I do remember (back in the early 1980's) local folks discussing who might be *unfaithful* to a spouse, and no -- they weren't talking *idolatry* when they were discussing the issue at hand. They were discussing who was and who was NOT faithful to their mariage commitment, because that seemed to impact the local fellowship. "Spiritual" never entered the discussion. It was black and white. Right or wrong.
Once the wholesale "indiscretions" of the BOD, etc, became public knowledge, the general *wrath* of the main believer populace was hard to contain. Everything that was taught to us (via tapes, teachings, etc., from New Knoxville), was the EXACT opposite of what was going on behind the scenes there where the teachings emanated from. Folks I knew here were outraged that the BOD, docvic, lcm, etc., could use those "glib" explanations to (seemingly) satisfy their own perversions, and rationalize them away to the rest of us, while mandating something else entirely.
There wasn't ONE person in my area (back in the early 1980's), who was comfortable with one married person getting together (sexually) with anyone other than their spouse. When the $h!t hit the fan about all the *sexual liberty* that was going on at hdqtrs among top leadership, and being *excused* because it wasn't what *the Word said*, there was a bunch of p!$$ed of folks here in town who felt that one thing got preached, and another thing got practiced.
Personally --- I think the POP was a *Gear* compositiion, written with NO witnesses, and while touting docvic as the author (with *Gear*) writing it all down, it was meant to bamboozle, pull the wool over the eyes of, and generally lead the *faithful* into another holding pen for the sheep meant for the slaughter. If you have any info different than that --- I'd be pleased to see it. *Gear* seems to have (at that time) manipulated things QUITE WELL so that he and his personal wishes were served admirably.
Personally --- I think the POP was a *Gear* compositiion, written with NO witnesses, and while touting docvic as the author (with *Gear*) writing it all down, it was meant to bamboozle, pull the wool over the eyes of, and generally lead the *faithful* into another holding pen for the sheep meant for the slaughter. If you have any info different than that --- I'd be pleased to see it. *Gear* seems to have (at that time) manipulated things QUITE WELL so that he and his personal wishes were served admirably.
Yeah, I remember the stuff about adultery in the scriptures being a reference to spiritual idolatry but I never for a minute realized they were trying to say that it superseded the meaning of sexual adultery and therefore made it OK. I thought they were saying it added another dimension to the already understood meaning. Of course, now we know it was just a lame excuse to rationalize unacceptable behavior. Wierwille had less "spiritual perception" than last year's chia pet. I still find it hard to believe how absolutely naive I must have been.
Personally --- I think the POP was a *Gear* compositiion, written with NO witnesses, and while touting docvic as the author (with *Gear*) writing it all down, it was meant to bamboozle, pull the wool over the eyes of, and generally lead the *faithful* into another holding pen for the sheep meant for the slaughter. If you have any info different than that --- I'd be pleased to see it. *Gear* seems to have (at that time) manipulated things QUITE WELL so that he and his personal wishes were served admirably.
Thank you DMiller for the history and feedback,
It sounds to me like as things that were going on within top leadership were becoming clear that they tried hard to cover it up.
I've believed the party line that I was taught about POP for a long time. Now it's clear that it is dishonest, disreputable, insincere, and very harmful. And the man who penned it is obviously no better. Your view of POP is more broad than the topic at hand, but then you remember more of those times than I ever heard before just recently.
I think that one of its main purposes was to cover-up the sexual abuse, but what you said about leading folks to another place is perhaps an even more insidious part of the purpose behind POP.
Still, cover-ups are commonplace nowadays when it comes to sexual stuff. If the pattern I've seen develope as of late holds true we will find that TWI top leadership did a crappy job of covering it up compared to their secular counterparts, we just need to be willing to examine it with cold hard reason and truth.
I think a comparison might be educational if any of you folks are more up to doing it than my knowledge of current events seems to be. Still, maybe some more in terms of comparison later from me, I just have to consider this some more.
