In the late 80s our area had some class or other going on over a weekend in our limb city. Most of the believers in our branch booked rooms for the weekend in the same hotel. I was married to what the way called an "unbelieving believer", who wasn't involved in the way at all.
A male believer and I had gotten to be really close friends and spent a lot of our free time at the rock together. We exchanged platonic back and neck rubs and never ever crossed any boundaries between us. We were both always aware that I was a married lady... If this guy had lived in my town, he and my then-husband would have been great buddies.
This guy and I decided to share a room to cut down on our expenses. My husband knew all about this plan and trusted me completely. He also enjoyed the idea of me not having to pay full room price by myself. We had no other "single" ladies from our area for me to room with.
When our limb coordinator's wife and I were discussing the weekend about a week before the event, she hit the roof to hear that this guy and I were going to share a room for the weekend. She gave me all sorts of lecture about lest the ministry be blamed and when I said, but MY HUSBAND approves with this plan, so why would anyone else have an issue - she quoted that verse about avoiding the appearance of evil... She basically ordered me not to share a room with this man, my friend.
We wound up with adjoining rooms, but dang! Here the leadership was carrying on like they were and all we two were trying to do was save a buck and enjoy a weekend together - platonic and bible study oriented.
It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else.
I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together.
Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine.
When I joined up, I was serious about maintaining good morals, and
saw any type of "fooling around" as contradicting that.
I found it amazing that vpw could make claims that Christians should be
faithful in marriage and so on-when he PERSONALLY was doing the opposite,
and had composed personal doctrines that made it acceptable to him.
Even as a youth, I knew if I sinned that God didn't like it, and I didn't try to
pass that one off.
I believe you have addressed a key element of the TWI doctrinal dichotomy, WordWolf.
In CF&S, VP was teaching about how intercourse is "always a spiritual event" and how consumation is what really defines a marriage in God's eyes. Yet, at the very same time, he was indulging in cavalier, casual sex behind closed doors and out of view.
By his own definition, he was a polygamist, at the very least. Now, maybe this abstinence centered philosophy is good advise for youngsters who are not yet sexually active but to try to retrofit it to apply to adults seems a bit ludicrous. Perhaps even damaging.
And there is the credibility problem as well.
If he was this multifaceted in his observance of this particular point, what about other so called "spiritual matters"?
Did he really SIT for hours on end, study the Word incessantly for days at a time? The list is endless, but, for now, I thought I would try to limit it to this one particular item and see how it affected other people's lives.
hello fellow greasespotters!............this thread seems to have meandered a bit, as do many threads which involve the examination of different aspects of the life and "ministry" of "the victoid", as doojable refers to vic...........trying to "make sense" out of vic's "doctrines" is difficult, since EVERY ONE OF THEM was perverted by vic's personal psychopathologies, imho...........therefore, when one attempts to logically unravel the myriad twists and turns of vic's "doctrines", it is often difficult, if possible at all, because vic's "teachings" concerning the broad topic of "the christian family and sex", were always subject to any change necessary, "by revelation", in order for vic to successfully "conquer and bed" his current victim..........
hence, oakspear's observations, "It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else. I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together. Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine."................are indeed, experientially accurate,
as a highly skilled , sociopathic, serial sexual predator, vic was practiced in the "art" of figuring out who his optimal "targets" would be, and just as practiced at finding those other males whose own personal psychopathologies were akin to vic's with the accompanying misogyny............those who were disturbed enough to adopt vic's perversions as their own were continually fed the "scraps from the master's table" as their "reward" for loyalty, and thus, their own psychopathological "twists and turns" governed the doctrines of convenience promoted within and among their particular sphere of influence.........of course, vic's disgusting misuse of personal information coerced from his "kids" as in the "from birth to the corps" essays required from all corps applicants, must not be underestimated..........with the help of various corps coordinators, particularly those at the root locales, the amount of confidential information vic had available to him for the effective "targeting" of potential cohorts and concubines was truly astounding..........and, unfortunately, put to good use!
