what I found "odd" was the inclusion of a survey, asking previous sexual history, if one had homosexual experiences, what they felt about abortion, etc. etc.
wherever did these surveys end up? I forget all of the questions.. maybe someone could post them if they know..
what I found "odd" was the inclusion of a survey, asking previous sexual history, if one had homosexual experiences, what they felt about abortion, etc. etc.
wherever did these surveys end up? I forget all of the questions.. maybe someone could post them if they know..
I have seen someone post a copy of a survey that was supposedly the one you are referring to.
The one they posted was NOT the one that was used in the classes I was involved with.
Your description is more in agreement with the one I remember, questions about sexual history, homosexuality, abuse, etc.
As to where they went: We were supposed to put them into an envelope immediately, without looking at the responses, seal it, and send it to HQ.
I always did exactly that. I can't answer for anyone else on that matter.
What became of them once they reached HQ is a valid question. I wish I knew.
edited to add this:
Yes, they were anonymous but HQ had a list of students in every class.
They had to keep that for determining eligibility for the Advanced Class.
So, suppose you had a class of 10 people, 7 were female , 5 of them were married and, of the two remaining single women, only one went into the Way Corps.
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?
Indeed it is those two pages that were part of the full syllabus As you did I used those same pages instructing "on the field classes"
But those pages were" pulled" out from a much larger 36 page syllabus. Just as the smaller later PFAL syllabus was "pulled" from the expanded PFAL syllabus.
what I found "odd" was the inclusion of a survey, asking previous sexual history, if one had homosexual experiences, what they felt about abortion, etc. etc.
wherever did these surveys end up? I forget all of the questions.. maybe someone could post them if they know..
Just for the record their are 18 questions on the questionnaire NONE have to do with if one had homosexual experiences. the questionnaires were sent to The Way Int. the purpose or as I was told was to provide feedback for areas of future development based on participants answers.
Note from the instructors guide (all CAPS) THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHOULD NOT BE ANALYZED OR SUMMARIZED BY THE CLASS INSTRUCTOR. THEY ARE TO BE SENT CONFIDENTIALLY TO THE WAY INTERNATIONAL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EXTENSION AND OUTREACH DEPT.
Indeed it is those two pages that were part of the full syllabus As you did I used those same pages instructing "on the field classes"
But those pages were" pulled" out from a much larger 36 page syllabus. Just as the smaller later PFAL syllabus was "pulled" from the expanded PFAL syllabus.
Two pages or two hundred pages. It's a moot point. People, outside of that isolated Way Corps class, sat through a class that used a two page "syllabus". That is the class that is being referenced in this discussion. If you want to debate the value of the materials in the other 34 pages, by all means, start another thread and do so. Your continuation of the page count discussion is a distraction from the heart of this thread.
Yes, they were anonymous but HQ had a list of students in every class.
They had to keep that for determining eligibility for the Advanced Class.
So, suppose you had a class of 10 people, 7 were female , 5 of them were married and, of the two remaining single women, only one went into the Way Corps.
I think you can do the math.
Exactly what math could you do? You have a envelope with a class of ten peoples papers ,no names, you can determine from a class list at best, that there were x amount of men and x amount of women only. Which parties went to which papers one would have no way to determine. Even if someone were to enter the Corps program at some later time and someone were to dig for information, all that would be on record was 10 people took this class 10 questionnaires' were turned in who went with what questionnaire is not determinable. That’s assuming that they kept the class lists and each set of questionnaires' together which is doubtful since the list did not accompany the questionnaires' in the first place.
Oh and By the way they were mark an x questions so there was no handwriting to analyze . ( just in case someone might decide to grasp at some straw to further their case along) Real facts are so much fun....
Two pages or two hundred pages. It's a moot point. People, outside of that isolated Way Corps class, sat through a class that used a two page "syllabus". That is the class that is being referenced in this discussion. If you want to debate the value of the materials in the other 34 pages, by all means, start another thread and do so. Your continuation of the page count discussion is a distraction from the heart of this thread.
No it's not it is correcting a point made that was in error. Not a big deal but still should be corrected. Is it your contention that erroneous information should be used to somehow discuss the truth?
