread -- and your comments sicken me!
You're dissing just about every person (except WTH and John/ Jean) here.
Being a *semantic athlete*, and gyrating through the questions asked point blank --
without giving a definitive answer. Ya wearing rainbow spandex?????
Oldies (Phil) -- When are ya gonna get yer head outta yer rear end???
What the hell did you do with the material I sent you about twi???????
I don't even remember all the documents I sent you, but you requested them,
and I sent them all your way for you to look at. And I paid for the copies and shipping.
And the stuff I sent you was from those *in the know*.
I know you got them. What did ya do with them?? Use them for toilet paper??
And it was all about stuff happening during the POP years, and before.
You got the info you requested, and (given your posts currently),
you must've ignored, thrown out, or wiped yer @$$ with them ----
because you obviously didn't READ them.
For (willing) ignorance --- I give you a 15 on the 1 to 10 scale.
For (willing) acceptance of what others have to say ----
You get a -5 on a 1 to 10 scale.
You REALLY need to remove the head, and smell some fresh air once in a while.
I (for one) would be pleased if you did.
.
.
.
.
.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Scuze me! It's Friday!
Yer gonna be busy doing whatever.
Have a nice weekend.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thank you for taking the time and effort to post that, WD.
My memory on the details was foggy but now I know I didn't imagine it.
I still think there is enough material in the numbered section and the written section to make comparisons.
They knew who was in each class, where and when it was run, etc.
They also had handwritten "home studies" as they were required for admittance to the Advanced Class.
What did they use these for?
Surely they were not participating in some sort of valid scientific study.
Unless I'm missing something, I can't see what beneficial purpose these surveys might have served.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No you definitely did not imagine it, as to the purpose I don't particularly see one either. My guess they started out in the early camps as a feedback thing and became part of the machinery that just rolled along. They did not update the class enough to use them for that which the said they were for, in fact they did not update the class period since it was filmed in 1975. I'd think that any comparisons if made would have been more on a local level where people would have known others handwriting especially in their fellowship, when I did home studies they were graded and returned to me and were done on a state level, that may have changed later on . But I suppose they could take a sign up card for the class and maybe sit down with a list of 12 papers and try to piece it together, seems like a lot of work for not much end result to me though. The other thing is I think most people put down what they thought was the right answer that they wanted to hear. I know in my class I remember students talking about it and that was the case anyway, we had a pretty large class as it was the first one run since the video was out and they had moved away from the camps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Since you brought it up, Oldiesman, you're disagreeing with Jesus.
Matthew 5:33-37
" 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Another reason to gloss over the Gospels for vpw. Asking us to swear oaths was contradicting God's Word.
He required communication to be more than "yes" or "no", and, as we're discussing,
that certainly came of evil.
But don't let a little thing like God's Word stop you from insisting that the corps and its founder were the cutting
edge of God's Will....even though this requires you to say
"God's Word does NOT equal God's Will-but the corps requirements WERE God's Will."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think I get what you're saying Lifted Up. In other words, someone who believes in pro-choice should be consistent and carry that belief over into twi.
i.e., condemning twi for murder because abortions were allegedly "forced", not because "abortion is murder", would be inconsistent.
or, someone who believes in pro-life should be just as consistent with all groups and everyone, as with twi
If I misunderstand you, please correct.
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
OM... have you ever considered that maybe she 'went back a second time' becuause maybe she didn't want to believe that what happened the first time could ever happen again that maybe, just maybe (since he was the MOG) she could confront him or that he would apologize for his behavior or... or...
There are a number of possibilities as to WHY she went back the second time, only she knows why she did... yet you ALWAYS automatically assume that she was going back for one reason... did you ever consider that most of the thoughts in her mind and heart were that veepee was her teacher and protector? and that she should dismiss the thoughts of evil about him?
... you have no way of knowing but since your life's mission is to defend veepee that is what you assume without considering that ultimately, always, veepee was the one in a position of authority and power over her and is entirely culpable for the act.
So nice to see our resident veepee defender and our resident hitler defender joining up on this thread... tells me a lot about both of them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I am still baffled even after all of this time as to why someone would try focus on the people victimized, rather than the man who so completely and utterly betrayed our trust.
For heavens sakes...if the women had stripped themselves naked and were doing cart wheels back and forth in front of his bus....begging for the man of God to come out and bless them with his healing member....His actions STILL would have been heinous and wrong....
