I heard about it from the age of 11 or younger and I took it when I was (not sure) 16 or 17. I'm sure I took it as soon as I was old enough.
To be honest, I don't remember much. Masturbation is a sin, but only when you are married (the first version of the Eve teaching), slag words that needed updating, basic sexual anatomy, spit makes a perfectly good lubricant, and other less memorable things like some Bible stuff. Hey I was a teen.
I took the CFS class the first year of my Fellowlaborers of Ohio experience. I am still not clear on the date, but that would be 1974 or 1975. For me, TWI was an experience where I felt that being myself and completely honest was the way to go. And so, during one of the session breaks I stated during the twig, that I mastrabated. At that time, I am thinking mastrabation along the frequency of say, once every 5 or 6 weeks, something along those lines. I said that I felt guilty about it. And I recall one woman asking me, "you mean in the shower"? And I did not respond. And I remember some short statement about "oh, even married people mastrabate".
I think TWI was an environment that I always felt like letting my guard down. Its not too hard, I feel to understand that. How many times I recall Doctor Wierwille going into details about the individuals he counseled and the details of the issues individuals brought to him. For instance that story about the woman who had breasts that were different sizes, a very common thing, yet the way he wrapped up his concern in it, and came across as the sincerest, common man alive who really cared about people, certainly inspired the following to drop ones guard. And the story about the guy at the Advanced Class whos wife was sick in the hospital and he mastrabated at the Way College of Emporia.
That part of CFS where Doctor sort of suggests that women get familar with their genitals, also comes to mind, that if they were not familar with themselves that they should get a mirror and take a good look. This stuff was in the vein that some women have to work at experiencing their first orgasm, which is accurate, I am not saying its common, but again, pointing out that Doctor was really a master at being the honest, down home teacher, who was imparting knowledge and wisdom to individuals, bringing to light many subjects that may have never been talked about or thought about in our lives.
The Tree of Life, I wrote a letter to Doctor Wierwille, during my involvement and asked him what it was and he wrote back and told me that he did not know.
The original sin around 1974-1976, whatever, was Eve mastrabated in the garden of Eden. I talked with John S. of CES and he felt that Doctor's interpretation was not accurate. I have read a book about the Sin of Adam, which is excellent, that sin, being "silence".
I remember, pretty vividly that women were in a sense to be placed on a pedestal, in the sense of respected and I do feel that is appropriate. My feeling is, that of all of God's creation, womankind is God's masterpiece, however, while involved in TWI, I don't ever recall having a teaching on the subject, it could have been taught, maybe I wasn't listenning, but I do not recall it.
Anyway, just these thoughts for the moment, I may add something else later...excellent question...excellent question for discussion...
A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus.<BR>
That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance.<BR><BR>
B) It's the only class I ever took where I was embarrassed of the name.<BR>
"I have to head out-I have a Bible study class tonight."<BR>
"Really? What on?"<BR>
"Um, Christian Family."<BR><BR>
C) The "original sin", Proverbs 31:10ff was covered. I Corinthians 7:1ff was also covered.<BR>
How he could read I Corinthians 7:2, commit adultery many times, and look<BR>
himself in the mirror is beyond me.<BR><BR>
D) Everyone remembers the session with all the slang terms. It seemed to<BR>
relax us a little, since you can't be embarassed while laughing, but<BR>
other than that, wasn't necessary. <BR><BR>
E) It was largely a Sex Ed or "Hygiene" class. Complete with photos <BR>
and illustrations.<BR><BR>
F) I honestly don't remember vpw's comments mentioned above. <BR>
I do remember (and even back then, others had commented) how beautiful he<BR>
thought a woman's funbags are. (Funbags, you know, Thelma and Louise.)<BR><BR>
G) I remember him saying a few things here and there about various <BR>
sex topics. The most off-the-wall ones will stay with me till I die.<BR>
Like, how a man wants a woman who's a bit of an angel and a devil-<BR>
an angel in public, and a devil in the bedroom.<BR>
Or, concerning one position I have no intention of trying, <BR>"ever couple probably tries it at some point". <BR>To which, I say, "Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew." If someone out there has tried it,<BR>DON'T TELL ME. I do NOT want to know.<BR>
And of course, in my class, he described-but did NOT show-<BR>that pornographic video with 2 women and a dog. He said the dog was trying<BR>to get away from the women, which showed it had more sense than they did.<BR>THANKS FOR SHARING. WHY did I need to know ANYTHING about that video?<BR>Was that instructive in some way?<BR><BR>
H) One of the main points, one that was repeated in several sessions,<BR>was the destigmatizing of sex as "dirty".<BR>Oddly enough, the proper place of a sex life in a MARRIAGE and not as <BR>OUTSIDE a marriage seemed not to be repeated in several sessions.<BR>Strange sorting of priorities for a Christian class.<BR><BR>I) Of course, the one thing that I still find TRULY bizarre was that wierd<BR>"casualwear" outfit he wore teaching that class. <BR>I can understand getting out of the suit, but was that thing actually worn<BR>in PUBLIC? That thing was uglier than a leisure suit! <BR><BR>J) The hero of that class was Tick.<BR><BR>Anything else you want to know? <BR>Kudos to whoever managed a session breakdown-my goal was to just get thru it.