The essence of what was being stated was that the questions sought specific personal information regarding sexual activity..
The exact verbiage of each question is irrelevant to the larger context.
Wrong again someone misrepresented the questionnaire it has everything to do with the discussion, one can't discuss questions honestly that were on a questionnaire that were factually not there. It is fundamentally dishonest to make up questions that did not appear on a questionnaire and then theorize about them. Not that I think that was the case here I'd guess it was a case of poor memory. None the less before the theorizing gets out of hand it is indeed proper to correct the error.
.
The exact verbiage of each question is irrelevant to the larger context.
No the exact verbiage is relevant to discussion one can not prove the point or disprove the point when they simply can't even figure out the question.
That's three. Unless martindale just retaught wierwille's? (an extremely important point of course) Coulters was new. although I think Coulters class was merely damage control. The title was different I think.
You are clearly remembering a much different survey.
Even with just "x"s, as you say, it would definitely be possible to determine authorship by virtue of response.
Class lists were kept to validate Advanced Class eligibility.
It's been stated here, by first hand participants, that the Way Corps "Birth To Corps' papers were not held in confidence.
None of this excuses such a sorry example of a "class" that was supposed to be part of a Biblical research and teaching effort.
Clearly you are confused between two papers the From Birth to Corps papers with a name on them and a questionnaire without one. Whether the Corps papers were held in confidence or not has no bearing on another paper that has no relation to it. That’s a straw man argument.. they are two different things or papers as it is. It is impossible to determine from an X who is speaking on a sheet of paper.
Here let me demonstrate
X
X
X
X
X
Please kindly give the names of those responsible for the above answers....
I'd stop now while you are hopelessly behind.... and quit trying to supress the facts
Okay I am jumping in the fray. actually the questionnairs coming in would have the twigs address on them and it is not such a big leap to see that they would have gotten matched up with names at head quarters... Did they??? we do not know but the possibility is still there.
Since none of the classes ever really were changed one wonders what that information was really used for.
Regarding the two different syllabuses.
IT actually is a totally different Class White Dove
I understand that to you, you had that information for the other 34 pages at your disposal...but most people taking it (The majority) would have only had the two pages..
And I realize this is a small point but I would venture to guess ..And it is only a guess that there was at the very least a bit of discussion during your way corps experience of taking the class.
I do not think the actual class itself was different but the information available to review and study would have been completely different, and let's be honest many people did study and read their, books, Pamphlets etc after they took TWI class.
Not only on their own but with in their Twigs and or WOW years.
Maybe no one will notice it's a diversion from the original topic.
Perhaps you did not notice that funny looking little mark at the end of the sentence . That's referred to as a question mark it follows a question ,or so I'm told.
It is not a twisted interpretation of anything . it's purpose is to seek to clarify a point that is unclear. It is also not a statement it is a question.
That's three. Unless martindale just retaught wierwille's? (an extremely important point of course) Coulters was new. although I think Coulters class was merely damage control. The title was different I think.
Interesting Point Bolshevik.
Did you sit through all three??
And what about those bible verses on those two pages what were they ???
Questions questions???
Oh excuse me other than the over used pearl of great price one
Okay I am jumping in the fray. actually the questionnairs coming in would have the twigs address on them and it is not such a big leap to see that they would have gotten matched up with names at head quarters... Did they??? we do not know but the possibility is still there.
Actually you are incorrect the envelope would have (if supplied on the envelope) the class coordinators address . Not a Twig address, the class would be composed of people from various fellowships even different cities as some I instructed did. As such it would not have all the various Twig addresses on the envelope. It would be impossible to match a nameless paper with a Twig even if inspector Charlie Chan wanted to. You could match a name from a class list to a twig ( provided that name appeared on some other form of paper such as a ABS report), but it still would not link it to 10 nameless pieces of paper in an envelope. Sorry it is not only a huge leap it is an impossible one.
Since none of the classes ever really were changed one wonders what that information was really used for.
I'd say it was used for nothing, but was available in the event a new one was planned perhaps there was one that never got done .Who knows? Not all data taken is always used.
Regarding the two different syllabuses.
IT actually is a totally different Class White Dove
I understand that to you, you had that information for the other 34 pages at your disposal...but most people taking it (The majority) would have only had the two pages..
