Is the book like Karl Kahler's, solely about TWI as he experienced it, or more about recovery, using TWI as just the primary "villain"?
We are here to tell the other side of the story, Johniam. You are making a twisted statement. All stories are from a POV. Many are about recovery. If TWI and/or it's leadership, past of present, are the "villians" then so be it. You are not going to drag a victim through the mud on this board. Your opinions don't invalidate the reality of the story.
What? I made no "statement"; I asked a question. The word "villain" is a literary/theatrical term. If the literature is about recovery, then this assumes there is something to recover from, hence, a villain. I haven't given any opinions about Tex yet. Besides, I got the answer to my question from the entrys on the blog she posted a link to.
Of course you have, johniam, by the insinuation implicit in the word "villain." You as much as say so yourself by your description of the word, by which you mean "fictional."
To paraphrase Peanuts, "Of all the johniams in the world, you're the johniam-iest." I wouldn't brag about it.
She'll be surprised to find someone like you here, but Tex is far more than a match for you. If she doesn't find you a complete waste of time, I look forward to seeing her deal with you.
I'm sooo sorry about your losing your mother - that is a heavy blow! And now a broken ankle to deal with. I trust you'll heal well - take good care of yourself.
IMO your blog is educational yet personal and I for one appreciate the care with which you present your story. Today I'm preordering your book!
Best wishes to you and your family for a happy new year!
quote: Of course you have, johniam, by the insinuation implicit in the word "villain." You as much as say so yourself by your description of the word, by which you mean "fictional."
She'll be surprised to find someone like you here, but Tex is far more than a match for you. If she doesn't find you a complete waste of time, I look forward to seeing her deal with you.
Have you read In cold blood by Truman Capote? It's nonfiction. But you don't think there's a villain in it? What could she possibly say to me that others haven't?
Is the book like Karl Kahler's, solely about TWI as he experienced it, or more about recovery, using TWI as just the primary "villain"?
johniam, nobody would accuse you of being forthright. With evasion and equivocation you persist in defying common knowledge and experience about Wierwille the deviate, and The Way International, the cult.
Let's look at the quoted question.
First, you discount the historical component of Kahler's book, by misrepresenting it as his (isolated) "experience."
Next, you suggest Losing the Way is in one of two categories: isolated experience (like Kahler's), or a journal of recovery.
For this second category ("...or more about recovery, using TWI as just the primary 'villain?'"):
1. "using" implies that the author employs a literary device, which implies artificiality
2. "just the primary" implies the author's TWI "experience" is one of several (dysfunctional) issues from which the author was suffering -- and this in turn suggests the fault is not necessarily with TWI, but with the author
3. you reinforce, by placing "villain" in quotes, your position that the author's TWI experience is defective and isolated, therefore contrived and artificial, therefore irrelevant.
***
johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
I think I know the answer to that. Your purpose is not to argue a position you can't win, but to insinuate bias, subjectivity and unreliability. This is not based on any facts, since no one has yet read the book, but upon your own compelling obsession, to keep the truth about Wierwille and TWI in the darkness. Whether you hope new people will be deceived or simply hope to justify your own misbegotten loyalty is unimportant. It's what you do.
quote: johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
So you finally admit that it's you who are trying to shut ME up? You act like any accusation against TWI is absolute truth. Christians frequently comment on the writing style of the bible writers. Both TWI and non TWI.
quote: 1. "using" implies that the author employs a literary device, which implies artificiality
Hello? WORDS are literary devices. So is puntuation. Perhaps you are projecting your own dishonesty onto me.
johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
I think I know the answer to that. Your purpose is not to argue a position you can't win, but to insinuate bias, subjectivity and unreliability. This is not based on any facts, since no one has yet read the book, but upon your own compelling obsession, to keep the truth about Wierwille and TWI in the darkness. Whether you hope new people will be deceived or simply hope to justify your own misbegotten loyalty is unimportant. It's what you do.
Thank you for holding the mirror up in front of him satori...
