Exy, Theres a thread "We are not going to get along", it opens by discussing "Big Leaguers" with extensive debating skills and big reputations overriding the opinions of small fry / newbie posters.
Hi exy. Nust looking here I see talk about booting VPW apologists, Apologists offending those who are opening up for the first time with personal testimonies, etc.
It appears to be something of a board issue at the moment.
So Im commenting on the side of everyones having the right to post.
If this site is predominantly a recovery site for ex members, I would just restrict the apologists from expressing their Weirwille defences in specific rooms.
I agree with you 100% in this regard. I'd like to add, we cannot expect that someone fresh out of TWI is going to come here having already shed themselves of everything they believed while in TWI. People who are newly out, in particular, are going to be "pro" at least to some degree.
I agree with you 100% in this regard. I'd like to add, we cannot expect that someone fresh out of TWI is going to come here having already shed themselves of everything they believed while in TWI. People who are newly out, in particular, are going to be "pro" at least to some degree.
People who are newly out, in particular, are going to be "pro" at least to some degree.
They are indeed. By piling onto such ones decrying their opinions the problem is they may return to the fold of the church.
But there are hard core apologists here yes? Posters who continually post in support of Weirwille and disrupt the general harmony and purpose of the board- Recovery and Support.
The simplest course, naturally, would be to ignore the barbs of these ones, but that is not poster nature is it.
Restrict their permission to post their Pro cult tripe in specific rooms.
The vast majority here are exited the church and in recovery from the abusive system. So their needs take precedence.
Especially the needs of freedom to discuss their issues without being blasted by some Pro Wierwillian apologist who might very well be an active member, and deliberate inciter, re the cult they are in recovery from.
Now there's an interesting situation, no? He was found innocent in criminal court, yet he was convicted in civil court. So, can we refer to him as guilty of murder???? Quite a dilemna, no?
And why? Why was he found innocent in one and guilty in another? Well, lets see, there's diffents standards of proof between the two for starters. But there were also different judges, different attorneys presenting the evidence against him, and probably there was evidence allowed and disallowed on one court and not the other.
But, even if OJ had never been tried in civil court, I would still be free to opinine that he was guilty. Not only that, but here at the cafe, I could be free to post, "OJ is a murderer who should not be free to walk the streets." And I could post it without adding "alleged" or "IMO".
Indeed, his former in-laws could come here and do the same. Now, you are free to believe otherwise, but do you think it would really be a kindness to his in-laws to correct their use of the English language by telling them they should add "IMO" or "alleged?"
Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
WD, you completely avoided the latter part of my question. If the in-laws referred to OJ as a murder, would you debate proper English/terminology with them? Would you correct them and say "alleged murderer" or "in your opinion murderer?"
Funny how it goes to court all the time eh? Hey WD - know anything about a fellow named Adolph Hitler? He went to trial once - pre-Nazi Germany - in the somewhat famed beer hall putsch trials. He was convicted and found guilty - barely. He indeed was never tried post WWII because he was dead - suicide. Since he was dead there was no way to convict - sounds just like your illogic - do you deny that Hitler was a global criminal? While Wierwille was nothing on the scale of Hitler - your illogic still fails the same way. Hitler committed crimes against humanity on a global scale - Wierwille committed them on a corn-field scale - however the crime is the crime.
OH YEAH WD - ALL THAT ARE LEFT TO "CONVICT" Hitler are EYEWITNESSES - with freaking tatoos on their arms - most of whom will be dead in a few years anyway - so WTF - I guess we can put Hitler to a polite sleep as well just like you want to put Wierwille down with no conviction. Oh MY I forgot something - Hitler didn't kill all of those people - HE JUST STARTED THE ORGANIZATION THAT LED TO IT AND PERPETUATED IT AS BEST THEY COULD.
You WD should be wearing a freaking swastika and chanting Sieg Heil - and that is your composite worth - nothing but a Nazi
WD - you really can't defend against this logic.
And regarding O.J. Simpson - you have a real problem. He was found guilty in at least one court. Are you implying that having the best defense money can buy proves innocence?
I'd also like to see how you answer Abi's question. Would you push the issue with Nicole Brown Simpson's family? What about Ron Goldman's family?
You may know some that have been falsely accused and have been punished - but that is not enough to justify your actions on this board.
And if I may beat a dead horse a bit longer (are these Wierwille sycophants really worth this much effort? One wonders...)
when an eyewitness (and VICTIM!) of a crime tells what happened to them, it's not their "opinion" fer crissake, it's their TESTIMONY! You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it's not a freaking "opinion"!