Dear Waysider,
I think that if we can help folks see this stuff as it is going on today that we've done something good here. Some of that will of necessity be telling folks how we were fooled once IMO.
I know that many of you know more TWI history than I do.
I'm wondering if we have some folks on this site that could make a comparison between this TWI cover-up and other sexual cover-ups. I would like to see if we could develope a point by point comparison for our learning.
I, too, am of the opinion that part of the purpose of P.O.O.P. was to cover up the scandalous behaviors.. However, I think that was only a secondary motivation. I believe the real reason was to keep a ship bearing gold afloat as it traversed the stormy seas of scrutiny.
('nother words, don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg)
Or keep it afloat long enough to bail out with a new offshoot or something..
God forbid these numbnuts should have to actually WORK for a living..
or actually lift their lazy nose out of a bible or concordance long enough to IMPROVE themselves in some manner, like a college education, investment in some kind of career..
back in the early 1980's) local folks discussing who might be *unfaithful* to a spouse, and no -- they weren't talking *idolatry* when they were discussing the issue at hand. They were discussing who was and who was NOT faithful to their mariage commitment, because that seemed to impact the local fellowship. "Spiritual" never entered the discussion. It was black and white. Right or wrong.
Once the wholesale "indiscretions" of the BOD, etc, became public knowledge, the general *wrath* of the main believer populace was hard to contain. Everything that was taught to us (via tapes, teachings, etc., from New Knoxville), was the EXACT opposite of what was going on behind the scenes there where the teachings emanated from. Folks I knew here were outraged that the BOD, docvic, lcm, etc., could use those "glib" explanations to (seemingly) satisfy their own perversions, and rationalize them away to the rest of us, while mandating something else entirely.
There wasn't ONE person in my area (back in the early 1980's), who was comfortable with one married person getting together (sexually) with anyone other than their spouse. When the $h!t hit the fan about all the *sexual liberty* that was going on at hdqtrs among top leadership, and being *excused* because it wasn't what *the Word said*, there was a bunch of p!$$ed of folks here in town who felt that one thing got preached, and another thing got practiced.
Dave, you knew about the sexual predilections of the BoD in the early 80s? :blink: Or have I misunderstood your post?
Yeah, I remember the stuff about adultery in the scriptures being a reference to spiritual idolatry but I never for a minute realized they were trying to say that it superseded the meaning of sexual adultery and therefore made it OK. I thought they were saying it added another dimension to the already understood meaning. Of course, now we know it was just a lame excuse to rationalize unacceptable behavior.
That's what I understood too. I would've been more than appalled if I'd realized those guys couldn't keep their zippers up. I thought this website was libellous when I first read of the sexual allegations. Decent Christian guys just wouldn't do that, would they?! (Well, no, decent Christian men probably wouldn't (LOL). At least not as standard practice.)
As a American citizen I can think of several politicos that have been caught while attempting a cover-up concerning sexual allegations.
Bill Clinton's been mentioned here allready. It's fairly common knowledge that the Clinton's have paid off several women with whom Bill has fooled around with.
Gary Hart was a bozo that challenged the press to find dirt on him, and when they looked into it they found out that all the evidence they needed was a photo away at a yacht where he and his girlfriend was fooling around.
One that has allways impressed me with the reach of the rich and powerful (so to speak) was the Chapaquidick incident that Teddy Kennedy was involved in. It seems like the Kennedy family had so much pull that they silenced all inquiry in all the law enforcement agencies. Real deft handling of the incident, that is a standard in my mind for what the rich and powerful can do.
The TWI scandal IMO if not clouded by religious loyalty in TWI followers would seem more BOZO-like IMO by far than the Kennedy incident.
Dave, you knew about the sexual predilections of the BoD in the early 80s? :blink: Or have I misunderstood your post?
Hey there Twinky. No -- I did NOT know about all that was happening at headquarters.
What I was referring to was the actions of some in the area here, with the *blessing* of hdqtrs.
I learned the full scope of what was going on from a couple of friends of mine (both now deceased),
Mike and Jane Moody from Indiana, who passed on to me some *sensitive* stuff about it all.