What is just as sad, IMO, is that he thinks that folks don't see through his transparency...
quote: johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
So you finally admit that it's you who are trying to shut ME up? You act like any accusation against TWI is absolute truth. Christians frequently comment on the writing style of the bible writers. Both TWI and non TWI.
quote: 1. "using" implies that the author employs a literary device, which implies artificiality
Hello? WORDS are literary devices. So is puntuation. Perhaps you are projecting your own dishonesty onto me.
So you finally admit that it's you who are trying to shut ME up? You act like any accusation against TWI is absolute truth.
No johniam. I'm saying that tortured equivocation renders your position nearly impossible to discern. Drop the innuendo and just say what you mean. jeaniam might even have more respect for you.
As for accusations against TWI, I will settle for mostly true, as long as they fit the "ministry's" well-established history of behavior and the facts are internally and externally consistent.
On the other hand, you choose to see each "accusation" as if in a vacuum, a random, baseless and unfounded allegation. This is only possible if you consider everything we already KNOW to be false. If this is so, you are living in a delusion of your own making.
Christians frequently comment on the writing style of the bible writers. Both TWI and non TWI.
Of course they do, johniam, and each to their own ends. Most are endeavoring to get at the truth, although some are like yourself, endeavoring to twist the truth into something that resembles the world as they wish we would all see it, rather than as it is. Cults do that. It's what you do. Coincidence?
People DO believe lies. You must find that greatly encouraging. Otherwise, why would you bother?
Thank you for holding the mirror up in front of him satori...
What is just as sad, IMO, is that he thinks that folks don't see through his transparency...
There was a time when we wouldn't have seen through it.
First, Pawtucket shows uncharacteristic emotional attachment to Tex regarding my post. Then Jack Torrance, who hasn't given me the time of day for at least 2 years, pulls out his axe and says, "Here's Johnny!" Why are you guys behaving so desperately? Why is it so imperative for you to napalm my credibility...NOW??? Bizarre.
First, Pawtucket shows uncharacteristic emotional attachment to Tex regarding my post. Then Jack Torrance, who hasn't given me the time of day for at least 2 years, pulls out his axe and says, "Here's Johnny!" Why are you guys behaving so desperately? Why is it so imperative for you to napalm my credibility...NOW??? Bizarre.
You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.
quote: You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.
Then why are they trying so hard to do just that?
I mean, if it's so obvious that my transparency is whatever stupid thing you said it was..IF this is so obvious, then why not ignore me? I'm not just talking about this thread. You can't declare me possessed or M&A, that's already been done, but you could just put me on ignore. The reason you can't is because enough of what I post must be so threatening that you feel you HAVE to address it. But on THIS thread I've said nothing. Just asked a question. And you're all over me. WHY? What are you afraid I'm going to say? Why the desperate, uncharacteristic attacks? This is not your usual MO.
quote: You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.
Then why are they trying so hard to do just that?
I mean, if it's so obvious that my transparency is whatever stupid thing you said it was..IF this is so obvious, then why not ignore me? I'm not just talking about this thread. You can't declare me possessed or M&A, that's already been done, but you could just put me on ignore. The reason you can't is because enough of what I post must be so threatening that you feel you HAVE to address it. But on THIS thread I've said nothing. Just asked a question. And you're all over me. WHY? What are you afraid I'm going to say? Why the desperate, uncharacteristic attacks? This is not your usual MO.
John
I'm not declaring you "possessed or M&A".
I'm not "threatened" by you.
I'm not "all over" you.
I never even mentioned the word "transparent".
I'm not "afraid" of what you might say.
I'm not "attacking" you.
Fact is, though, John, you continually twist people's words to change the intended meaning.
You flagrantly abuse the "quote/reply" feature.
You constantly launch yourself into a homiletic discourse, vis a vis VPW, in an apparent attempt to dissuade those who would speak negatively of Wierwille or his alleged "ministry".
Should I ignore you?
Why don't you tell me if that's what you think I should do?
I mean, if it's so obvious that my transparency is whatever stupid thing you said it was..IF this is so obvious, then why not ignore me?
I'm not just talking about this thread. You can't declare me possessed or M&A, that's already been done, but you could just put me on ignore.