And I realize this is a small point but I would venture to guess ..And it is only a guess that there was at the very least a bit of discussion during your way corps experience of taking the class.
I do not think the actual class itself was different but the information available to review and study would have been completely different, and let's be honest many people did study and read their, books, Pamphlets etc after they took TWI class.
It is not a different class it is the same video. notes do not change the class on tape.
Notes are just that, they can be short 2 pages or long 34 pages it does not change the tape by the number of pages. The two page syllabus is simply taking two pages from a set of notes provided from the audio of the class. The fact that you did not get the other 32 does not magically change the content of the tape. It just means you have to write the notes down or transcribe them for yourself rather than having someone else do it for you and hand it to you. It is the same material either way. The information available was the same for you to review. The class was the same the amount of notes handed to you were different. I never disputed that fact only that it did not have a two page syllabus. Just as there was one PFAL class and two different sets of notes for it there was still one class not two. one was expanded notes one was basic notes both were from the same material and class. one you had it all written out for you ,one you had to supply some of your own notes from . It's still the same class.
By the way I ran a few of these classes and as an instructor you did not even know who wrote what, the pages were mixed together and handed in , unless you had them handed in in the order of the seating arrangement it would be impossible to know who's paper was who's Generally people handed them in when done, not in seating order. I made a point to shuffle them so no one could tell. That's in a room with 10 people imagine a room with hundreds of such nameless papers. Impossible..... Look its pretty simple it's like a deck of cards each card say representing a students paper. shuffle the deck or not tell me which card is which student?
The only way International would know who wrote what was if the papers were collected and kept in order and then the instructor were to write a seating chart to accompany the stack of papers with each persons name. I know of no such cases. This is a strawman argument to attempt to make a point that is not factual. Unfortunatly for the straw man it was not well thought out and common sense can tell you it has no merit.
That's three. Unless martindale just retaught wierwille's? (an extremely important point of course) Coulters was new. although I think Coulters class was merely damage control. The title was different I think.
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 took it. I do remember the coulter's class. it was so awful it was one of the 4 events that led to my decision to leave twi.
one thing I do remember is that syllabi changed regularly. grads were supplied new syllabus pages and directed to throw away the old ones. I don't remember how long my cfs syllabus was, but eventually I'll dig it out of my garage and find out.
I do appreciate everyone saying whats on their mind. With a board like GSC, keeping the subject on point is a good thing, but not a required thing, to me, its all good, even if that means a brainful of details.
May I go back to something sexier? Like anal sex. It anal sex thing, as I remember it was only briefly mentioned and it was in the context that Doctor thought believers might/would "try" it, once or twice, but it was "off the Word". I do not recall oral sex being specifically mentioned. And last, I don't recall if the concept of sexual boundaries, as far as practices between married couples came up.
A couple years ago, I read some book that talked about sexual boundaries and the idea they expressed was that if one of a married partners felt uncomfortable with a sexual practice, that the other married partner wanted to do, then like biblically and common sense wise, the practice is "off the table" so to speak. To me, the concept validates the equality of married partners, still fits within that concept of a married man being the head of the household and the wife...but I can't remember whether that was in the CF&S class...michael
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.
Ham
what I found "odd" was the inclusion of a survey, asking previous sexual history, if one had homosexual experiences, what they felt about abortion, etc. etc.
wherever did these surveys end up? I forget all of the questions.. maybe someone could post them if they know..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those interested in a side-discussion on abortion, we had one once in the Doctrinal forum
titled "Abortion. What does God say?"
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=11237
Feel free to start a NEW doctrinal thread on the subject, as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I have seen someone post a copy of a survey that was supposedly the one you are referring to.
The one they posted was NOT the one that was used in the classes I was involved with.
Your description is more in agreement with the one I remember, questions about sexual history, homosexuality, abuse, etc.
As to where they went: We were supposed to put them into an envelope immediately, without looking at the responses, seal it, and send it to HQ.
I always did exactly that. I can't answer for anyone else on that matter.
What became of them once they reached HQ is a valid question. I wish I knew.
edited to add this:
Yes, they were anonymous but HQ had a list of students in every class.