A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus.<BR>
That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance.
Actually there was a 36 page syllabus to be correct, much like the expanded PFAL syllabus ,.that one received in the AC for some reason the Corps class yielded the full CF&S syllabus. It may have been distributed in some of the early camps as well. I think I have an audio of an early CF&S camp on reel to reel somewhere around. If it is important research I might be able to dig it out and see if a syllabus is mentioned.
A side note I had to laugh at the final exam questions
Here is a sample
#18" Foolishness is bound in the heart of___________"
A. a child B. The Way Corps C. The College Division D. Everyone
Thanks WW...........ANOTHER DESCRIPTIVE THREAD buried in the dungeons of thread-dom.
One of the best posts in that whole thread......Dot's.
((((Joniam))))
I can SO relate to your post. PFAL and TWI did help me. If I did not take the class (I credit Leonard for) I would not be alive today. I owe God and Leonard so much!
I think a lot of what draws lines here is there seems to be different groups of folks.
A. Those that never saw the inner circle and have fond memories of twig because they were removed from TWI and the inner Circle (When they finally heard about it they thought, "so they had affairs with a few people - I can forgive that")
B Those that were introduced to or a part of the "inner circle" who were hurt by it, or left it and are sorry for participating in it. ( We knew it was not a few people but hundreds, it was not an affair but a lifestyle of false doctrines and sometimes forced and drugged sex. They drank to excess and smoked weed. Women were around like the days of the Roman Empire, and if Moggie could not have one, it is reported girls were handed drinks with drugs in them)
C. Those that were involved or knew about the "inner circle" and still believe it was good and promote the twisted doctrines. (Some of these folks believed in this SO MUCH they became recruiters. Bringing girls to VPW. Drinking with him, closing the door on the coach while Moggie played - sometimes whether the girl was willing or not)
I was in group "A" and like you if anyone had said anything bad about VPW or TWI I think I would have kicked their a$$ or at least NEVER believed it.
I was so happy in group "A" that I went into the corps and became a part of "B". I wish I never saw the things I saw or heard the things I heard. It killed me, but I was determined to help people know it was NOT their fault that a man would use the Word of God to hurt them....
Then there is "C" . I only know TWO people who are still a part of "C". One is an egotistical woman who got women/girls to go be with VP and did not care how much it hurt them. When these recruits came to her crying in confusion she would then set out to destroy their credibility and lives. She told me, "It was better to sacrifice one to save many." I told her this one girl would kill herself and she said, "Well, then at least she will not be able to speak ill of the ministry.
These people "C" -- VPW, LCM, the recruits and recruiters to the inner circle believed what Mike has been saying. That touching a woman can help her feel better about herself. VPW taught one night to a small group in res. how in Africa there was a tribe where the father would break the hymen of their daughters and teach them about sex so they would be experienced for their husbands.
Since I have come here we have all come from different view points and bicker over some details. But MIKE is the FIRST person I have seen here who I believe is a category "C".
He KNOWS of the mottos and mantras of the INNER CIRCLE and he still believes in the lessons. He still believes VPW made women better by "touching them? or testing them sexually. That unasked for touch was not a violation but a blessing and if VPW did it or said he did it then it was out of a pure heart.
He does not see it was done out of a sick, blinded heart of a self-serving nature. HE thinks it is like the tribes in Africa a wonderful expression our culture does not accept. And if we could all just lay culture aside for a moment we TOO would understand.