The reason you can't is because enough of what I post must be so threatening that you feel you HAVE to address it.
But on THIS thread I've said nothing. Just asked a question. And you're all over me. WHY? What are you afraid I'm going to say? Why the desperate, uncharacteristic attacks? This is not your usual MO.
Why? I dunno. I don't know why YOU don't know. What's my usual MO though?
For some reason, I read the first post by Tex. Then I read her blog entries. Then I read what you had to say.
The rest, johniam, is history (history repeating itself). Whenever I've had the time of day, johniam, to spend on your behalf, it has been to register my usual opinion about your usual opinion about TWI's many victims' usual opinions. Their opinions are not very high, and yours is not very high, and mine, likewise, not so very high (respectively).
I'm as surprised at your surprise as you're surprised by my "desperate, uncharacteristic" (neither of which true) "attacks" (not attacks), since that has been my "MO" consistently, if not constantly, for as long as I can recall. Neither of us are as surprised, I would surmise, as Tex could be - by your surprising position on Vic's unsurprising sexual and psychological abuse of another female believer. I'll bet SHE was surprised, that first time on the lust bus.
I wish, johniam, you had a shred of compassion, an ounce of empathy, for these women, many of them still girls when they so loved God, and when Vic Wierwille, that dirty dog, so used their love.
Maybe that's why I bother. I am bothered, brother. I take that back. You're no brother of mine. Vic was neither brother nor father either. Vic was a dog. Vic was Tic. Is that why he treated women the way some dogs treat dogs? Could be.
Tic, wherever you are, no offense. It's just a figger. You were a BETTER dog than Vic was, Gunga Din.
quote: For some reason, I read the first post by Tex. Then I read her blog entries. Then I read what you had to say.
OK Satori, if this is the progression detailing how you decided to post to me I believe you. The post with the link to her blog wasn't done until I think new year's eve. My first post on this thread was before that, and, as I said, the blog entries answered my question. The question was about the format of her book, not about her credibility. I have a confession to make.
I know who Tex is. I don't recall ever being formally introduced to her (it may have happened), but I was at a few meetings she was at. I once saw her teach the word at a fellowship with well over 100 people in attendance. I lived with 2 guys immediately after they'd been wows under her direct leadership. Those guys had a lot of respect for her; they said she was nobody's fool and nobody to mess with.
One of the guys said that during the year she was in STL she coordinated a pfal class in a rough neighborhood. On the night of session 1, as she arrived at the class location, several teenage boys were making loud noise right outside the house the class was held in. She walks right up to them and says sweetly, "Would you boys mind playing down the street for the next 3 weeks; we're going to be running a bible class and the noise is distracting." Something to that effect. The teens not only cooperated with her, but by the time the class was over they would open the car door for her when she'd arrive for class like they were her limo driver. She had more guts than most of the guys.
She was tough. She was the kind of way corps you really did NOT want to screw up around. I don't think that was a bad thing. Some way corps let it go to their heads; they acted like their corps status entitled them to vomit their egos on people, but nobody in STL ever said anything like that about Tex. She was motivated; she believed in what she was doing (moving the word). I wonder how many interim corps, male OR female, were given the assignment of branch coordinator of 7 wow families at the age of 22. Impressive. If the way corps was college football, she'd have been a first round draft pick easy, if not top 5. I'm even guessing she may have been denied the chance to excel (ordination, limb/region coordinator, etc.) just because she's a woman. Whatever her ethical concerns were about VP, she believed in him as MOG.
Another believer in STL said that once during the same year a group of them were out witnessing and she went into a Christian bookstore and saw a small box with copies of that booklet called "the way of Victor Paul Wierwille". She didn't hesitate; she picked up the box, left the Christian bookstore, and deposited the box in the nearest trash can. Most of what I've said is second hand, but having seen her in the flesh and having heard all the stories, I believe it.
A lot of these stories about sexual abuse seem to me as..."from a galaxy far away" because it's so different from the TWI I saw first hand. Sure, I knew men and women who screwed around, but most of the leaders who did that got in trouble for it, lost their leadership position. No evidence of a "secret society" of adulterers; just something in those anti way pamphlets. Tex is someone I have actually seen, so, by comparison, her testimony is...from a galaxy...down the block.