waysider posted, in response to wordwolf's last post on this thread. "I believe you have addressed a key element of the TWI doctrinal dichotomy, WordWolf. In CF&S, VP was teaching about how intercourse is "always a spiritual event" and how consumation is what really defines a marriage in God's eyes. Yet, at the very same time, he was indulging in cavalier, casual sex behind closed doors and out of view.By his own definition, he was a polygamist, at the very least."............imho, polygamy was less the case than was INCEST!...............since vic's victims were all his "sisters in christ", and many were his "kids" "spiritually", (i.e."daughters" of their "father-in-the-word"), INCEST is the more accurate term to accurately describe the depravity of his sexual predation of twi followers...........this is especially understandable when one considers the impact INCEST had on vic personally, both as victim and perpetrator, in his own "earthly" family!........and, to you vic apologists out there, the "proof" you will demand is available from vic's own lips regarding his role as perpetrator, and you're free to do your own "research" regarding his experiences as an incest victim........the "evidence" was volunteered to me by two most unexpected yet equally reliable sources!.........it was not information which i personally sought out............and, because you will not accept it as fact regardless of the source, i will not waste my time revealing those sources here..........i refuse to "cast my pearls before swine" in such matters, and such extortion of information based on the demands of your willful ignorance and denial of vic's psychopathologies is completely inappropriate, imo.............especially since you have repeatedly proven your unswerving commitment to revel in that ignorance and denial regardless of the veracity of "eyewitness" accounts presented in numerous venues!
so, the correct terminology regarding the underlying perversion of vic's serial sexual predation of his "spiritual sisters and daughters" is INCEST, not merely "polygamy", since there was never anything close to resembling a "spiritual marriage" commitment between vic and his victims...............he was simply a willing slave to his own depraved perversions, committed only to the compulsive gratification of his own lusts, with no genuine concern or "commitment" of any kind toward his victims, imho!...............want some "evidence"??..........just listen to the last 5 minutes of kristen skedgell's second interview with pawtucket here on greasespot radio!...................peace.
CF&S, VP was teaching about how intercourse is "always a spiritual event" and how consumation is what really defines a marriage in God's eyes. Yet, at the very same time, he was indulging in cavalier, casual sex behind closed doors and out of view.By his own definition, he was a polygamist, at the very least."............imho, polygamy was less the case than was INCEST!...............since vic's victims were all his "sisters in christ", and many were his "kids" "spiritually", (i.e."daughters" of their "father-in-the-word"), INCEST is the more accurate term to accurately describe the depravity of his sexual predation of twi followers...........
Someone gets me. I'm doing to do a happy dance.
Okay, done.
ps. Happy Father's Day you horrible Father in the Word
"INCEST is the more accurate term to accurately describe the depravity of his sexual predation of twi followers...........this is especially understandable when one considers the impact INCEST had on vic personally, both as victim and perpetrator, in his own "earthly" family!........and, to you vic apologists out there, the "proof" you will demand is available from vic's own lips regarding his role as perpetrator, and you're free to do your own "research" regarding his experiences as an incest victim........the "evidence" was volunteered to me by two most unexpected yet equally reliable sources!...."
The con was so good.
He fooled us all....in reality he was so far from the image he projected.
I still struggle coming to grips with how low and disgusting he really was...because of the cunning, precision of his con, he purposely chose to project an image of himself that was lightyears away from the vile slime he truely was, I was oblivious to it.
It is amazing how he allowed himself to sink so low.
He must have been conditioned from a child on how to be, on the outside, a good front, no wonder the con was so good by the time we came along.
So does anyone else remember LCM's DTA class? He talked about not having sex outside of marrige, and said something like "so what happens if your not married and 25?" then he laughed. I don't remember the quote exactly, but it seemed like he was suggesting that celibacy was more of a guidline, or a "gathering corn or the sabbath" sort of thing.
Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class.
But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."