Group "C" is dangerous. They were groomed by a serial rapist/molester and they do not and WILL NOT see it.
This inner circle sinned and believed that they lived above the word of God.
It was described to me as a higher plane and only people who "could handle it" were invited to partake. Anyone who objected or reproved their behavior was considered someone who "stumbled" at their freedom in their walk with Christ. Therefore, there was no way to correct them; they exalted themselves as gods deciding what was right and what was wrong. (Genesis 3:5).
I believe that is who Mike is.
I believe you are a tender "A" and I am a tormented "B".
I so appreciate your heart. Sometimes when a "B" shares things an "A" has no way to relate to that experience because it was not like that for them. The "B" person has been through so much fighting the inner circle they forget how nice it was when they were an "A".
With us our hearts are all similar our experiences are different.
With a "C" (Those that were involved or knew about the "inner circle" and still believe it was good and promote the twisted doctrines.)
They are not like us. They are the people who killed the ministry and the hearts of many good people with selfish twisted doctrines.
I recognize you as my brother. I recognize the people here as family even those who do not believe in anything at the moment. As it stands right now, Mike is not my brother he is a wolf in sheeps clothing taught by the master wolf he has accepted his doctrines (the doctrines of devils) over the doctrines of Love OUR father God gave us.
Actually there was a 36 page syllabus to be correct, much like the expanded PFAL syllabus ,.that one received in the AC for some reason the Corps class yielded the full CF&S syllabus. It may have been distributed in some of the early camps as well. I think I have an audio of an early CF&S camp on reel to reel somewhere around. If it is important research I might be able to dig it out and see if a syllabus is mentioned.
A side note I had to laugh at the final exam questions
Here is a sample
#18" Foolishness is bound in the heart of___________"
A. a child B. The Way Corps C. The College Division D. Everyone
Pencils up....... Let's see if you passed.
Your experience certainly conflicts with my memory as a class instructor.
The syllabus was, as stated, 2 or 3 pages, at best.
There was no "final exam".
There was, however, a questionnaire that asked explicit and personal questions about the student's sexual experiences.
Sorry about your memory, but the facts are - as I stare at my 36 page syllabus this morning here. none the less true.
Perhaps you failed to read my post clearly? The Corps class yielded the full CF&S syllabus.
Care to share a sampling of said document?
Surely there must be something that could be shared from a document that lengthy.
BTW----We are speaking of the class in a generalized and larger sense here, not isolating a particular version that was only presented to a small fraction of the TWI populace.
Surely there must be something that could be shared from a document that lengthy.
Well it is quite lengthy and obviously banged out on one of the old HDQS typewriters so the pages are full.
But Ok since you asked nicely, be aware I used the old close your eyes and let the finger lead you method from PFAL.
Here is one from page 10 "God never asks us to forget, only to forgive. You can at least walk in the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation so that the memory won't be a hurtful thing----perhaps only a scar, Scars don't hurt
Ephesians 5:22
Christ doesn't lord it over the church. If your man yells JUMP Baloney.....
BTW----We are speaking of the class in a generalized and larger sense here, not isolating a particular version that was only presented to a small fraction of the TWI populace.
Correct , but the record shows that there was a full syllabus ,although it was not available (for what reason I don't know)
to all students. Much as the full PFAL syllabus was not in later years . My reply was to correct the record, not to imply that it was used in any manor other than the one which I indicated. My memory fails me but it seems that it may have been used in the CF & S camp in CO. in 1972 - 73
An exam!! Where you had to list your sexual preferences??!! :o
That's just voyeurism. Nosy b-----. The correct expression may be, "F**k off!"
Thankfully this wonderful class (LOL) made no significant impression on me. Reading some of the posts reminds me of a few things, but nothing I care to pursue any further.
I don't recall anything much about "family" but there was plenty about sexual relations between spouses and there were the slang references and I remember thinking, is this really necessary?
I know some people who had had very restrictive RC upbringings and they found it liberating from that set of doctrines. But that would have been a once-through and they weren't deeply immured in TWI for it to go to its full harmful depth.
