I took the class several times, both the early 70's video in B&W and the final one in color. I was constantly looking for information that would be useful to me and people with little experience. I was constantly finding that I could not relate to it. It was obviously addressed to people who were "doing it" and feeling either guilty or bored or sinful about it. I had none of those needs, having no partner, and I was constantly disappointed in that class.
Here's an example: the vocabulary rundowns. It was for ministers, who presumably were married, and less experienced people in their flock would be looking to them for sex counseling. Dr specifically said this in the class. I'll paraphrase with double-double quotes because I've never felt a need to seek out the video and look it up:
""If someone comes to you for counseling and uses some street vocabulary for an anatomical body part or some sexual action, and you blanch with embarrassment, that person will never be able to trust you in another counseling session, so I'm giving you all this vocabulary to get you accustomed to hearing it.""
As street hippies, we'd burst out with laughter at all this, because we were totally used to most of the language. When he brought a word on those vocabulary lists we had not heard it was double funny. But for older straight laced establishment adults, they would turn beet red at many things in the class because they were raised to think it was all dirty and/or ultra private.
Another example was the teaching in that class about how sex could be made more interesting. Having hardly ever had ANY of it, I could not relate at all to this. It ALL seemed interesting to me. It took me a lot of time hearing things like this to realize that just like ice cream and candy, if you get it a lot, sex could get a little boring for some people unless they got "creative" about it.
That class was even more than 99% addressed to couples who were having trouble with sex. This is indisputable to me.
I took the class several times, both the early 70's video in B&W and the final one in color. I was constantly looking for information that would be useful to me and people with little experience. I was constantly finding that I could not relate to it. It was obviously addressed to people who were "doing it" and feeling either guilty or bored or sinful about it. I had none of those needs, having no partner, and I was constantly disappointed in that class.
Here's an example: the vocabulary rundowns. It was for ministers, who presumably were married, and less experienced people in their flock would be looking to them for sex counseling. Dr specifically said this in the class. I'll paraphrase with double-double quotes because I've never felt a need to seek out the video and look it up:
""If someone comes to you for counseling and uses some street vocabulary for an anatomical body part or some sexual action, and you blanch with embarrassment, that person will never be able to trust you in another counseling session, so I'm giving you all this vocabulary to get you accustomed to hearing it.""
As street hippies, we'd burst out with laughter at all this, because we were totally used to most of the language. When he brought a word on those vocabulary lists we had not heard it was double funny. But for older straight laced establishment adults, they would turn beet red at many things in the class because they were raised to think it was all dirty and/or ultra private.
The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang.
Conclusion? The lists were not intended specifically to make it easier for the students to
counsel others.
Furthermore, there was never a set of requirements that excluded non-ministers,
the neophyte who just finished pfal, nor the 13 year old who just took pfal.
13-year olds were able to take that class-and many did. Some have posted here
about it.
I agree it was to get people to be willing to discuss sex. WHY it was desirable to have
people willing to discuss sex is another matter entirely.
Another example was the teaching in that class about how sex could be made more interesting. Having hardly ever had ANY of it, I could not relate at all to this. It ALL seemed interesting to me. It took me a lot of time hearing things like this to realize that just like ice cream and candy, if you get it a lot, sex could get a little boring for some people unless they got "creative" about it.
That class was even more than 99% addressed to couples who were having trouble with sex. This is indisputable to me.
What's indisputable to me is vpw showed the early classes a bestiality video,
and that included MINORS.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who
didn't see it.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was
masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough
to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed.
What's indisputable to me is that LONG lists of terms rarely even used in slang were given
to talk about sex and body parts.
What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed
class to which stills from pornographic movies were added.
What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in
counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out.
What's indisputable to me is that it's been reported here that vpw had brought a
pornographic pen to one class, and had one of the young women come up to see it.
Your words below are in blue, and my disputations to your indisputables are in red.
The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang.
snip
And your evidence for this is....?
I assume you have a complete list of the words used in the class, from which you did your extensive research to see that in ALL PARTS of the country they were rarely used, and FOR ALL GENERATIONS they were rarely used.
This means not only do you have a list of the words from the class, but you also have a lot of data on the use of words all over different sections of the country and for many years.
Where did you get all that data? Hmmmmmmmm?
Where did you get all that time to gather all that data and come to your clonclusion? Hmmmmmm?
Or did you just shoot from the hip and assume that the words were rarely used.
My memory is that there were only a FEW words we hadn't heard of before and they made us laugh a lot. Maybe I should track down the video and produce the lists of words... assuming you don't have them and WERE shooting from the hip.
snip
What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who didn't see it.
I only remember hearing that certain behaviors were screwed up and that was one of them. If there was a film or still photos of that in the 70's classes they didn't make much of an impression on me.