The "believing family" class I took was video. He said that it was the father's decision as head of the household, when his child was mature enough to be sexually active.
My jaw dropped to my toes. I still to this day cannot picture THAT conversation between father and child.
Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class.
But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."
In other words, the SOB was pretty much clueless in regard to finding an appropriate answer in the Bible, the very book he supposedly had an inside track on, an understanding that was supposedly unequaled in the world.
The teaching on this one single, simple yet immeasurably important subject, was all over the map, so to speak.
If it was OK for some to not observe celibacy, did that nullify the supposed "spiritual nature" of the act that VPW claimed was "always" a spiritual event? Which times were spiritual and which were not if that was the case? And I remember, also, VeePee stated, in CF&S, that it was impossible for a person to experience the true spiritual nature of orgasm without intercourse. If two unmarried people "consummated" their relationship, should they therefore consider themselves "married" in God's eyes? Were they now somehow committed to each other by some "spiritual" bond? If they were, what was the expectation of honoring that bond?
Well, I guess if one considers these questions from a strictly secular, societal standpoint, the answers aren't so difficult to find.
But we were supposed to be living in a special, spiritually aware society that had some sort of esoteric standard to maintain.
And what if one were to break that bond?(as two single people simply going their own ways) What would be the consequence if any?
Yeah, this stuff seams pretty silly in retrospect but it had a major impact on how people conducted themselves back then.
In Fellow Laborers, it could mean the difference between getting tossed out in the middle of the night (if caught) or being allowed to stay. That's a pretty serious consequence to ponder.
Now, I remember being told that it was ok as long as you WEREN'T with a believer (as long as it was "just getting your need met") because it could cause divisions in the household...
My personal favorite, though, was when a friend of mine was having surgery and her boyfriend couldn't stay in the house with her to take care of her afterwards because it had "the appearance of evil"...
Like they were going to be messing around after major surgery !
The new class they released a couple of years ago is completely puritanical when it comes to sex... going so far as to say that a man shouldn't touch a woman except in places where her soccer uniform (?) wouldn't cover.
I think it was guidelines for teens, but the image is just so darn WEIRD.
It happened the other day. I had "The Talk" with my son.
He was heading out the door for a Bible study with some new friends.
"Hey, pal. Can we talk?"
"Dad, I gotta meet the guys."
"I know, I know. It'll just be a minute."
We sat down at the breakfast table. I looked at him tapping his feet impatiently and saw myself at fifteen.
Oh boy, wish I had jotted down an outline.
"You see son, religious groups are made differently. You have two different kinds."
"Dad," he interrupted, "are you going to talk to me about sects?"
The boy had caught his old man off guard.
"Well … yes."
"Mom already talked to me about this."
"She did."
"Yeah."
That Carol. Always on top of things.
I meant to have "The Talk" years ago, but it was never the right time. To be perfectly honest, I was waiting for him to broach the subject with the typical, child-like question "Where do heresies come from?"
"Did she talk to you about certain groups, like the International Church of Christ? Because those people only have one thing on their minds. They'll make you feel special, but they just want to get you in the water."
"Daaad."
"Do you have protection?"
His cheeks reddened and he nodded.
"What kind."
He held out his Student Bible.
"N.I.V."
"Do you know how to use it?"
"Yeah."
I put my hand on his shoulder.
"Son, unsafe sects can ruin a man. I know it's all very new and exciting, but it's better to wait for the real thing. One day you'll find the right group of folks to worship with, believe me."
"Dad, I know this stuff already. If someone asks me about sects, I'll just say 'I'm not that kind of a believer.'"
"But what if some really nice folks pull out a few verses that makes it seem like you have to have some special knowledge for salvation?"
"I'll just say 'know means no.'"
I felt a load lifted off my heart and shoulders.
"Good boy. I'm proud of you, son. Just remember, if you ever have any questions, just ask me. Okay?"
"Okay. Can I go now?"
"Sure."
He was halfway out the door when he turned back around.