And if I may beat a dead horse a bit longer (are these Wierwille sycophants really worth this much effort? One wonders...)
when an eyewitness (and VICTIM!) of a crime tells what happened to them, it's not their "opinion" fer crissake, it's their TESTIMONY! You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it's not a freaking "opinion"!
Grow the fark up already, boys...
thanks, George, you beat me to it, my sentiments, "opinion", non-legally binding testimony, call it what you will... exactly
And regarding O.J. Simpson - ... He was found guilty in at least one court....
Excellent point Dooj...
Not ONLY that, but long time LA County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder the paperback edition was published in February of this year.
This seems to say that a real live PROSECUTOR can call someone a MURDERER, not simply an ALLEGED murderer, even when a criminal jury does not return a verdict of guilty.
That would seem to put to rest that fool's claim about wierwille... the fool that introduced THIS particular MURDERER as the example of his point that we should not say wierwille is guilty of raping young women.
WD, you completely avoided the latter part of my question. If the in-laws referred to OJ as a murder, would you debate proper English/terminology with them? Would you correct them and say "alleged murderer" or "in your opinion murderer?"
Yes I would tell them the same, in a public forum it is wrong to refer to someone as guilty of a crime unless they have been assigned such guilt by due process. Personal opinions are acceptable of course.
Excellent point Dooj...
Not ONLY that, but long time LA County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder the paperback edition was published in February of this year.
This seems to say that a real live PROSECUTOR can call someone a MURDERER, not simply an ALLEGED murderer, even when a criminal jury does not return a verdict of guilty.
That would seem to put to rest that fool's claim about wierwille... the fool that introduced THIS particular MURDERER as the example of his point that we should not say wierwille is guilty of raping young women.
okay, it did not introduce OJ (Abi did).
Actually he was not A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
Not ONLY that, but long time LA County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder the paperback edition was published in February of this year.
This seems to say that a real live PROSECUTOR can call someone a MURDERER, not simply an ALLEGED murderer, even when a criminal jury does not return a verdict of guilty.
(snip)
(snip)
Actually he was not A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
WD, once again, you replied to someone's post, but missed actually addressing WHAT THEY SAID.
You've been doing that A LOT the past few days, almost as if you're doing your best to not address
WD, once again, you replied to someone's post, but missed actually addressing WHAT THEY SAID.
You've been doing that A LOT the past few days, almost as if you're doing your best to not address
WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING....
Not only that, but he (it) has been doing so with posts addressed to someone else... btw, mental health professionals have a term for the type of conduct you described... and that term represents a classic/standard personal emotional defense mechanism.
This is all nothing new. The only way to have a great conversation with WD that follows logic and reason is to stick to topics like dogs, music and flying pigs.
Exactly Jeff you spoke your opinion I'm fine with that. On the other hand had you said Dr. Wierwille was a scumbag that would be a statement of fact and I would expect you to offer some proof for your claim or admission that it was simply a misstated opinion.
I said:
Another logical glitch. You're taking a statement of opinion and then trying to say it's a statement of guilt, then you're working on that statement of guilt being wrong and treating real life like it's on long legal battle. (That I believe is a strawman argument - somebody correct me if I"m wrong.)
Let's take Tricky vic out of the example.
Let's say I'm talkng to A (fictional person) and I say, "B is a real scumbag. He tried to kiss me when my boyfriend wasn't looking. I turned my face and just walked out. I'll never be in the same room with him again."
Now - that's my first hand "testimony" if you will. There is no physical evidence, because I didn't say that I slapped his face or tried to knee him in the.... If you go and ask B about the incident, there's no guarantee that he will be honest.
In my statement, B is a real scumbag..." I stated my opinion of B based on my experience with him. He wasn't accused of a crime. What kind of proof would you want? A is free to accept what I say or not - but to say that I'd have to get a court finding to state my opinion is absolutely not right - I can't even see how it would work in the real world.
Then WD said:
Accusation of a serious crime is different than a insult like scumbag
You got a little mixed up there. Lost your place in your thought processes, didn't you? It seems you can't even get YOU to agree with YOU. I think that's what happens when you keep running in the same rut over and over without ever considering any other POV or any other solution.
To some the deepest darkest secrets they carry are those of childhood molestations by a close family member. Even if the family member had made a statement to a specific group; what right does anyone have to put the information out on the World Wide Web?
Both extremes of this debate seem to think their end justifies their means.