BTW on voyeurism, not that this particularly relates to this class, I'll remind you that when I entered the WC as part of the prep list, women had to obtain a clear Pap (smear) test. At the time I thought it was over-zealous caring for people's health. Now, I think it may have been for a different reason. Especially if linked with the "sexual preferences" questionnaire mentioned earlier in this thread. :blink:
Correct , but the record shows that there was a full syllabus ,although it was not available (for what reason I don't know)
to all students. Much as the full PFAL syllabus was not in later years . My reply was to correct the record, not to imply that it was used in any mannor other than the one which in indicated. My memory fails me but it seems that it may have been used in the CF & S camp in CO. in 1972 - 73
Were you personally present for the staging of that class?
I submit that what we are discussing here is a class called Christian Family and Sex, that was presented in the field for the typical student of the PFAL series of classes, not a special version presented to the Corps.
Hence, though the titles may be the same, they are not really the same class.
Although, if you wish to discuss specifics of that particular version you might very well wish to start a separate thread to do so.
An exam!! Where you had to list your sexual preferences??!! :o
That's just voyeurism. Nosy b-----. The correct expression may be, "F**k off!"
Thankfully this wonderful class (LOL) made no significant impression on me. Reading some of the posts reminds me of a few things, but nothing I care to pursue any further.
I don't recall anything much about "family" but there was plenty about sexual relations between spouses and there were the slang references and I remember thinking, is this really necessary?
I know some people who had had very restrictive RC upbringings and they found it liberating from that set of doctrines. But that would have been a once-through and they weren't deeply immured in TWI for it to go to its full harmful depth.
BTW on voyeurism, not that this particularly relates to this class, I'll remind you that when I entered the WC as part of the prep list, women had to obtain a clear Pap (smear) test. At the time I thought it was over-zealous caring for people's health. Now, I think it may have been for a different reason. Especially if linked with the "sexual preferences" questionnaire mentioned earlier in this thread. :blink:
To clairify the Questionnaire was different than the Final Exam in the Corps version The final exam dealt with the material in the class the questionnaire was more on attitude toward sex. Most if not all Corps classes had Final Exams.
Were you personally present for the staging of that class?
I submit that what we are discussing here is a class called Christian Family and Sex, that was presented in the field for the typical student of the PFAL series of classes, not a special version presented to the Corps.
Hence, though the titles may be the same, they are not really the same class.
Although, if you wish to discuss specifics of that particular version you might very well wish to start a separate thread to do so.
Actually it is the same class the same material one the field version had two pages of the syllabus, the other the in residence version had all the pages to the syllabus. It's still the same class not a different version. It's just how many pages of the syllabus one was given.
Actually it is the same class the same material one the field version had two pages of the syllabus, the other the in residence version had all the pages to the syllabus. It's still the same class not a different version. It's just how many pages of the syllabus one was given.
What?---one had two pages of mainly scripture references and the other had 36 pages.
Sounds like a different class to me.
I suggest you start a new thread and explain why one needed 2 pages and the other needed 36 if they were identical.
Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed.
What?---one had two pages of mainly scripture references and the other had 36 pages.
Sounds like a different class to me.
I suggest you start a new thread and explain why one needed 2 pages and the other needed 36 if they were identical.
Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed.
Whitedove says sloooowly .........
Same class, same material, one syllabus ,transscript of material in said class neither required more pages as they were the same in content It is simply how many pages they choose to hand you.
Same class, same material, one syllabus ,transscript of material in said class neither required more pages as they were the same in content It is simply how many pages they choose to hand you.
Did you personally participate in that "identical" class?
Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed.
It seems that you are the one trying to quabble over a point that you can't defend mainly because it is nonexistent.
I simply set the record straight on the number of pages in the syllabus a factual post of which I would have been happy with. You on the other hand seemed to want to immediatly challenge that fact,then of course in the face of having no ground to stand on (that means speaking on what you have absolutely no knowledge of vs one who has in hand a copy of said document) You then bail out by accusing the factual poster of quabbeling when in fact he was only trying to clairify your confused postings and relay the real facts for you.. I submit it was you who were Quabbeling.....
I'm looking at a two page "syllabus" that I used as a class instructor on the field.
It consists of one page that has a handful of rather general scripture references and another that is titled Forty Things About A Virtuous Woman. It details Proverbs 31:10-31.
If, indeed, this "syllabus" is for the same class that received a 36 page treatment in the Corps, it brings a whole new element to the discussion.
How "anonymous" could those sexuality surveys have remained in a closed corporation setting such as the Corps?