What they passed on to me, was received with scepticism in this area (Minnesota).
But the actions of some of the locals here (at that time), seemed to augement the accusations.
It was a sad time. Everything that we thought was good, profitable, and worthy of teaching to others suddenly came crashing down like a house built on the shifting sand, or a house built of cards --- take your pick. :( The info passed on to me ultimately turned out to be true, and it invoked and accused the highest leaders in twi --- with NO apologies --- SINCE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE!!
Geer has a god. His name is docvic. He did eveything he could to protect his god.
The POP was a result of that. It was NEVER docvic's fault ---->>>
the *fault* lay on everyone else for (COUGH!!!) incorrect *believing*,
or whatever (convinient/ biblical) excuse they could come up with.
I remeber the first time I read the POP, and also the Adutery paper by John Schoenheit.
POP was *required* reading. Reading the Adultery Paper got you *possessed*.
What a Gawd-dammmed-screwed-up-head-up-the-butt-"ministry" twi is!!!!
They should be in the Guinness World Book of Records ----->>>
for the ULTIMATE freak show (now showing) on planet earth.
I hope I explained my earlier post to your satisfaction. :)
Recommended Posts
dmiller
Hey there Jeff.
I do remember (back in the early 1980's) local folks discussing who might be *unfaithful* to a spouse, and no -- they weren't talking *idolatry* when they were discussing the issue at hand. They were discussing who was and who was NOT faithful to their mariage commitment, because that seemed to impact the local fellowship. "Spiritual" never entered the discussion. It was black and white. Right or wrong.
Once the wholesale "indiscretions" of the BOD, etc, became public knowledge, the general *wrath* of the main believer populace was hard to contain. Everything that was taught to us (via tapes, teachings, etc., from New Knoxville), was the EXACT opposite of what was going on behind the scenes there where the teachings emanated from. Folks I knew here were outraged that the BOD, docvic, lcm, etc., could use those "glib" explanations to (seemingly) satisfy their own perversions, and rationalize them away to the rest of us, while mandating something else entirely.
There wasn't ONE person in my area (back in the early 1980's), who was comfortable with one married person getting together (sexually) with anyone other than their spouse. When the $h!t hit the fan about all the *sexual liberty* that was going on at hdqtrs among top leadership, and being *excused* because it wasn't what *the Word said*, there was a bunch of p!$$ed of folks here in town who felt that one thing got preached, and another thing got practiced.
Personally --- I think the POP was a *Gear* compositiion, written with NO witnesses, and while touting docvic as the author (with *Gear*) writing it all down, it was meant to bamboozle, pull the wool over the eyes of, and generally lead the *faithful* into another holding pen for the sheep meant for the slaughter. If you have any info different than that --- I'd be pleased to see it. *Gear* seems to have (at that time) manipulated things QUITE WELL so that he and his personal wishes were served admirably.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, I remember the stuff about adultery in the scriptures being a reference to spiritual idolatry but I never for a minute realized they were trying to say that it superseded the meaning of sexual adultery and therefore made it OK. I thought they were saying it added another dimension to the already understood meaning. Of course, now we know it was just a lame excuse to rationalize unacceptable behavior. Wierwille had less "spiritual perception" than last year's chia pet. I still find it hard to believe how absolutely naive I must have been.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thank you DMiller for the history and feedback,
It sounds to me like as things that were going on within top leadership were becoming clear that they tried hard to cover it up.
I've believed the party line that I was taught about POP for a long time. Now it's clear that it is dishonest, disreputable, insincere, and very harmful. And the man who penned it is obviously no better. Your view of POP is more broad than the topic at hand, but then you remember more of those times than I ever heard before just recently.
I think that one of its main purposes was to cover-up the sexual abuse, but what you said about leading folks to another place is perhaps an even more insidious part of the purpose behind POP.