"There was one thing. These new guys are really into evangelism. After I graduate, I'm thinking about taking a missionary position." Oh boy.
When he was expounding In CF&S about how it was a "spiritual event" and all the other mumbo-jumbo he spouted, I think he was really priming his future victims. When he subsequently told young women it would heal them, it made perfect sense in light of his CF&S line of reason. Here they are, being told it will heal them and they have already accepted it to be a "spiritual event". Carry that just one step farther and you can understand why a "spiritual event" with the self implied Man Of God for The World would take on a whole new meaning. It's not merely sex with some old horny geezer, it's a 'spiritual connection" to God via the man who knows God like no one has known him for thousands of years. Whether it was intentional or subconscious, I think the guy operated in an incremental fashion. Step by step, he drew people closer and closer to the snare until it was too late. Then he pounced. He was one sick puppy.
growing up in TWI i didn't know what to think. my mom and dad said wait till marriage. they were way corps ppl, so i figured they were smart...
then other "higher ranking" way co. ppl told me pre-marital sex was fine, and not only COULD i do it, i SHOULD be doing it, because "you need to learn how to please a woman"
so i got guilted from one side and pressured from the other.
when i acted conservative and followed my parents advice i would get in trouble for not being loving enough... when i would follow the other advice i would get in trouble for being too forward...
now as an adult, I'm still trying to figure out what's right and wrong.
Post TWI, I've tried it both ways: If im conservative with a girl, she gets insecure, and that sucks... If I give the girl what she wants, she expects me to call her every day, and return text messages every 30 minutes.. or else she gets mad and insecure...
So, i have decided that my parents were right... im staying away from sex till im married... not cuz of religion or guilt... but because its the best way to treat a lady... tell her right up front "I'm waiting till marriage" if she don't like it,,,, move on immediately, if she respects it,,, i may have found a good one.
Being a single adult and in the way, the celibacy thing was confusing. If I'm remembering correctly in the CF&S class I remember statement like "...it's better to go home hot and bothered than sorry and satisfied..." then later in the session hear "...if you do it, don't pull out..." (excuse my bluntness but I think that how VPW said it). Then of course was LCM class BF.
Anyway, I remember (when I was newbie) my girlfriend (who was corp) and I would occasionally have sex and she would be filled with so much guilt the next day (or sometime days later) and I would feel hurt because she felt so bad (even though it was her ideal most of the time). As time went on she felt less guilty about it but it was alway kind of a thing for her.
On the flip side, years later trying to observe the celibacy thing but my believer girlfriend at that time, thought I was from planet "Mombo". It became a real source of tension.
Leaderships spin on it would be completely different depending who I was talking to (I remember actually being reproof for not have sex). Believe it or not, this Corp leadership told me "...who did I think I was to elevate one sin above another..." and he went on for about half an hour on it (mostly on how screwed up I was). I should have known I was being set up, when he asked me if I was having sex with my current girlfriend (why, I took it on the chin with people like that back then is beyond me).
Throughout my time with TWI (80s & 90s), I went back and forth on the celibacy thing but it seem no matter which side I choose it was rough.
Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class.
But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."
Why would he think that anyway??? Uhhh.....I do believe the Lord Jesus managed quite nicely! And please no one say that "of course, He was God!" It is truly available....but one must be called to it and not just a casual stroll in the meadow. Besides which, those who took Nazarite vows often abstained from it as well. Also, please don't bring up Samson, lol. He broke every Nazarite vow he made.
Recommended Posts
excathedra
At 21, I wouldn't expect you to be celibate, but I'm glad you weren't a perverted psyhco bastud
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bowtwi
In the late 80s our area had some class or other going on over a weekend in our limb city. Most of the believers in our branch booked rooms for the weekend in the same hotel. I was married to what the way called an "unbelieving believer", who wasn't involved in the way at all.