I do remember that at that time in our culture LOTS of porn and LOTS of "new" forms of perversion was coming to the surface with lots of sensational publicity and acceptance by the media and messing with people's minds. What we learned in those 70's video classes was to not let it mess with our minds. Yes, minors were to warned and instructed because they too were exposed to the flood of new style porn of the time.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed.
I don't think this is correct.
I clearly remember it was taught that masturbation was wrong for Adam and Eve, and it was taught that in a modern marriage it was wrong or that it was an indication that something else was wrong.
For horny youngsters who couldn’t marry and had to burn, it was taught that masturbation was better than pre-marital sex. In the earlier B&W class we were warned that overdoing that could lead to devil spirits, but that was taken out of the color class. I forget if there was any kind of warning not to overdo it in the color class, but I think many of us knew that anyway. It's pretty much common sense.
What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed class to which stills from pornographic movies were added.
It was, by the standards of that day, rather soft porn. By today’s standards it was VERY soft porn.
How do I know this...? Um... Ah.... ........I read it in a book! Yeah, that's the ticket, I read it in a book.
What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out.
In the video Dr had Dr. Fritz Wiengarner come on camera and discuss medical and physiological things.
The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang.
Conclusion? The lists were not intended specifically to make it easier for the students to
counsel others.
And your evidence for this is....?
I assume you have a complete list of the words used in the class, from which you did your extensive research to see that in ALL PARTS of the country they were rarely used, and FOR ALL GENERATIONS they were rarely used.
This means not only do you have a list of the words from the class, but you also have a lot of data on the use of words all over different sections of the country and for many years.
Where did you get all that data? Hmmmmmmmm?
Where did you get all that time to gather all that data and come to your clonclusion? Hmmmmmm?
I remember that from the class itself. Long lists when slang doesn't dump dozens
and dozens of synonyms a few years apart. Even the suggestion of updating
the lists brought in as many as 2 terms in actual usage.
Or did you just shoot from the hip and assume that the words were rarely used.
My memory is that there were only a FEW words we hadn't heard of before and they made us laugh a lot.
My memory was that there were LOTS of words we hadn't heard used that way
before and made us laugh a lot.
Where's YOUR list of the usages and locations?
One cannot prove a negative- so I can't prove "it wasn't used"
any more than I can prove no space aliens were involved in taping a class.
So, if you're going to refute me, you'll need the corresponding evidence.
I'm confident most people here weren't used to hearing the majority of the slang-terms
used the way they were in CFS.
Furthermore, there was never a set of requirements that excluded non-ministers,
the neophyte who just finished pfal, nor the 13 year old who just took pfal.
13-year olds were able to take that class-and many did. Some have posted here
about it.
I agree it was to get people to be willing to discuss sex. WHY it was desirable to have
people willing to discuss sex is another matter entirely.
I noticed you skipped this point-which was important- to spend paragraphs saying
"I remember differently than you" on the slang list. Was it to draw attention away
from this point?
What's indisputable to me is vpw showed the early classes a bestiality video,
and that included MINORS.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who
didn't see it.
I only remember hearing that certain behaviors were screwed up and that was one of them. If there was a film or still photos of that in the 70's classes they didn't make much of an impression on me.
I do remember that at that time in our culture LOTS of porn and LOTS of "new" forms of perversion was coming to the surface with lots of sensational publicity and acceptance by the media and messing with people's minds. What we learned in those 70's video classes was to not let it mess with our minds. Yes, minors were to warned and instructed because they too were exposed to the flood of new style porn of the time.
The biggest exposure I had to it at the time was in the CFS class!
There wasn't a hammering on of right action and wrong action, what makes
one right and one wrong, etc.
We DID have a description of a pornographic bestiality film where some women were
trying to have sex with a dog, and they tried to physically stimulate him, then get
him to have sex, but that "the dog had more sense than the women" because
he was trying to get away from them.
I have yet to find people (other than Mike et al) who think this enhanced their
understanding of anything other than that the guy who decided this should be
covered was a major perv.
If there were warnings, they weren't the thrust of mentioning that.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was
masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough
to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed.
I don't think this is correct.
You have a right to think differently.
Other people remember it exactly the same, however.
That's come up before.
What's indisputable to me is that LONG lists of terms rarely even used in slang were given
to talk about sex and body parts.
What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed
class to which stills from pornographic movies were added.
It was, by the standards of that day, rather soft porn. By today’s standards it was VERY soft porn.
How do I know this...? Um... Ah.... ........I read it in a book! Yeah, that's the ticket, I read it in a book.
So, a supposed Biblical research organization was showing "rather soft porn"
(not counting the classes that saw the bestiality video).
What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in
counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out.
In the video Dr had Dr. Fritz Wiengarner come on camera and discuss medical and physiological things.