Even if God forbid I was a party animal slut that got exactly what she deserved....anything LESS than a comforting arm around the shoulders, with offers of compassionate councel from those who CLAIMED to be God`s representative..is simply inexcusable.
Not that this was the case....we were told that GOD....not vp, not, twi, but GOD required this of us...that is what is so visciously cruel about the whole thing....
I mean who wants to disobey God?? Who wants to die because they are no longer under God`s protection???...or WORSE face the danger of becoming posessed by NOT complying with the man of God`s orders???
It was sick and it was wrong :(
This propensity to try to make what vp and twi seem right by painting the ones who suffered at their hands as the wrong doers is to me completely incomprehensible.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
David,
Now before you go patting yourself on the back for such a kewl post;
the papers you sent me really were not that much more valuable than toilet paper.
You sent me two items, the 37-page letter to the Trustees of 1987 by John Lynn, et al.; and the Notes to the Clergy meetings of November 1986.
The Clergy Meetings pretty much were vague condemnations from Chris Geer, with no real substance. The Patron Saint of Aloofness at his best. I mean, I've gotten more wisdom from one of Rascal's sentences on a bad day.
Such statements by Chris Geer like:
--the Corps is going to sleep, forsaking biblical responsibility
--there has been abundant insanity at the level of the trustees
--massive upsurge of insanity in the Way of the USA resulting in a virtual neglect of God's Word
--you wrongly took an action that was not scriptural.
About the only thing of any specificity in that paper was Geer's condemnation of John Schoenheits paper on adultery, and the concurrence of the Trustees.
Then there was the 37-page letter to the Trustees on February 1987 by John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Ralph Dubofsky & Robert Belt.
An abundance of vague and ambiguous pious platitudes, quoting and praising our father in the word and the teachings of Dr. Wierwille throughout the entire letter, and how the Trustees should get back to them; with no real substance or specific reproof about anything.
Nothing specific confronting the sexual promiscuity, adultery, fornication, druggings, plagiarism. Nada.
Now about the vast amount of funds you sacrificed to send me this information, you wrote in a cover letter:
David, I think you reminded me about this money you sacrificed in a previous post, and also mention it now again. SO I am going to send you $5.00; the $2.00 for the copying costs and $2.67 for the postage fee and throw in a tip.
This way I don't have to hear your whining anymore.
Now if you would please excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Perhaps, Dmiller would be a sweet-heart and send you some more toilet paper? ;)
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
In Regards to the CF&S Survey.
This questionaire came out in the 70's when VP was on top of everything. So he either put it together himself, or had someone else put it together. It was a part of CF&S because VPW want it to be.
So what was it's real purpose?
What is most interesting to me, is that the survey had questions related to sexual morality, yet the CF&S class didn't address that much, if at all.
In others words, there was no direct teaching that adultery "extramarital intercourse" was immoral or contrary to the Bible, at least not that I can recall.
No wonder, because lawsuit testimony, shows that VPW taught Martindale that extra marital sex was acceptable to the spiritually mature and to "consider all the women in the kingdom to be his- he was the king."
I can only surmise that the survey was to take a general pulse, and/or or to identify fwomen that might later be candidates to be initiated in to the ranks of the spiritually mature.
It seems to me that with VPW/TWI knowing and teaching the word like it handn't been taught since the 1st Century, that there would have been clear cut teachings on many of the things asked in the survey.
He had no problem teaching Jesus is not God and other doctrines that were certain to be unpopular, so why didn't he teach the masses that extramarital sex was ok for the spiritually mature? -- Because, it would have given many of us guys (that stayed) a lot of motivation to grow up spritually and then there would have been to many spiritualy mature men for VPW/HA/LCM ,et al to compete with? Because it would have been to far over the top and caused too much outside attention?
Where did these surveys eventually end up? Certainly someone here has first-hand knowledge of that.
If I were a betting man, I'd bet that they ended up right on VPW's desk.
Wasn't this class being run right about the same time that the wife-swapping was going on among certain initiated and spiritually mature Way Corps?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
That was a nasty kick to the teeth for someone who went out of their way to provide information that you requested oldies...
Not that I believe for an instant that you even wanted to know the truth....no doubt, you were once again scouting for ways to discredit people and bolster your theories excusing these men of the flesh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf,
So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
What in the world does keeping promises have to do with applying to go into the corpes???
There was no oath/promise/vow at the time of application.
This was something that you were told that you had done AFTER the fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I guess I thought I could get this post on (the one I am replying to) and the post that was fully quoted on it...so refer back to Oldies' recent post to see both...