To some the deepest darkest secrets they carry are those of childhood molestations by a close family member. Even if the family member had made a statement to a specific group; what right does anyone have to put the information out on the World Wide Web?
Both extremes of this debate seem to think their end justifies their means.
It's no secret. The man announced it in front of many people, with no stated expectation of secrecy. In fact, I believe it was his intent that it would be repeated amongst a select audience and thus lay the groundwork for practical doctrine. How in the world can you establish practical doctrine by keeping it a secret? So then what benefit can come of speaking out on the World Wide Web? Exposure. Plain and simple. People have a right to know they were deceived by a man that was not
Please don't take this the wrong way, but Dot Matrix and Excathedra and other "Corps" heard VP say he was being inappropriate with daughters?
You had to be in residence before me, I was 14th I am DFAC. Which I call it, Done Farting Around with Carnals.
I am kinda mad at you ladies. A lot of people would have been saved the hurt and agony had you gone screaming from the room and told on him.
There are no excuses in my opinion for allowing that kind of behavior on any level.
So I would very much appreciate an explanation as to why you didn't say something. And please no rationalizations either. I would have run my mouth til they shot me dead. I am a survivor, I had to endure being raped, beaten up, choked, shot at, by an earthly brother for years. I told on him, it didn't stop him, but when I told God to kill him, it finally ended. June 26, 1976 that pig suffered a slow horrible death and died. Only within the past couple of years have I been able to forgive him and let it go.
So why didn't you tell somebody? Anybody?
I find it suspect at best that all the accusations of VP and others only come out after they are dead. I think that is what most opposers have a problem with, if it happened, and I can't say it didn't, I wasn't there, why in the hell did you not speak up???????????? To me, it makes you just as responsible as the molester. You allowed it.
After reading this topic from beginning to now, this is the question that keeps popping up. IMHO, it never had to get as far as it did.
There is no politically correct way to ask this, but it does deserve some thought and an honest answer.
Pretty harsh LVP. Have you never heard or understood about grooming? indoctrination? manipulation?
In twi, we learned to doubt ourselves. We trusted these men when they said that they spoke for God. We believed them when they said our misgivings were simply our own natural man being deceived by Satan. We believed them when they backed themselves up with scriptures. We believed that to defy them was to be stiff necked...to lose our protection from God...
Have you any idea what happened when these ladies DID tell Lucy??? I`ll bet you don`t have any idea how mant people really DID speak up only to be escorted off grounds at gun point and all of the good believers told that the woman was posessed. No you don`t...you`d rather sit in judgement over them 20 years after the fact beating your chest self rightiously proclaiming what YOU would do in their situation before you ever hear their story.....well hind sight is 20 20 ...
Crap...I was molested as a youngster...I never told. Why? because the guy was good at ensuring compliance and secrecy. Why didn`t I tell as an adult?? Shame..guilt...fear of not being believed.
I think that predators are very good at picking out their victims....they are adept at disguising their snares...and they are really good at ensuring silence.
These guys were scum bags...and you are tearing into the people that they treated so cruely.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but Dot Matrix and Excathedra and other "Corps" heard VP say he was being inappropriate with daughters?
You had to be in residence before me, I was 14th I am DFAC. Which I call it, Done Farting Around with Carnals.
I am kinda mad at you ladies. A lot of people would have been saved the hurt and agony had you gone screaming from the room and told on him.
There are no excuses in my opinion for allowing that kind of behavior on any level.
So I would very much appreciate an explanation as to why you didn't say something. And please no rationalizations either. I would have run my mouth til they shot me dead. I am a survivor, I had to endure being raped, beaten up, choked, shot at, by an earthly brother for years. I told on him, it didn't stop him, but when I told God to kill him, it finally ended. June 26, 1976 that pig suffered a slow horrible death and died. Only within the past couple of years have I been able to forgive him and let it go.
So why didn't you tell somebody? Anybody?
I find it suspect at best that all the accusations of VP and others only come out after they are dead. I think that is what most opposers have a problem with, if it happened, and I can't say it didn't, I wasn't there, why in the hell did you not speak up???????????? To me, it makes you just as responsible as the molester. You allowed it.
After reading this topic from beginning to now, this is the question that keeps popping up. IMHO, it never had to get as far as it did.
There is no politically correct way to ask this, but it does deserve some thought and an honest answer.
JLL
Ya know ---- (with all due respect to you Lucy), there were MANY times that folks could've, should've, and sometimes DID actually speak out. But guess what? They weren't, or wouldn't have been *preaching to the choir*, so it would have been futile to do so. Given the mind control going on, everyone involved in twi tended to believe *leadership* over some *goof-ball* who was spouting anti-way stuff, no matter how benign or inflammatory.