I saw a link on Dr. John Jeudes' site about Tex. She said that TWI was guilty of 'black and white thinking' and she didn't want her kids raised that way. Then on her blog she said she now believes she was brainwashed. But she blessed a lot of people in STL and probably elsewhere. Is all that just meaningless now? I guess what I find most disturbing about all this is...here you have this young, motivated, confident leader of God's people on the rise, and then, a few short years later she is at the point of having to depend on a women's shelter and the other things she said. That's more than sad, it's heartbreaking.
I do not agree with all her stated conclusions, but at this point, I am definitely interested in what she has to say.
I wish, johniam, you had a shred of compassion, an ounce of empathy, for these women, many of them still girls when they so loved God, and when Vic Wierwille, that dirty dog, so used their love.
Maybe that's why I bother. I am bothered, brother. I take that back. You're no brother of mine. Vic was neither brother nor father either. Vic was a dog. Vic was Tic. Is that why he treated women the way some dogs treat dogs? Could be.
Tic, wherever you are, no offense. It's just a figger. You were a BETTER dog than Vic was, Gunga Din.
And, this is where john, if he has any shred of decency in him, would apologize clearly and plainly for his behavior, but, as history has so often shown, he will refuse to do so and will probably even attempt to justify his contemptuous behavior.
Tex, thank you for sharing your story. I'm terribly sorry about your mother and your ankle.
You'll find quite a few ladies here who have similar experiences to yours. It breaks my heart that there are so many, but I am so glad that Paw has provided this safe little cafe for us to gather and support each other.
Have you read In cold blood by Truman Capote? It's nonfiction. But you don't think there's a villain in it? What could she possibly say to me that others haven't?
jyam, most likely she couldn't say much more than the truth
i think the villain is vp
so you knew tex, me too
i'm still trying to think about how to answer your last post
i'm thinking that brainwashed f-d up people still tried to help others
--
i know i always cared about people and i never would have done to them what vp did to me.... and others....
Thanks for your reply, johniam. I found it both frank and honest.
I have never thought that VPW could do what he did, had we NOT believed he was "the" man of God, regardless of the roles we played in TWI. So of course Tex should have been no exception, as far as we could guess. And it is a guess.
In the late 70's, I did hear about the sexual society thing (not in those terms exactly) from a Family Corps woman on her interim assignment as a Twig/Area Leader (or something like that), who said she had been passed from VPW to Howard to someone else, and finally pretty much dumped. I had expressed interest in entering the Corps, and there were no other Corps around, so she confided in me somewhat.
She STILL believed in VPW-the-MOG, but her entire perspective of Christianity reminded me of a Masonic thing, with progressive levels of initiation. By the time you approached the top, the "walk" was nothing like that of the average Twig Leader. How could this be? Easy. Milk for "babes." Meat for the initiates. The "meat of the Word," according to her, was not apparent to the senses. It had to be revealed, by a "gift ministry," a "teacher" for example.
She was a very high initiate, she thought, or had been informed -- what she actually said was the equivalent of a "high priestess." Very impressive to me at the time, though I remained skeptical. She told me to "work Hebrews," with this ominous air of mystery and promise in her voice. It was "heavy" stuff.
She also "shared" with me some very explicit details about sex and sexuality, when we were alone together, but all from a "spiritual" standpoint, of course. These details concerned the spiritual dynamics underlying the sexual act between a man and woman "of God." I was all ears, but that's as far as it went. In one way or another, I knew I was over my head. Whatever her spiritual condition was, it was plain that she was otherwise a very troubled soul, and nobody to get involved with.
So why weren't you privy to this? I don't know. I think it was just a matter of who you knew, and whether or not the opportunity was there. Also, I believe males were kept in the dark more than females, for pretty obvious reasons. Females needed to be recruited. Males would only need to be restrained.
I am glad you are willing to consider what Tex has to say, and that your obvious respect for her may allow you to connect with her story.
quote: dedicated to tex and the lockbox and the darkness darkness no more silence no more
I have an idea.