Still, cover-ups are commonplace nowadays when it comes to sexual stuff. If the pattern I've seen develope as of late holds true we will find that TWI top leadership did a crappy job of covering it up compared to their secular counterparts, we just need to be willing to examine it with cold hard reason and truth.
I think a comparison might be educational if any of you folks are more up to doing it than my knowledge of current events seems to be. Still, maybe some more in terms of comparison later from me, I just have to consider this some more.
Dear Waysider,
I think that if we can help folks see this stuff as it is going on today that we've done something good here. Some of that will of necessity be telling folks how we were fooled once IMO.
(edited for grammar)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Comparison - sure thing, bubba!!! Here's a start:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I, too, am of the opinion that part of the purpose of P.O.O.P. was to cover up the scandalous behaviors.. However, I think that was only a secondary motivation. I believe the real reason was to keep a ship bearing gold afloat as it traversed the stormy seas of scrutiny.
('nother words, don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Or keep it afloat long enough to bail out with a new offshoot or something..
God forbid these numbnuts should have to actually WORK for a living..
or actually lift their lazy nose out of a bible or concordance long enough to IMPROVE themselves in some manner, like a college education, investment in some kind of career..
it's too hard. A hard cold world ya know..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Dave, you knew about the sexual predilections of the BoD in the early 80s? :blink: Or have I misunderstood your post?
That's what I understood too. I would've been more than appalled if I'd realized those guys couldn't keep their zippers up. I thought this website was libellous when I first read of the sexual allegations. Decent Christian guys just wouldn't do that, would they?! (Well, no, decent Christian men probably wouldn't (LOL). At least not as standard practice.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
As a American citizen I can think of several politicos that have been caught while attempting a cover-up concerning sexual allegations.
Bill Clinton's been mentioned here allready. It's fairly common knowledge that the Clinton's have paid off several women with whom Bill has fooled around with.
Gary Hart was a bozo that challenged the press to find dirt on him, and when they looked into it they found out that all the evidence they needed was a photo away at a yacht where he and his girlfriend was fooling around.
One that has allways impressed me with the reach of the rich and powerful (so to speak) was the Chapaquidick incident that Teddy Kennedy was involved in. It seems like the Kennedy family had so much pull that they silenced all inquiry in all the law enforcement agencies. Real deft handling of the incident, that is a standard in my mind for what the rich and powerful can do.
The TWI scandal IMO if not clouded by religious loyalty in TWI followers would seem more BOZO-like IMO by far than the Kennedy incident.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Twinky. No -- I did NOT know about all that was happening at headquarters.
What I was referring to was the actions of some in the area here, with the *blessing* of hdqtrs.
I learned the full scope of what was going on from a couple of friends of mine (both now deceased),
Mike and Jane Moody from Indiana, who passed on to me some *sensitive* stuff about it all.
What they passed on to me, was received with scepticism in this area (Minnesota).
But the actions of some of the locals here (at that time), seemed to augement the accusations.
It was a sad time. Everything that we thought was good, profitable, and worthy of teaching to others suddenly came crashing down like a house built on the shifting sand, or a house built of cards --- take your pick. :( The info passed on to me ultimately turned out to be true, and it invoked and accused the highest leaders in twi --- with NO apologies --- SINCE TRUTH NEEDS NO DEFENSE!!
Geer has a god. His name is docvic. He did eveything he could to protect his god.
The POP was a result of that. It was NEVER docvic's fault ---->>>
the *fault* lay on everyone else for (COUGH!!!) incorrect *believing*,
or whatever (convinient/ biblical) excuse they could come up with.
I remeber the first time I read the POP, and also the Adutery paper by John Schoenheit.
POP was *required* reading. Reading the Adultery Paper got you *possessed*.
What a Gawd-dammmed-screwed-up-head-up-the-butt-"ministry" twi is!!!!
They should be in the Guinness World Book of Records ----->>>
for the ULTIMATE freak show (now showing) on planet earth.
I hope I explained my earlier post to your satisfaction. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I wouldn't call them the "ultimate." Have you read church history?
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.