They had to keep that for determining eligibility for the Advanced Class.
So, suppose you had a class of 10 people, 7 were female , 5 of them were married and, of the two remaining single women, only one went into the Way Corps.
I think you can do the math.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Reading this makes me extremely glad I never took this class.
I would not want my personal information being sent to some anonymous person to log into my permanent file some where.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
But those pages were" pulled" out from a much larger 36 page syllabus. Just as the smaller later PFAL syllabus was "pulled" from the expanded PFAL syllabus.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Just for the record their are 18 questions on the questionnaire NONE have to do with if one had homosexual experiences. the questionnaires were sent to The Way Int. the purpose or as I was told was to provide feedback for areas of future development based on participants answers.
Note from the instructors guide (all CAPS) THE QUESTIONNAIRES SHOULD NOT BE ANALYZED OR SUMMARIZED BY THE CLASS INSTRUCTOR. THEY ARE TO BE SENT CONFIDENTIALLY TO THE WAY INTERNATIONAL TO THE ATTENTION OF THE EXTENSION AND OUTREACH DEPT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Two pages or two hundred pages. It's a moot point. People, outside of that isolated Way Corps class, sat through a class that used a two page "syllabus". That is the class that is being referenced in this discussion. If you want to debate the value of the materials in the other 34 pages, by all means, start another thread and do so. Your continuation of the page count discussion is a distraction from the heart of this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Another strawman.
The essence of what was being stated was that the questions sought specific personal information regarding sexual activity..
The exact verbiage of each question is irrelevant to the larger context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
edited to add this:
Yes, they were anonymous but HQ had a list of students in every class.
They had to keep that for determining eligibility for the Advanced Class.
So, suppose you had a class of 10 people, 7 were female , 5 of them were married and, of the two remaining single women, only one went into the Way Corps.
I think you can do the math.
Exactly what math could you do? You have a envelope with a class of ten peoples papers ,no names, you can determine from a class list at best, that there were x amount of men and x amount of women only. Which parties went to which papers one would have no way to determine. Even if someone were to enter the Corps program at some later time and someone were to dig for information, all that would be on record was 10 people took this class 10 questionnaires' were turned in who went with what questionnaire is not determinable. That’s assuming that they kept the class lists and each set of questionnaires' together which is doubtful since the list did not accompany the questionnaires' in the first place.
Oh and By the way they were mark an x questions so there was no handwriting to analyze . ( just in case someone might decide to grasp at some straw to further their case along) Real facts are so much fun....
No it's not it is correcting a point made that was in error. Not a big deal but still should be corrected. Is it your contention that erroneous information should be used to somehow discuss the truth?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You are clearly remembering a much different survey.
Even with just "x"s, as you say, it would definitely be possible to determine authorship by virtue of response.
Class lists were kept to validate Advanced Class eligibility.
It's been stated here, by first hand participants, that the Way Corps "Birth To Corps' papers were not held in confidence.
None of this excuses such a sorry example of a "class" that was supposed to be part of a Biblical research and teaching effort.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Christian Family and Sex is old wineskins. That was two classes ago. You need to stick to the Present Truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Another twisted interpretation of my statement.
Now let's discuss that point, shall we?
Maybe no one will notice it's a diversion from the original topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Wrong again someone misrepresented the questionnaire it has everything to do with the discussion, one can't discuss questions honestly that were on a questionnaire that were factually not there. It is fundamentally dishonest to make up questions that did not appear on a questionnaire and then theorize about them. Not that I think that was the case here I'd guess it was a case of poor memory. None the less before the theorizing gets out of hand it is indeed proper to correct the error.
.
No the exact verbiage is relevant to discussion one can not prove the point or disprove the point when they simply can't even figure out the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
wierwille's class
martindale's class
coulter's class
That's three. Unless martindale just retaught wierwille's? (an extremely important point of course) Coulters was new. although I think Coulters class was merely damage control. The title was different I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Clearly you are confused between two papers the From Birth to Corps papers with a name on them and a questionnaire without one. Whether the Corps papers were held in confidence or not has no bearing on another paper that has no relation to it. That’s a straw man argument.. they are two different things or papers as it is. It is impossible to determine from an X who is speaking on a sheet of paper.