Tex said in her blog that the lockbox must be unlocked. But that some situations are sensitive enough that it has to be done in a safe environment. How about a 'support group' forum where only those in the support group have access?
Once there was a politics and tacks forum, just one. Things got ugly and now there are 2 politics and tacks forums, one not for the squeamish, and one for those who don't want arguments to get out of hand. I don't often go to those forums, but the strategy must have worked, otherwise I would have heard something.
The way corps site is another example. Here at GSC there are some with an axe to grind re: way corps. The word 'corpse' is frequently used interchangeably with way corps. This sends the message that if you were corps you must apologize for yourself all the time. I don't blame them a bit for wanting to go on a way corps only site where they don't have to feel like 2nd class posters just because they were corps.
I don't blame posters who feel they were abused by way corps for trying to get that off their chests, either, but there is something to be said for a partisan fellowship.
So, would it be possible to set up a forum for women who were sexually abused and those sympathetic to them, ie, a safe environment? Those with access could have their own passwords and no fear of "hard questions". Just a thought.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
4
7
11
Popular Days
Jan 6
16
Jan 4
12
Dec 18
10
Dec 22
9
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 8 posts
Lifted Up 4 posts
satori001 7 posts
johniam 11 posts
Popular Days
Jan 6 2008
16 posts
Jan 4 2008
12 posts
Dec 18 2007
10 posts
Dec 22 2007
9 posts
pawtucket
We are here to tell the other side of the story, Johniam. You are making a twisted statement. All stories are from a POV. Many are about recovery. If TWI and/or it's leadership, past of present, are the "villians" then so be it. You are not going to drag a victim through the mud on this board. Your opinions don't invalidate the reality of the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
What? I made no "statement"; I asked a question. The word "villain" is a literary/theatrical term. If the literature is about recovery, then this assumes there is something to recover from, hence, a villain. I haven't given any opinions about Tex yet. Besides, I got the answer to my question from the entrys on the blog she posted a link to.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Of course you have, johniam, by the insinuation implicit in the word "villain." You as much as say so yourself by your description of the word, by which you mean "fictional."
To paraphrase Peanuts, "Of all the johniams in the world, you're the johniam-iest." I wouldn't brag about it.
She'll be surprised to find someone like you here, but Tex is far more than a match for you. If she doesn't find you a complete waste of time, I look forward to seeing her deal with you.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Tex,
I'm sooo sorry about your losing your mother - that is a heavy blow! And now a broken ankle to deal with. I trust you'll heal well - take good care of yourself.
IMO your blog is educational yet personal and I for one appreciate the care with which you present your story. Today I'm preordering your book!
Best wishes to you and your family for a happy new year!
Love,
penworks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Of course you have, johniam, by the insinuation implicit in the word "villain." You as much as say so yourself by your description of the word, by which you mean "fictional."
She'll be surprised to find someone like you here, but Tex is far more than a match for you. If she doesn't find you a complete waste of time, I look forward to seeing her deal with you.
Have you read In cold blood by Truman Capote? It's nonfiction. But you don't think there's a villain in it? What could she possibly say to me that others haven't?
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Right.
And Brutus is an honorable man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
johniam, nobody would accuse you of being forthright. With evasion and equivocation you persist in defying common knowledge and experience about Wierwille the deviate, and The Way International, the cult.
Let's look at the quoted question.
First, you discount the historical component of Kahler's book, by misrepresenting it as his (isolated) "experience."
Next, you suggest Losing the Way is in one of two categories: isolated experience (like Kahler's), or a journal of recovery.
For this second category ("...or more about recovery, using TWI as just the primary 'villain?'"):
1. "using" implies that the author employs a literary device, which implies artificiality
2. "just the primary" implies the author's TWI "experience" is one of several (dysfunctional) issues from which the author was suffering -- and this in turn suggests the fault is not necessarily with TWI, but with the author
3. you reinforce, by placing "villain" in quotes, your position that the author's TWI experience is defective and isolated, therefore contrived and artificial, therefore irrelevant.