Look at what they (twi) did to John Schoenheit for MERELY publishing a work saying that adultery is WRONG. Not only did they smear his name, call him possessed, and toss him out --- they (twi) ALSO said that anyone who read his paper, or had it in their possession, would get possessed by *debbil spirits* too.
Damage control at hdqtrs swung into HIGH GEAR anytime something like this surfaced, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it NEVER was complimentary to the one making accusations. Matter of fact -- the one making the accusation was made out to be the *criminal*, regardless of how sound and accurate their claims might have been.
So please --- don't go the *You are as guilty as THEY are* route.
It won't wash. Mrs. Wierwille (even) said of docvic ------- >>>
"He was a mean, mean man". And she said that after his death also.
I don't know which twi YOU were in (twi-1, twi-2, or twi-3), but I was in twi-1.
Opening your mouth to voice oppositiion meant IMMEDIATE M & A.
Kinda like Communist China/ Russia/, etc. Voice your opinion, suffer the consequences.
You forget the nature of the ORG (beast) that we were dealing with.
I am kinda mad at you ladies. A lot of people would have been saved the hurt and agony had you gone screaming from the room and told on him.
There are lots of reasons why people don't tell right away, and sometimes never at all, Lucy. These women do not owe you an explanation. They don't. They have to live with themselves and with God. They have to live with the hurt, shame, and humiliation that was inflicted upon them by these men - not you. You have your demons to battle, they have theirs.
Above and beyond that, you get angry at them for not telling, and when they do tell they are accused of lying, making it up. How does that help them? Waht difference does it make to tell, if they won't be believed anyway??
Then there is the self-blame, self-doubt, etc. etc.
Perhaps you weren't affected by your situation in the same way they were by theirs. Fine. Perhaps you simply live in denial of how you felt in your situation - I don't know.
But DO NOT DARE condemn these women. They have been put through enough already!! You are not their judge!!!
Now that I am done being angry about the tone of your post Lucy, I would suggest you ask yourself this:
Who were they going to tell? Who was going to believe them?
Hell, I heard the stories about VPW's sexual proclivities when I was in TWI, and that wasn't until 1991. But, such stories were dismissed. Devil spirits attacking the man of gawd, that's all that was about, no truth to them at all. Who in TWI in those days would have believed them? No one. They would have been shipped off (after a verbal dressing down that would have destroyed any sense of self they had left) and never heard from again.
The authories? Small town cops in small town Ohio were going to take the word of a couple of young hippie chicks over VPW's? I doubt it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
52
39
48
Popular Days
Jul 12
84
Jul 13
71
Jul 9
59
Jul 10
54
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 34 posts
Abigail 52 posts
Rocky 39 posts
WhiteDove 48 posts
Popular Days
Jul 12 2008
84 posts
Jul 13 2008
71 posts
Jul 9 2008
59 posts
Jul 10 2008
54 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi, Revictimizing the victims of abuse is itself abusive. It speaks volumes about the one doing it. What they still adhere to shapes their perspective and ability to inflict cruelty on those so horr
Combination
Exy, Theres a thread "We are not going to get along", it opens by discussing "Big Leaguers" with extensive debating skills and big reputations overriding the opinions of small fry / newbie posters.
Thanks!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I agree with you 100% in this regard. I'd like to add, we cannot expect that someone fresh out of TWI is going to come here having already shed themselves of everything they believed while in TWI. People who are newly out, in particular, are going to be "pro" at least to some degree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustSayNO
Absolutely!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Combination
They are indeed. By piling onto such ones decrying their opinions the problem is they may return to the fold of the church.
But there are hard core apologists here yes? Posters who continually post in support of Weirwille and disrupt the general harmony and purpose of the board- Recovery and Support.
The simplest course, naturally, would be to ignore the barbs of these ones, but that is not poster nature is it.
Restrict their permission to post their Pro cult tripe in specific rooms.
The vast majority here are exited the church and in recovery from the abusive system. So their needs take precedence.
Especially the needs of freedom to discuss their issues without being blasted by some Pro Wierwillian apologist who might very well be an active member, and deliberate inciter, re the cult they are in recovery from.
Edited by CombinationLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I'd rename this thread-
Boot the ones who attack the most vulnerable for the only purpose of inflicting hurt and pain, really hurt.