Adultery.......scripture back-up / cultural thinking and acceptance / adultery is sin
Promiscuity / Boundaries / Abstinence
3) Sex Education from a Christian perspective
The High Road -- God's Design: Procreation and Pleasure
The Low Road -- The Devil's Playground: Unsatiated Lust, Abuse, Rape, Incest
4) The Unique Relationship of Marriage
Husband's Role: Love the wife like Christ loved the church
Wife's Role: To honor and respect husband
Communication and Agreement on sex issues
IMO..........wierwille's class was laced with a misogynist agenda and an intro to "soft porn." No, it wasn't porn.....but an intro into a twisted, lust-driven, mindset of "the man gets what he wants."
Didn't wierwille look straight into the camera and say??......"There are more germs on a man's nose than his penis."
Implication: Go ahead and suck that penis......it's not going to "hurt" you.
Even in my early 20's........I wondered why wierwille was talking about GERMS on a PENIS in this CFS class.
Thanks to everyone who has been contributing to the thread. I have read the majority of the posts, that is to say, I followed the two other threads posted, one in 2003 and one in 2008. I have gotten through, I think the high points (22 pages) on one.
Anyway, I have never had a problem, that is I "feel" I have never had a problem bringing up controversy...SO, how about I add into all this that teaching, assertion, by TWI that abortion, the option for abortion by a believer is her business...that is that a fetus is not alive, soul life, until it draws its first breath..
If I have not written this absolutely correct, my apologies, however, it is a clear memory to me that TWI supported a believers "right" to chose to carry a fetus to full term or have an abortion. And it was not that they were condoning abortion, I mean, it was in the context that there are consequences to a woman having an abortion, common sense, but it was a believers "right", as in not a sin against God, a choice, and that being because life begins when breathing on its own begins.....anybody, and everybody...whats on your mind...
And the subject is what TWI said, I was not meaning to start a right/wrong discussion, although, yes, I most likely will be ignored on that...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
25
10
13
Popular Days
Jan 18
76
Jan 19
41
Mar 10
12
Jan 17
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WhiteDove 19 posts
waysider 25 posts
potato 10 posts
mchud11 13 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2009
76 posts
Jan 19 2009
41 posts
Mar 10 2009
12 posts
Jan 17 2009
6 posts
Popular Posts
potato
I took every class except dealing with the adversary (I took the lcm version defeating the adversary). for some reason I don't remember lcm's version of christian family and sex, although I know I to
potato
according to vpw, the original sin was masturbation. according to lcm, it was homosexuality.
potato
maybe that's why I don't remember it. I was required to listen to so many tapes in so many special meetings, they all just run together now.
dmiller
Why do you want to know???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
what I remember most was Mrs. W's awkwardness when vpw introduced her at the end. she looked miserable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
LOL
Recommend it? They RAN it!
I heard about it from the age of 11 or younger and I took it when I was (not sure) 16 or 17. I'm sure I took it as soon as I was old enough.
To be honest, I don't remember much. Masturbation is a sin, but only when you are married (the first version of the Eve teaching), slag words that needed updating, basic sexual anatomy, spit makes a perfectly good lubricant, and other less memorable things like some Bible stuff.
Hey I was a teen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I took the CFS class the first year of my Fellowlaborers of Ohio experience. I am still not clear on the date, but that would be 1974 or 1975. For me, TWI was an experience where I felt that being myself and completely honest was the way to go. And so, during one of the session breaks I stated during the twig, that I mastrabated. At that time, I am thinking mastrabation along the frequency of say, once every 5 or 6 weeks, something along those lines. I said that I felt guilty about it. And I recall one woman asking me, "you mean in the shower"? And I did not respond. And I remember some short statement about "oh, even married people mastrabate".
I think TWI was an environment that I always felt like letting my guard down. Its not too hard, I feel to understand that. How many times I recall Doctor Wierwille going into details about the individuals he counseled and the details of the issues individuals brought to him. For instance that story about the woman who had breasts that were different sizes, a very common thing, yet the way he wrapped up his concern in it, and came across as the sincerest, common man alive who really cared about people, certainly inspired the following to drop ones guard. And the story about the guy at the Advanced Class whos wife was sick in the hospital and he mastrabated at the Way College of Emporia.
That part of CFS where Doctor sort of suggests that women get familar with their genitals, also comes to mind, that if they were not familar with themselves that they should get a mirror and take a good look. This stuff was in the vein that some women have to work at experiencing their first orgasm, which is accurate, I am not saying its common, but again, pointing out that Doctor was really a master at being the honest, down home teacher, who was imparting knowledge and wisdom to individuals, bringing to light many subjects that may have never been talked about or thought about in our lives.