***
johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
I think I know the answer to that. Your purpose is not to argue a position you can't win, but to insinuate bias, subjectivity and unreliability. This is not based on any facts, since no one has yet read the book, but upon your own compelling obsession, to keep the truth about Wierwille and TWI in the darkness. Whether you hope new people will be deceived or simply hope to justify your own misbegotten loyalty is unimportant. It's what you do.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: johniam, if you're going to be so evasive that it requires all this parsing to get what you're actually trying to say, why bother to say anything at all?
So you finally admit that it's you who are trying to shut ME up? You act like any accusation against TWI is absolute truth. Christians frequently comment on the writing style of the bible writers. Both TWI and non TWI.
quote: 1. "using" implies that the author employs a literary device, which implies artificiality
Hello? WORDS are literary devices. So is puntuation. Perhaps you are projecting your own dishonesty onto me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Thank you for holding the mirror up in front of him satori...
What is just as sad, IMO, is that he thinks that folks don't see through his transparency...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
So you finally admit that it's you who are trying to shut ME up? You act like any accusation against TWI is absolute truth.
No johniam. I'm saying that tortured equivocation renders your position nearly impossible to discern. Drop the innuendo and just say what you mean. jeaniam might even have more respect for you.
As for accusations against TWI, I will settle for mostly true, as long as they fit the "ministry's" well-established history of behavior and the facts are internally and externally consistent.
On the other hand, you choose to see each "accusation" as if in a vacuum, a random, baseless and unfounded allegation. This is only possible if you consider everything we already KNOW to be false. If this is so, you are living in a delusion of your own making.
Christians frequently comment on the writing style of the bible writers. Both TWI and non TWI.
Of course they do, johniam, and each to their own ends. Most are endeavoring to get at the truth, although some are like yourself, endeavoring to twist the truth into something that resembles the world as they wish we would all see it, rather than as it is. Cults do that. It's what you do. Coincidence?
People DO believe lies. You must find that greatly encouraging. Otherwise, why would you bother?
There was a time when we wouldn't have seen through it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
This is getting funnier and funnier.
First, Pawtucket shows uncharacteristic emotional attachment to Tex regarding my post. Then Jack Torrance, who hasn't given me the time of day for at least 2 years, pulls out his axe and says, "Here's Johnny!" Why are you guys behaving so desperately? Why is it so imperative for you to napalm my credibility...NOW??? Bizarre.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: You can't "defoliate" that which has already been rendered bare.
Then why are they trying so hard to do just that?
I mean, if it's so obvious that my transparency is whatever stupid thing you said it was..IF this is so obvious, then why not ignore me? I'm not just talking about this thread. You can't declare me possessed or M&A, that's already been done, but you could just put me on ignore. The reason you can't is because enough of what I post must be so threatening that you feel you HAVE to address it. But on THIS thread I've said nothing. Just asked a question. And you're all over me. WHY? What are you afraid I'm going to say? Why the desperate, uncharacteristic attacks? This is not your usual MO.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John
I'm not declaring you "possessed or M&A".
I'm not "threatened" by you.
I'm not "all over" you.
I never even mentioned the word "transparent".
I'm not "afraid" of what you might say.
I'm not "attacking" you.
Fact is, though, John, you continually twist people's words to change the intended meaning.
You flagrantly abuse the "quote/reply" feature.
You constantly launch yourself into a homiletic discourse, vis a vis VPW, in an apparent attempt to dissuade those who would speak negatively of Wierwille or his alleged "ministry".
Should I ignore you?
Why don't you tell me if that's what you think I should do?
(and then tell me "why".)
"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Why? I dunno. I don't know why YOU don't know. What's my usual MO though?
For some reason, I read the first post by Tex. Then I read her blog entries. Then I read what you had to say.
The rest, johniam, is history (history repeating itself). Whenever I've had the time of day, johniam, to spend on your behalf, it has been to register my usual opinion about your usual opinion about TWI's many victims' usual opinions. Their opinions are not very high, and yours is not very high, and mine, likewise, not so very high (respectively).