So, speaking of sticking points, its another reason I hacent gottem more involved on this thread...as Oldies mentioned before, the level of the debate...on both sides. And not being the one who sunk first doesnt change that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly.
You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances.
BTW, Happy Friday. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Let me take a stab at this.
I don't think WW is representing that at all.
As I read the verses quoted, I think was was represented was that it was contrary to the teaching of Jesus for an oath to be given/ required in the first place.
You are making a strawman argument by implying that WW was representing that we ought not keep promises.
Typical Oldies, when are you going to muster up one small spark of intellectual honesty?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
WhiteDove, on that questionaire download number 1:
The last question regarding abortion, there's a choice (or more) that is cut off. I'd be real interested in what all of the choices were regarding attitude towards abortion. As it reads, every one of the options are all in the realm of "it's acceptable"... none of them, unless it's the one I can't read, say "not acceptable" or "not allowed"... the one's that are visible sure 'lead' the answerer towards "it's acceptable"... and of course, this is what I was taught throughout my time in TWI from the point of "there is no life until there is 'breath life'" forward...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Offer suggestion my arse...more of your verbal gymnastics (to borrow a term)
You have consistantly assaulted the character and veracity of the people here who HAVE come forth with personal first hand testimoney....then back peddled...who sweet lil ole me???
It sucks period...Adroitly phrasing your veiled insults and contempt for people who share what happened to them at the hands of vp and his leaders...those exposing twi`s evil doesn`t make your mean ness suck any less.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You mean they didn't inform you that you were signing up for a four-year commitment?
Well I must tell you Rascal, I definitely got that impression when I signed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldiesman:
WordWolf:
Oldiesman:
Goey:
Goey is correct.
Oldiesman claimed that HIS God wants oaths to be fulfilled, and HIS God considers it important
to fulfill oaths, even if they had nothing to do with them.
He then referenced the Old Testament.
I countered- completely quoting in the New Testament- that Jesus nullified oaths, that he said to just
say things outright, but not to make oaths of any kind.
"Swear not at all", Jesus said, which is the opposite of what Oldiesman said.
Since the Word of God contradicted Oldies' doctrine, he was faced with a choice-
change his doctrine
hide that the Word of God contradicts his doctrine.
Oldiesman, in another example of intellectual dishonesty, attempted to hide that his doctrine contradicted
the Word of God that he supposedly believes.
His doctrine HAS to defend the ungodly actions done in the way corps
(and I'm not saying all actions there were ungodly, so you can save THAT misrepresentations)
and in this SPECIFIC case, the coercion (which he is unable to perceive ever existing or affecting anyone)
which used "making an oath" as a bludgeon to enforce conformity by women, and get them to
get abortions because vpw preferred abortions to
A) telling them "no sex during the corps"
B) allowing corps to leave peacefully when pregnant
(meaning young, sexually-able women, and their money, would leave his reach).
He HAS to defend the supposed making of oaths, even if he has to contradict the Bible to do so.
It's hypocritical to claim to believe the Bible, while intentionally contradicting it,
but it is the action he has chosen.
(He does the same thing trying to invalidate the concept of "leaven", so this is hardly a new tactic
of his, but that makes it no less shameful for being long-term.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Lifted Up, I'm willing to have a high level of debate, but when dealing with debaters who consistently engage in distracting personal attacks and character assassinations against me, I try to add a little humor once in a while. In my thread to Dave, I tried to be somewhat humorous and I hope some folks took it that way.
But I AM sending him his $5.00! :)
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
That was your impression, no doubt oldies. Never the less it doesn`t line up with the facts.
Comittment does not = vow=not completeing=lie to God=posession= death...shrug
When I am making an irrevocable vow, a promise that must be kept or risk annanias and saphiras fate...I usually am quite aware of the gravity of the commitment.
Heck I even took my promises when I signed the green card seriously.
Like I said...the corpes application was presented as my opportunity to learn to serve God to the very best of my ability. I never dreamed that it meant that I must complete the program or become possessed and die.
I would have never had the confidence to make that kind of commitment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf,
In practical terms, what then are you saying the Word of God says?
Taking a four-year oath to complete the corps program is ungodly? wrong?
How about taking an oath when one pledges alliegence to the Flag, and to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands?
Is that wrong or ungodly, according to the bible?
*******************
Larry, are you back?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Four year commitment does not equal a vow to God, the breaking of which will bring possession and death.
You are twisting the wording of commitment and pledge to make what twi required appear acceptible.
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.