A male believer and I had gotten to be really close friends and spent a lot of our free time at the rock together. We exchanged platonic back and neck rubs and never ever crossed any boundaries between us. We were both always aware that I was a married lady... If this guy had lived in my town, he and my then-husband would have been great buddies.
This guy and I decided to share a room to cut down on our expenses. My husband knew all about this plan and trusted me completely. He also enjoyed the idea of me not having to pay full room price by myself. We had no other "single" ladies from our area for me to room with.
When our limb coordinator's wife and I were discussing the weekend about a week before the event, she hit the roof to hear that this guy and I were going to share a room for the weekend. She gave me all sorts of lecture about lest the ministry be blamed and when I said, but MY HUSBAND approves with this plan, so why would anyone else have an issue - she quoted that verse about avoiding the appearance of evil... She basically ordered me not to share a room with this man, my friend.
We wound up with adjoining rooms, but dang! Here the leadership was carrying on like they were and all we two were trying to do was save a buck and enjoy a weekend together - platonic and bible study oriented.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
I don't know where my reply went off to
What I said was
BIG SNORT goes here
"appearance of evil"
BIGGER SNORT goes here
thank you for letting me share
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You two crack me up
BIG HUG goes here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else.
I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together.
Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
ridiculous waste of my youth!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When I joined up, I was serious about maintaining good morals, and
saw any type of "fooling around" as contradicting that.
I found it amazing that vpw could make claims that Christians should be
faithful in marriage and so on-when he PERSONALLY was doing the opposite,
and had composed personal doctrines that made it acceptable to him.
Even as a youth, I knew if I sinned that God didn't like it, and I didn't try to
pass that one off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I believe you have addressed a key element of the TWI doctrinal dichotomy, WordWolf.
In CF&S, VP was teaching about how intercourse is "always a spiritual event" and how consumation is what really defines a marriage in God's eyes. Yet, at the very same time, he was indulging in cavalier, casual sex behind closed doors and out of view.
By his own definition, he was a polygamist, at the very least. Now, maybe this abstinence centered philosophy is good advise for youngsters who are not yet sexually active but to try to retrofit it to apply to adults seems a bit ludicrous. Perhaps even damaging.
And there is the credibility problem as well.
If he was this multifaceted in his observance of this particular point, what about other so called "spiritual matters"?
Did he really SIT for hours on end, study the Word incessantly for days at a time? The list is endless, but, for now, I thought I would try to limit it to this one particular item and see how it affected other people's lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
hello fellow greasespotters!............this thread seems to have meandered a bit, as do many threads which involve the examination of different aspects of the life and "ministry" of "the victoid", as doojable refers to vic...........trying to "make sense" out of vic's "doctrines" is difficult, since EVERY ONE OF THEM was perverted by vic's personal psychopathologies, imho...........therefore, when one attempts to logically unravel the myriad twists and turns of vic's "doctrines", it is often difficult, if possible at all, because vic's "teachings" concerning the broad topic of "the christian family and sex", were always subject to any change necessary, "by revelation", in order for vic to successfully "conquer and bed" his current victim..........
hence, oakspear's observations, "It seemed to me what was considered "off the Word" when it came to sex had more to do with the personal standards of local leadership than anything else. I remember many scenarios: sex was okay, but only with believers and use birth control; sex was never okay before marriage; sex before marriage was okay, but no living together. Just when you thought you had it figured out, leadership changed and so did the doctrine."................are indeed, experientially accurate,
as a highly skilled , sociopathic, serial sexual predator, vic was practiced in the "art" of figuring out who his optimal "targets" would be, and just as practiced at finding those other males whose own personal psychopathologies were akin to vic's with the accompanying misogyny............those who were disturbed enough to adopt vic's perversions as their own were continually fed the "scraps from the master's table" as their "reward" for loyalty, and thus, their own psychopathological "twists and turns" governed the doctrines of convenience promoted within and among their particular sphere of influence.........of course, vic's disgusting misuse of personal information coerced from his "kids" as in the "from birth to the corps" essays required from all corps applicants, must not be underestimated..........with the help of various corps coordinators, particularly those at the root locales, the amount of confidential information vic had available to him for the effective "targeting" of potential cohorts and concubines was truly astounding..........and, unfortunately, put to good use!