The Tree of Life, I wrote a letter to Doctor Wierwille, during my involvement and asked him what it was and he wrote back and told me that he did not know.
The original sin around 1974-1976, whatever, was Eve mastrabated in the garden of Eden. I talked with John S. of CES and he felt that Doctor's interpretation was not accurate. I have read a book about the Sin of Adam, which is excellent, that sin, being "silence".
I remember, pretty vividly that women were in a sense to be placed on a pedestal, in the sense of respected and I do feel that is appropriate. My feeling is, that of all of God's creation, womankind is God's masterpiece, however, while involved in TWI, I don't ever recall having a teaching on the subject, it could have been taught, maybe I wasn't listenning, but I do not recall it.
Anyway, just these thoughts for the moment, I may add something else later...excellent question...excellent question for discussion...
michael
Edited by mchud11Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Also this one:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=17920&st=0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Actually there was a 36 page syllabus to be correct, much like the expanded PFAL syllabus ,.that one received in the AC for some reason the Corps class yielded the full CF&S syllabus. It may have been distributed in some of the early camps as well. I think I have an audio of an early CF&S camp on reel to reel somewhere around. If it is important research I might be able to dig it out and see if a syllabus is mentioned.
A side note I had to laugh at the final exam questions
Here is a sample
#18" Foolishness is bound in the heart of___________"
A. a child B. The Way Corps C. The College Division D. Everyone
Pencils up....... Let's see if you passed.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Thanks WW...........ANOTHER DESCRIPTIVE THREAD buried in the dungeons of thread-dom.
One of the best posts in that whole thread......Dot's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Your experience certainly conflicts with my memory as a class instructor.
The syllabus was, as stated, 2 or 3 pages, at best.
There was no "final exam".
There was, however, a questionnaire that asked explicit and personal questions about the student's sexual experiences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Sorry about your memory, but the facts are - as I stare at my 36 page syllabus this morning here. none the less true.
Perhaps you failed to read my post clearly? The Corps class yielded the full CF&S syllabus.
And edited to say did also include a six page final exam.........
Then again Hey what do I know I only live in Kansas......
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Care to share a sampling of said document?
Surely there must be something that could be shared from a document that lengthy.
BTW----We are speaking of the class in a generalized and larger sense here, not isolating a particular version that was only presented to a small fraction of the TWI populace.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well it is quite lengthy and obviously banged out on one of the old HDQS typewriters so the pages are full.
But Ok since you asked nicely, be aware I used the old close your eyes and let the finger lead you method from PFAL.
Here is one from page 10 "God never asks us to forget, only to forgive. You can at least walk in the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation so that the memory won't be a hurtful thing----perhaps only a scar, Scars don't hurt
Ephesians 5:22
Christ doesn't lord it over the church. If your man yells JUMP Baloney.....
Correct , but the record shows that there was a full syllabus ,although it was not available (for what reason I don't know)
to all students. Much as the full PFAL syllabus was not in later years . My reply was to correct the record, not to imply that it was used in any manor other than the one which I indicated. My memory fails me but it seems that it may have been used in the CF & S camp in CO. in 1972 - 73
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
An exam!! Where you had to list your sexual preferences??!! :o
That's just voyeurism. Nosy b-----. The correct expression may be, "F**k off!"
Thankfully this wonderful class (LOL) made no significant impression on me. Reading some of the posts reminds me of a few things, but nothing I care to pursue any further.
I don't recall anything much about "family" but there was plenty about sexual relations between spouses and there were the slang references and I remember thinking, is this really necessary?
I know some people who had had very restrictive RC upbringings and they found it liberating from that set of doctrines. But that would have been a once-through and they weren't deeply immured in TWI for it to go to its full harmful depth.
BTW on voyeurism, not that this particularly relates to this class, I'll remind you that when I entered the WC as part of the prep list, women had to obtain a clear Pap (smear) test. At the time I thought it was over-zealous caring for people's health. Now, I think it may have been for a different reason. Especially if linked with the "sexual preferences" questionnaire mentioned earlier in this thread. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Were you personally present for the staging of that class?
I submit that what we are discussing here is a class called Christian Family and Sex, that was presented in the field for the typical student of the PFAL series of classes, not a special version presented to the Corps.