Probably wouldn't fit on the header though...:).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Is the former football hero Orenthal James Simpson a murderer? A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
link
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
WD, you completely avoided the latter part of my question. If the in-laws referred to OJ as a murder, would you debate proper English/terminology with them? Would you correct them and say "alleged murderer" or "in your opinion murderer?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
WD - you really can't defend against this logic.
And regarding O.J. Simpson - you have a real problem. He was found guilty in at least one court. Are you implying that having the best defense money can buy proves innocence?
I'd also like to see how you answer Abi's question. Would you push the issue with Nicole Brown Simpson's family? What about Ron Goldman's family?
You may know some that have been falsely accused and have been punished - but that is not enough to justify your actions on this board.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And if I may beat a dead horse a bit longer (are these Wierwille sycophants really worth this much effort? One wonders...)
when an eyewitness (and VICTIM!) of a crime tells what happened to them, it's not their "opinion" fer crissake, it's their TESTIMONY! You may not like it, you may not believe it, but it's not a freaking "opinion"!
Grow the fark up already, boys...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
thanks, George, you beat me to it, my sentiments, "opinion", non-legally binding testimony, call it what you will... exactly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Excellent point Dooj...
Not ONLY that, but long time LA County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi wrote
Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O. J. Simpson Got Away with Murder the paperback edition was published in February of this year.
This seems to say that a real live PROSECUTOR can call someone a MURDERER, not simply an ALLEGED murderer, even when a criminal jury does not return a verdict of guilty.
That would seem to put to rest that fool's claim about wierwille... the fool that introduced THIS particular MURDERER as the example of his point that we should not say wierwille is guilty of raping young women.
okay, it did not introduce OJ (Abi did).
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yes I would tell them the same, in a public forum it is wrong to refer to someone as guilty of a crime unless they have been assigned such guilt by due process. Personal opinions are acceptable of course.
Actually he was not A civil jury found it more likely than not that he caused the death of his wife and her friend. A criminal jury was unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that O.J. committed first degree murder. Seen this way, there is no contradiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WD, once again, you replied to someone's post, but missed actually addressing WHAT THEY SAID.
You've been doing that A LOT the past few days, almost as if you're doing your best to not address
WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY SAYING....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not only that, but he (it) has been doing so with posts addressed to someone else... btw, mental health professionals have a term for the type of conduct you described... and that term represents a classic/standard personal emotional defense mechanism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
This is all nothing new. The only way to have a great conversation with WD that follows logic and reason is to stick to topics like dogs, music and flying pigs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
WD said:
I said:
Then WD said:
You got a little mixed up there. Lost your place in your thought processes, didn't you? It seems you can't even get YOU to agree with YOU. I think that's what happens when you keep running in the same rut over and over without ever considering any other POV or any other solution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
To some the deepest darkest secrets they carry are those of childhood molestations by a close family member. Even if the family member had made a statement to a specific group; what right does anyone have to put the information out on the World Wide Web?
Both extremes of this debate seem to think their end justifies their means.
Edited by DuctapeLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
When the event actually occurred, then that is telling the truth.
Whether anyone thinks it's opinion or not does not matter to the one telling what happened.
Not to me either.
What right does anyone have to stop them.
None concerning what is being posted on this forum.
twi is far worst then most of these type of groups in that they are handed down from generation to generation.
The terms may change but the intent has not.
And truth is not determined by a court of the law of the land.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's no secret. The man announced it in front of many people, with no stated expectation of secrecy. In fact, I believe it was his intent that it would be repeated amongst a select audience and thus lay the groundwork for practical doctrine. How in the world can you establish practical doctrine by keeping it a secret? So then what benefit can come of speaking out on the World Wide Web? Exposure. Plain and simple. People have a right to know they were deceived by a man that was not
the man he pretended to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lucyvanpelt
Please don't take this the wrong way, but Dot Matrix and Excathedra and other "Corps" heard VP say he was being inappropriate with daughters?
You had to be in residence before me, I was 14th I am DFAC. Which I call it, Done Farting Around with Carnals.
I am kinda mad at you ladies. A lot of people would have been saved the hurt and agony had you gone screaming from the room and told on him.
There are no excuses in my opinion for allowing that kind of behavior on any level.
So I would very much appreciate an explanation as to why you didn't say something. And please no rationalizations either. I would have run my mouth til they shot me dead. I am a survivor, I had to endure being raped, beaten up, choked, shot at, by an earthly brother for years. I told on him, it didn't stop him, but when I told God to kill him, it finally ended. June 26, 1976 that pig suffered a slow horrible death and died. Only within the past couple of years have I been able to forgive him and let it go.