I'm as surprised at your surprise as you're surprised by my "desperate, uncharacteristic" (neither of which true) "attacks" (not attacks), since that has been my "MO" consistently, if not constantly, for as long as I can recall. Neither of us are as surprised, I would surmise, as Tex could be - by your surprising position on Vic's unsurprising sexual and psychological abuse of another female believer. I'll bet SHE was surprised, that first time on the lust bus.
I wish, johniam, you had a shred of compassion, an ounce of empathy, for these women, many of them still girls when they so loved God, and when Vic Wierwille, that dirty dog, so used their love.
Maybe that's why I bother. I am bothered, brother. I take that back. You're no brother of mine. Vic was neither brother nor father either. Vic was a dog. Vic was Tic. Is that why he treated women the way some dogs treat dogs? Could be.
Tic, wherever you are, no offense. It's just a figger. You were a BETTER dog than Vic was, Gunga Din.
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
Hi Tex-- welcome to the cafe - a bit like the Iowa caucus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Satori.. did I ever tell you I love you?
really.. as a brother. I hope you consider me one..
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: For some reason, I read the first post by Tex. Then I read her blog entries. Then I read what you had to say.
OK Satori, if this is the progression detailing how you decided to post to me I believe you. The post with the link to her blog wasn't done until I think new year's eve. My first post on this thread was before that, and, as I said, the blog entries answered my question. The question was about the format of her book, not about her credibility. I have a confession to make.
I know who Tex is. I don't recall ever being formally introduced to her (it may have happened), but I was at a few meetings she was at. I once saw her teach the word at a fellowship with well over 100 people in attendance. I lived with 2 guys immediately after they'd been wows under her direct leadership. Those guys had a lot of respect for her; they said she was nobody's fool and nobody to mess with.
One of the guys said that during the year she was in STL she coordinated a pfal class in a rough neighborhood. On the night of session 1, as she arrived at the class location, several teenage boys were making loud noise right outside the house the class was held in. She walks right up to them and says sweetly, "Would you boys mind playing down the street for the next 3 weeks; we're going to be running a bible class and the noise is distracting." Something to that effect. The teens not only cooperated with her, but by the time the class was over they would open the car door for her when she'd arrive for class like they were her limo driver. She had more guts than most of the guys.
She was tough. She was the kind of way corps you really did NOT want to screw up around. I don't think that was a bad thing. Some way corps let it go to their heads; they acted like their corps status entitled them to vomit their egos on people, but nobody in STL ever said anything like that about Tex. She was motivated; she believed in what she was doing (moving the word). I wonder how many interim corps, male OR female, were given the assignment of branch coordinator of 7 wow families at the age of 22. Impressive. If the way corps was college football, she'd have been a first round draft pick easy, if not top 5. I'm even guessing she may have been denied the chance to excel (ordination, limb/region coordinator, etc.) just because she's a woman. Whatever her ethical concerns were about VP, she believed in him as MOG.
Another believer in STL said that once during the same year a group of them were out witnessing and she went into a Christian bookstore and saw a small box with copies of that booklet called "the way of Victor Paul Wierwille". She didn't hesitate; she picked up the box, left the Christian bookstore, and deposited the box in the nearest trash can. Most of what I've said is second hand, but having seen her in the flesh and having heard all the stories, I believe it.
A lot of these stories about sexual abuse seem to me as..."from a galaxy far away" because it's so different from the TWI I saw first hand. Sure, I knew men and women who screwed around, but most of the leaders who did that got in trouble for it, lost their leadership position. No evidence of a "secret society" of adulterers; just something in those anti way pamphlets. Tex is someone I have actually seen, so, by comparison, her testimony is...from a galaxy...down the block.
I saw a link on Dr. John Jeudes' site about Tex. She said that TWI was guilty of 'black and white thinking' and she didn't want her kids raised that way. Then on her blog she said she now believes she was brainwashed. But she blessed a lot of people in STL and probably elsewhere. Is all that just meaningless now? I guess what I find most disturbing about all this is...here you have this young, motivated, confident leader of God's people on the rise, and then, a few short years later she is at the point of having to depend on a women's shelter and the other things she said. That's more than sad, it's heartbreaking.