waysider posted, in response to wordwolf's last post on this thread. "I believe you have addressed a key element of the TWI doctrinal dichotomy, WordWolf. In CF&S, VP was teaching about how intercourse is "always a spiritual event" and how consumation is what really defines a marriage in God's eyes. Yet, at the very same time, he was indulging in cavalier, casual sex behind closed doors and out of view.By his own definition, he was a polygamist, at the very least."............imho, polygamy was less the case than was INCEST!...............since vic's victims were all his "sisters in christ", and many were his "kids" "spiritually", (i.e."daughters" of their "father-in-the-word"), INCEST is the more accurate term to accurately describe the depravity of his sexual predation of twi followers...........this is especially understandable when one considers the impact INCEST had on vic personally, both as victim and perpetrator, in his own "earthly" family!........and, to you vic apologists out there, the "proof" you will demand is available from vic's own lips regarding his role as perpetrator, and you're free to do your own "research" regarding his experiences as an incest victim........the "evidence" was volunteered to me by two most unexpected yet equally reliable sources!.........it was not information which i personally sought out............and, because you will not accept it as fact regardless of the source, i will not waste my time revealing those sources here..........i refuse to "cast my pearls before swine" in such matters, and such extortion of information based on the demands of your willful ignorance and denial of vic's psychopathologies is completely inappropriate, imo.............especially since you have repeatedly proven your unswerving commitment to revel in that ignorance and denial regardless of the veracity of "eyewitness" accounts presented in numerous venues!
so, the correct terminology regarding the underlying perversion of vic's serial sexual predation of his "spiritual sisters and daughters" is INCEST, not merely "polygamy", since there was never anything close to resembling a "spiritual marriage" commitment between vic and his victims...............he was simply a willing slave to his own depraved perversions, committed only to the compulsive gratification of his own lusts, with no genuine concern or "commitment" of any kind toward his victims, imho!...............want some "evidence"??..........just listen to the last 5 minutes of kristen skedgell's second interview with pawtucket here on greasespot radio!...................peace.
Edited by Don'tWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Someone gets me. I'm doing to do a happy dance.
Okay, done.
ps. Happy Father's Day you horrible Father in the Word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
everytime i think that my opinion of vpw can't get any lower, someone proves me wrong...
the issue of incest has crossed my mind before...
who does these kinds of things?
only the lowest, most depraved, most vile members of society...
everything that vpw "taught" is suspect due to his totally corrupt and unsound mind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
"INCEST is the more accurate term to accurately describe the depravity of his sexual predation of twi followers...........this is especially understandable when one considers the impact INCEST had on vic personally, both as victim and perpetrator, in his own "earthly" family!........and, to you vic apologists out there, the "proof" you will demand is available from vic's own lips regarding his role as perpetrator, and you're free to do your own "research" regarding his experiences as an incest victim........the "evidence" was volunteered to me by two most unexpected yet equally reliable sources!...."
The con was so good.
He fooled us all....in reality he was so far from the image he projected.
I still struggle coming to grips with how low and disgusting he really was...because of the cunning, precision of his con, he purposely chose to project an image of himself that was lightyears away from the vile slime he truely was, I was oblivious to it.
It is amazing how he allowed himself to sink so low.
He must have been conditioned from a child on how to be, on the outside, a good front, no wonder the con was so good by the time we came along.
Edited by now I seeLink to comment
Share on other sites
nick
So does anyone else remember LCM's DTA class? He talked about not having sex outside of marrige, and said something like "so what happens if your not married and 25?" then he laughed. I don't remember the quote exactly, but it seemed like he was suggesting that celibacy was more of a guidline, or a "gathering corn or the sabbath" sort of thing.