Here let me demonstrate
X
X
X
X
X
Please kindly give the names of those responsible for the above answers....
I'd stop now while you are hopelessly behind.... and quit trying to supress the facts
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Okay I am jumping in the fray. actually the questionnairs coming in would have the twigs address on them and it is not such a big leap to see that they would have gotten matched up with names at head quarters... Did they??? we do not know but the possibility is still there.
Since none of the classes ever really were changed one wonders what that information was really used for.
Regarding the two different syllabuses.
IT actually is a totally different Class White Dove
I understand that to you, you had that information for the other 34 pages at your disposal...but most people taking it (The majority) would have only had the two pages..
And I realize this is a small point but I would venture to guess ..And it is only a guess that there was at the very least a bit of discussion during your way corps experience of taking the class.
I do not think the actual class itself was different but the information available to review and study would have been completely different, and let's be honest many people did study and read their, books, Pamphlets etc after they took TWI class.
Not only on their own but with in their Twigs and or WOW years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Perhaps you did not notice that funny looking little mark at the end of the sentence . That's referred to as a question mark it follows a question ,or so I'm told.
It is not a twisted interpretation of anything . it's purpose is to seek to clarify a point that is unclear. It is also not a statement it is a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leafytwiglet
Interesting Point Bolshevik.
Did you sit through all three??
And what about those bible verses on those two pages what were they ???
Questions questions???
Oh excuse me other than the over used pearl of great price one
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
By the way I ran a few of these classes and as an instructor you did not even know who wrote what, the pages were mixed together and handed in , unless you had them handed in in the order of the seating arrangement it would be impossible to know who's paper was who's Generally people handed them in when done, not in seating order. I made a point to shuffle them so no one could tell. That's in a room with 10 people imagine a room with hundreds of such nameless papers. Impossible..... Look its pretty simple it's like a deck of cards each card say representing a students paper. shuffle the deck or not tell me which card is which student?
The only way International would know who wrote what was if the papers were collected and kept in order and then the instructor were to write a seating chart to accompany the stack of papers with each persons name. I know of no such cases. This is a strawman argument to attempt to make a point that is not factual. Unfortunatly for the straw man it was not well thought out and common sense can tell you it has no merit.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
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 took it. I do remember the coulter's class. it was so awful it was one of the 4 events that led to my decision to leave twi.
one thing I do remember is that syllabi changed regularly. grads were supplied new syllabus pages and directed to throw away the old ones. I don't remember how long my cfs syllabus was, but eventually I'll dig it out of my garage and find out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
I do appreciate everyone saying whats on their mind. With a board like GSC, keeping the subject on point is a good thing, but not a required thing, to me, its all good, even if that means a brainful of details.
May I go back to something sexier? Like anal sex. It anal sex thing, as I remember it was only briefly mentioned and it was in the context that Doctor thought believers might/would "try" it, once or twice, but it was "off the Word". I do not recall oral sex being specifically mentioned. And last, I don't recall if the concept of sexual boundaries, as far as practices between married couples came up.
A couple years ago, I read some book that talked about sexual boundaries and the idea they expressed was that if one of a married partners felt uncomfortable with a sexual practice, that the other married partner wanted to do, then like biblically and common sense wise, the practice is "off the table" so to speak. To me, the concept validates the equality of married partners, still fits within that concept of a married man being the head of the household and the wife...but I can't remember whether that was in the CF&S class...michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
All this *banter* back and forth about how many pages were in the syllabus for the class is moot point.
If WhiteDove has a 36 page syllabus, it existed. If Waysider has a problem with that, too bad.
Perhaps Waysider should go back to the Song Of The Day thread and post there instead.
Who cares how many pages were in the syllabus??? I've got the original 2 here at the house.
There's no God **** way I would want the other 34 pages here. So much BS, and no room for it here.
The CF&S was a fugged up piece of work that had NO MENTION of adultery in it whatsoever.
That alone should have sent red flags up to each and everyone watching/ enrolled in the class.
It was an abysmal piece of work that showcased docvic's fetishes to the general populace.
I never did get an answer to MY original question:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh yea --- wasn't there a deleted section of the CF&S class about the original sin??? Hmmmmmm?
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.