I do not agree with all her stated conclusions, but at this point, I am definitely interested in what she has to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And, this is where john, if he has any shred of decency in him, would apologize clearly and plainly for his behavior, but, as history has so often shown, he will refuse to do so and will probably even attempt to justify his contemptuous behavior.
Tex, thank you for sharing your story. I'm terribly sorry about your mother and your ankle.
You'll find quite a few ladies here who have similar experiences to yours. It breaks my heart that there are so many, but I am so glad that Paw has provided this safe little cafe for us to gather and support each other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
jyam, most likely she couldn't say much more than the truth
i think the villain is vp
so you knew tex, me too
i'm still trying to think about how to answer your last post
i'm thinking that brainwashed f-d up people still tried to help others
--
i know i always cared about people and i never would have done to them what vp did to me.... and others....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
how touching exie..this song was gripping and showed me some of your pain that you both must feel...
I pray for your comfort..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Thanks for your reply, johniam. I found it both frank and honest.
I have never thought that VPW could do what he did, had we NOT believed he was "the" man of God, regardless of the roles we played in TWI. So of course Tex should have been no exception, as far as we could guess. And it is a guess.
In the late 70's, I did hear about the sexual society thing (not in those terms exactly) from a Family Corps woman on her interim assignment as a Twig/Area Leader (or something like that), who said she had been passed from VPW to Howard to someone else, and finally pretty much dumped. I had expressed interest in entering the Corps, and there were no other Corps around, so she confided in me somewhat.
She STILL believed in VPW-the-MOG, but her entire perspective of Christianity reminded me of a Masonic thing, with progressive levels of initiation. By the time you approached the top, the "walk" was nothing like that of the average Twig Leader. How could this be? Easy. Milk for "babes." Meat for the initiates. The "meat of the Word," according to her, was not apparent to the senses. It had to be revealed, by a "gift ministry," a "teacher" for example.
She was a very high initiate, she thought, or had been informed -- what she actually said was the equivalent of a "high priestess." Very impressive to me at the time, though I remained skeptical. She told me to "work Hebrews," with this ominous air of mystery and promise in her voice. It was "heavy" stuff.
She also "shared" with me some very explicit details about sex and sexuality, when we were alone together, but all from a "spiritual" standpoint, of course. These details concerned the spiritual dynamics underlying the sexual act between a man and woman "of God." I was all ears, but that's as far as it went. In one way or another, I knew I was over my head. Whatever her spiritual condition was, it was plain that she was otherwise a very troubled soul, and nobody to get involved with.
So why weren't you privy to this? I don't know. I think it was just a matter of who you knew, and whether or not the opportunity was there. Also, I believe males were kept in the dark more than females, for pretty obvious reasons. Females needed to be recruited. Males would only need to be restrained.
I am glad you are willing to consider what Tex has to say, and that your obvious respect for her may allow you to connect with her story.
Regards,
satori
Edited by satori001Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: dedicated to tex and the lockbox and the darkness darkness no more silence no more
I have an idea.
Tex said in her blog that the lockbox must be unlocked. But that some situations are sensitive enough that it has to be done in a safe environment. How about a 'support group' forum where only those in the support group have access?
Once there was a politics and tacks forum, just one. Things got ugly and now there are 2 politics and tacks forums, one not for the squeamish, and one for those who don't want arguments to get out of hand. I don't often go to those forums, but the strategy must have worked, otherwise I would have heard something.
The way corps site is another example. Here at GSC there are some with an axe to grind re: way corps. The word 'corpse' is frequently used interchangeably with way corps. This sends the message that if you were corps you must apologize for yourself all the time. I don't blame them a bit for wanting to go on a way corps only site where they don't have to feel like 2nd class posters just because they were corps.
I don't blame posters who feel they were abused by way corps for trying to get that off their chests, either, but there is something to be said for a partisan fellowship.
So, would it be possible to set up a forum for women who were sexually abused and those sympathetic to them, ie, a safe environment? Those with access could have their own passwords and no fear of "hard questions". Just a thought.
Edited by johniamLink 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.