Hence, though the titles may be the same, they are not really the same class.
Although, if you wish to discuss specifics of that particular version you might very well wish to start a separate thread to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
To clairify the Questionnaire was different than the Final Exam in the Corps version The final exam dealt with the material in the class the questionnaire was more on attitude toward sex. Most if not all Corps classes had Final Exams.
Actually it is the same class the same material one the field version had two pages of the syllabus, the other the in residence version had all the pages to the syllabus. It's still the same class not a different version. It's just how many pages of the syllabus one was given.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What?---one had two pages of mainly scripture references and the other had 36 pages.
Sounds like a different class to me.
I suggest you start a new thread and explain why one needed 2 pages and the other needed 36 if they were identical.
Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Whitedove says sloooowly .........
Same class, same material, one syllabus ,transscript of material in said class neither required more pages as they were the same in content It is simply how many pages they choose to hand you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Did you personally participate in that "identical" class?
A yes or no will do quite nicely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Better yet, let's leave it here and descend into a quibble over how many pages the syllabus had while completely ignoring the content of the class being discussed.
It seems that you are the one trying to quabble over a point that you can't defend mainly because it is nonexistent.
I simply set the record straight on the number of pages in the syllabus a factual post of which I would have been happy with. You on the other hand seemed to want to immediatly challenge that fact,then of course in the face of having no ground to stand on (that means speaking on what you have absolutely no knowledge of vs one who has in hand a copy of said document) You then bail out by accusing the factual poster of quabbeling when in fact he was only trying to clairify your confused postings and relay the real facts for you.. I submit it was you who were Quabbeling.....
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm looking at a two page "syllabus" that I used as a class instructor on the field.
It consists of one page that has a handful of rather general scripture references and another that is titled Forty Things About A Virtuous Woman. It details Proverbs 31:10-31.
If, indeed, this "syllabus" is for the same class that received a 36 page treatment in the Corps, it brings a whole new element to the discussion.
How "anonymous" could those sexuality surveys have remained in a closed corporation setting such as the Corps?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Maybe the corps class syllabus included it .....(edited in to "shine it up")..
IMO.....the Christian Family and Sex Class should have been about:
1) Scriptural truths on the Christian Family
Strong examples of family strength in scripture.
Garnering truths from Focus on Family in the book of Acts
2) Planned Parenthood......Family Nurturing......Child Rearing
Adultery.......scripture back-up / cultural thinking and acceptance / adultery is sin
Promiscuity / Boundaries / Abstinence
3) Sex Education from a Christian perspective
The High Road -- God's Design: Procreation and Pleasure
The Low Road -- The Devil's Playground: Unsatiated Lust, Abuse, Rape, Incest
4) The Unique Relationship of Marriage
Husband's Role: Love the wife like Christ loved the church
Wife's Role: To honor and respect husband
Communication and Agreement on sex issues
IMO..........wierwille's class was laced with a misogynist agenda and an intro to "soft porn." No, it wasn't porn.....but an intro into a twisted, lust-driven, mindset of "the man gets what he wants."
Didn't wierwille look straight into the camera and say??......"There are more germs on a man's nose than his penis."
Implication: Go ahead and suck that penis......it's not going to "hurt" you.
Even in my early 20's........I wondered why wierwille was talking about GERMS on a PENIS in this CFS class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
Thanks to everyone who has been contributing to the thread. I have read the majority of the posts, that is to say, I followed the two other threads posted, one in 2003 and one in 2008. I have gotten through, I think the high points (22 pages) on one.
Anyway, I have never had a problem, that is I "feel" I have never had a problem bringing up controversy...SO, how about I add into all this that teaching, assertion, by TWI that abortion, the option for abortion by a believer is her business...that is that a fetus is not alive, soul life, until it draws its first breath..
If I have not written this absolutely correct, my apologies, however, it is a clear memory to me that TWI supported a believers "right" to chose to carry a fetus to full term or have an abortion. And it was not that they were condoning abortion, I mean, it was in the context that there are consequences to a woman having an abortion, common sense, but it was a believers "right", as in not a sin against God, a choice, and that being because life begins when breathing on its own begins.....anybody, and everybody...whats on your mind...
And the subject is what TWI said, I was not meaning to start a right/wrong discussion, although, yes, I most likely will be ignored on that...
michael
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.