So why didn't you tell somebody? Anybody?
I find it suspect at best that all the accusations of VP and others only come out after they are dead. I think that is what most opposers have a problem with, if it happened, and I can't say it didn't, I wasn't there, why in the hell did you not speak up???????????? To me, it makes you just as responsible as the molester. You allowed it.
After reading this topic from beginning to now, this is the question that keeps popping up. IMHO, it never had to get as far as it did.
There is no politically correct way to ask this, but it does deserve some thought and an honest answer.
JLL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Pretty harsh LVP. Have you never heard or understood about grooming? indoctrination? manipulation?
In twi, we learned to doubt ourselves. We trusted these men when they said that they spoke for God. We believed them when they said our misgivings were simply our own natural man being deceived by Satan. We believed them when they backed themselves up with scriptures. We believed that to defy them was to be stiff necked...to lose our protection from God...
Have you any idea what happened when these ladies DID tell Lucy??? I`ll bet you don`t have any idea how mant people really DID speak up only to be escorted off grounds at gun point and all of the good believers told that the woman was posessed. No you don`t...you`d rather sit in judgement over them 20 years after the fact beating your chest self rightiously proclaiming what YOU would do in their situation before you ever hear their story.....well hind sight is 20 20 ...
Crap...I was molested as a youngster...I never told. Why? because the guy was good at ensuring compliance and secrecy. Why didn`t I tell as an adult?? Shame..guilt...fear of not being believed.
I think that predators are very good at picking out their victims....they are adept at disguising their snares...and they are really good at ensuring silence.
These guys were scum bags...and you are tearing into the people that they treated so cruely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ya know ---- (with all due respect to you Lucy), there were MANY times that folks could've, should've, and sometimes DID actually speak out. But guess what? They weren't, or wouldn't have been *preaching to the choir*, so it would have been futile to do so. Given the mind control going on, everyone involved in twi tended to believe *leadership* over some *goof-ball* who was spouting anti-way stuff, no matter how benign or inflammatory.
Look at what they (twi) did to John Schoenheit for MERELY publishing a work saying that adultery is WRONG. Not only did they smear his name, call him possessed, and toss him out --- they (twi) ALSO said that anyone who read his paper, or had it in their possession, would get possessed by *debbil spirits* too.
Damage control at hdqtrs swung into HIGH GEAR anytime something like this surfaced, and you can bet your bottom dollar that it NEVER was complimentary to the one making accusations. Matter of fact -- the one making the accusation was made out to be the *criminal*, regardless of how sound and accurate their claims might have been.
So please --- don't go the *You are as guilty as THEY are* route.
It won't wash. Mrs. Wierwille (even) said of docvic ------- >>>
"He was a mean, mean man". And she said that after his death also.
I don't know which twi YOU were in (twi-1, twi-2, or twi-3), but I was in twi-1.
Opening your mouth to voice oppositiion meant IMMEDIATE M & A.
Kinda like Communist China/ Russia/, etc. Voice your opinion, suffer the consequences.
You forget the nature of the ORG (beast) that we were dealing with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
There are lots of reasons why people don't tell right away, and sometimes never at all, Lucy. These women do not owe you an explanation. They don't. They have to live with themselves and with God. They have to live with the hurt, shame, and humiliation that was inflicted upon them by these men - not you. You have your demons to battle, they have theirs.
Above and beyond that, you get angry at them for not telling, and when they do tell they are accused of lying, making it up. How does that help them? Waht difference does it make to tell, if they won't be believed anyway??
Then there is the self-blame, self-doubt, etc. etc.
Perhaps you weren't affected by your situation in the same way they were by theirs. Fine. Perhaps you simply live in denial of how you felt in your situation - I don't know.
But DO NOT DARE condemn these women. They have been put through enough already!! You are not their judge!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Now that I am done being angry about the tone of your post Lucy, I would suggest you ask yourself this:
Who were they going to tell? Who was going to believe them?
Hell, I heard the stories about VPW's sexual proclivities when I was in TWI, and that wasn't until 1991. But, such stories were dismissed. Devil spirits attacking the man of gawd, that's all that was about, no truth to them at all. Who in TWI in those days would have believed them? No one. They would have been shipped off (after a verbal dressing down that would have destroyed any sense of self they had left) and never heard from again.
The authories? Small town cops in small town Ohio were going to take the word of a couple of young hippie chicks over VPW's? I doubt it.
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.