Anyone know what I'm half remembering here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Was that in DTA? I thought it was in his audio Believers' Family Class.
But I remember the discussion. He implied that it was impossible for a grown man to be celibate. "What's he gonna do with that thing?" was what I remember him saying. He also said that young adults should consult with their parents as to pre-marital sex: "Children obey your parents in the Lord..."
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
The "believing family" class I took was video. He said that it was the father's decision as head of the household, when his child was mature enough to be sexually active.
My jaw dropped to my toes. I still to this day cannot picture THAT conversation between father and child.
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In other words, the SOB was pretty much clueless in regard to finding an appropriate answer in the Bible, the very book he supposedly had an inside track on, an understanding that was supposedly unequaled in the world.
The teaching on this one single, simple yet immeasurably important subject, was all over the map, so to speak.
If it was OK for some to not observe celibacy, did that nullify the supposed "spiritual nature" of the act that VPW claimed was "always" a spiritual event? Which times were spiritual and which were not if that was the case? And I remember, also, VeePee stated, in CF&S, that it was impossible for a person to experience the true spiritual nature of orgasm without intercourse. If two unmarried people "consummated" their relationship, should they therefore consider themselves "married" in God's eyes? Were they now somehow committed to each other by some "spiritual" bond? If they were, what was the expectation of honoring that bond?
Well, I guess if one considers these questions from a strictly secular, societal standpoint, the answers aren't so difficult to find.
But we were supposed to be living in a special, spiritually aware society that had some sort of esoteric standard to maintain.
And what if one were to break that bond?(as two single people simply going their own ways) What would be the consequence if any?
Yeah, this stuff seams pretty silly in retrospect but it had a major impact on how people conducted themselves back then.
In Fellow Laborers, it could mean the difference between getting tossed out in the middle of the night (if caught) or being allowed to stay. That's a pretty serious consequence to ponder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
Now, I remember being told that it was ok as long as you WEREN'T with a believer (as long as it was "just getting your need met") because it could cause divisions in the household...
My personal favorite, though, was when a friend of mine was having surgery and her boyfriend couldn't stay in the house with her to take care of her afterwards because it had "the appearance of evil"...
Like they were going to be messing around after major surgery !
The new class they released a couple of years ago is completely puritanical when it comes to sex... going so far as to say that a man shouldn't touch a woman except in places where her soccer uniform (?) wouldn't cover.
I think it was guidelines for teens, but the image is just so darn WEIRD.
(edited because I hit post before I meant to.)
Edited by JavaJaneLink to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
It happened the other day. I had "The Talk" with my son.
He was heading out the door for a Bible study with some new friends.
"Hey, pal. Can we talk?"
"Dad, I gotta meet the guys."
"I know, I know. It'll just be a minute."
We sat down at the breakfast table. I looked at him tapping his feet impatiently and saw myself at fifteen.
Oh boy, wish I had jotted down an outline.
"You see son, religious groups are made differently. You have two different kinds."
"Dad," he interrupted, "are you going to talk to me about sects?"
The boy had caught his old man off guard.
"Well … yes."
"Mom already talked to me about this."
"She did."
"Yeah."
That Carol. Always on top of things.
I meant to have "The Talk" years ago, but it was never the right time. To be perfectly honest, I was waiting for him to broach the subject with the typical, child-like question "Where do heresies come from?"
"Did she talk to you about certain groups, like the International Church of Christ? Because those people only have one thing on their minds. They'll make you feel special, but they just want to get you in the water."
"Daaad."
"Do you have protection?"
His cheeks reddened and he nodded.
"What kind."
He held out his Student Bible.
"N.I.V."
"Do you know how to use it?"
"Yeah."
I put my hand on his shoulder.
"Son, unsafe sects can ruin a man. I know it's all very new and exciting, but it's better to wait for the real thing. One day you'll find the right group of folks to worship with, believe me."
"Dad, I know this stuff already. If someone asks me about sects, I'll just say 'I'm not that kind of a believer.'"
"But what if some really nice folks pull out a few verses that makes it seem like you have to have some special knowledge for salvation?"
"I'll just say 'know means no.'"
I felt a load lifted off my heart and shoulders.
"Good boy. I'm proud of you, son. Just remember, if you ever have any questions, just ask me. Okay?"
"Okay. Can I go now?"
"Sure."
He was halfway out the door when he turned back around.
"There was one thing. These new guys are really into evangelism. After I graduate, I'm thinking about taking a missionary position." Oh boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here's some other stuff that has crossed my mind.
When he was expounding In CF&S about how it was a "spiritual event" and all the other mumbo-jumbo he spouted, I think he was really priming his future victims. When he subsequently told young women it would heal them, it made perfect sense in light of his CF&S line of reason. Here they are, being told it will heal them and they have already accepted it to be a "spiritual event". Carry that just one step farther and you can understand why a "spiritual event" with the self implied Man Of God for The World would take on a whole new meaning. It's not merely sex with some old horny geezer, it's a 'spiritual connection" to God via the man who knows God like no one has known him for thousands of years. Whether it was intentional or subconscious, I think the guy operated in an incremental fashion. Step by step, he drew people closer and closer to the snare until it was too late. Then he pounced. He was one sick puppy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
sex is so annoying...
growing up in TWI i didn't know what to think. my mom and dad said wait till marriage. they were way corps ppl, so i figured they were smart...
then other "higher ranking" way co. ppl told me pre-marital sex was fine, and not only COULD i do it, i SHOULD be doing it, because "you need to learn how to please a woman"
so i got guilted from one side and pressured from the other.
when i acted conservative and followed my parents advice i would get in trouble for not being loving enough... when i would follow the other advice i would get in trouble for being too forward...
now as an adult, I'm still trying to figure out what's right and wrong.
Post TWI, I've tried it both ways: If im conservative with a girl, she gets insecure, and that sucks... If I give the girl what she wants, she expects me to call her every day, and return text messages every 30 minutes.. or else she gets mad and insecure...
So, i have decided that my parents were right... im staying away from sex till im married... not cuz of religion or guilt... but because its the best way to treat a lady... tell her right up front "I'm waiting till marriage" if she don't like it,,,, move on immediately, if she respects it,,, i may have found a good one.
i hope this was still on subject...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Absolutely!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fooledagainII
Being a single adult and in the way, the celibacy thing was confusing. If I'm remembering correctly in the CF&S class I remember statement like "...it's better to go home hot and bothered than sorry and satisfied..." then later in the session hear "...if you do it, don't pull out..." (excuse my bluntness but I think that how VPW said it). Then of course was LCM class BF.
Anyway, I remember (when I was newbie) my girlfriend (who was corp) and I would occasionally have sex and she would be filled with so much guilt the next day (or sometime days later) and I would feel hurt because she felt so bad (even though it was her ideal most of the time). As time went on she felt less guilty about it but it was alway kind of a thing for her.
On the flip side, years later trying to observe the celibacy thing but my believer girlfriend at that time, thought I was from planet "Mombo". It became a real source of tension.
Leaderships spin on it would be completely different depending who I was talking to (I remember actually being reproof for not have sex). Believe it or not, this Corp leadership told me "...who did I think I was to elevate one sin above another..." and he went on for about half an hour on it (mostly on how screwed up I was). I should have known I was being set up, when he asked me if I was having sex with my current girlfriend (why, I took it on the chin with people like that back then is beyond me).
Throughout my time with TWI (80s & 90s), I went back and forth on the celibacy thing but it seem no matter which side I choose it was rough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Why would he think that anyway??? Uhhh.....I do believe the Lord Jesus managed quite nicely! And please no one say that "of course, He was God!" It is truly available....but one must be called to it and not just a casual stroll in the meadow. Besides which, those who took Nazarite vows often abstained from it as well. Also, please don't bring up Samson, lol. He broke every Nazarite vow he made.
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.