If this was necessary at all-and no strong case has been made that it was-
why was a man who had no training in biology and counseling teaching it, and
the medical guy only brought in briefly?
Should the BEST QUALIFIED people speak on Biology, Psychology, etc?
If that's the actual goal....
What's indisputable to me is that it's been reported here that vpw had brought a
pornographic pen to one class, and had one of the young women come up to see it.
So, a supposed Biblical research organization was showing "rather soft porn"
Well if the SNL Church Lady said that to me I’d say “LIGHTEN UP, Church Lady!”
Attorney General Ashcroft had the bare breasted statues in the Justice Department shrouded in the name of decency.
E-gads! How stupid people can act about sex is all about us.
A lot of the message I got from the CF&S class is that we ought not to be so up tight about sex. Yes, and this is the duty of a Biblical research ministry, otherwise how should we deal with “pornographic” images such as these:
Proverbs 5:18,19
Let thy fountain be blessed:
and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe;
let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;
and be thou ravished always with her love.
Songs 1:13
A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me;
he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
From “Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed” we can read written Biblical teaching on this subject of sex.
JCPS page187
Matthew 1:20 and 21:
But while [after] he [Joseph] thought [had pondered] on these things,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream [vision],
saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived [begotten] in her is of the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit].
And she shall bring forth a son,
and thou [Joseph] shalt call his name JESUS:
for he shall save his people [israel] from their sins.
This vision appeared to Joseph, according to verse 18, “before they came together,” referring to sexual intercourse; but now he is specifically instructed “take unto thee Mary thy wife,” which means to have sexual intercourse with her.
Couple that with what we have printed in JCPS pages 192,193:
When studied in context, Matthew 1 makes it clear that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary before Jesus was born, but not before Jesus was conceived. This should have been very evident to us long ago. However, because tradition has taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, our minds were led away from the simple accuracy of God’s Word. Many people have considered the subject of sex as unclean, and so do not properly understand passages like this one which specifically deals with sex. God’s Word covers all facets of life, from man’s deepest physical and emotional desires to the great spiritual realities of man’s redemption. God’s Word never degrades such aspects of living, but elevates them, dealing with them honestly and openly.
that class was 99% aimed at married couples who were not having much sex.
***
If you're stating that as an opinion, that's fine.
However, if you're presenting that as a statistic, you'll need to cite a source.
I'm puzzled why you think VPW would develop a class that was "99% aimed at married couples who weren't having sex" at a time when the ministry was comprised, to a high degree, (IMO) of young single people.
Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?
What about premarital sex?
If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?
I remember vic saying that "the word doesn't REALLY address premarital sex, because it just did not happen in that culture.." or words to that effect. My impression was that if one did not fornicate in the open light of day, he could close his eyes to it..
Still a pretty good discussion going on in the thread. Some of it is more like debate and thats all good with me.
One thing I felt that has come up recently, and I thought I would put my memory in about it is that there was that one part where I believe Doctor talked about married couples, in some sort of context of counselling was the couple having difficulties...and Doctor counselled both of them, telling the man to "cool" it a bit and the woman to "enjoy it a little more"..
I really do not recall feeling put off about any of what has been described here as "soft porn" or "porn" or in that context. The word porn is in the eye of the beholder, unless we are talking about "obscenity", which has a legal standard to my knowledge, that body of law, case law, including Supreme Court rulings, but then again I do acknowledge that "porn" could well be a term, that legal standand, local or state, that has to do with adult material, that is restricted to an age minimum, age of majority... So, the bottom line, with regard to my opinion, is that the dog, bestiality subject, area, in the class, didn't seem to have any point to it...and I have another example of that:
Howard Yeremian, in an FLO teaching, and I do not recall what context that teaching was in, announced, delved into telling us FLOers, that the most recent video going on in "adult theaters" was men beating up prostitutes...and at the time, I felt wierd hearing that, because I was thinking at the time, what does that have to do with the bible. Now it may be that he was pointing out how the world was getting spiritually darker and darker, but if that was Yeremian's point, it did not come across that way to me at the time...
I really can't recall, adult-like material some of the postings referred to, nudity, or naked pictures of women, along that line in CF&S..I do remember retaking the class in Washington State, many years after taking it in FLO and the instructor had a center fold of Playboy, held it up and sort of said "is this was sex was all about"...and then proceeded to tell the class that the paper Playboy centerfolds are printed on is some sort of special paper, a paper that has a feeling when you touch it, more like the feeling of touching human skin....So, what I am getting to with this is that TWI, came up with these details, from time to time, in teachings that went well beyond a sense of normal in order to drive home their, TWI's expertise and competency in areas in order to "convince us". And of course, it only worked for a short period of time, here we are laughing at them for these silly stunts.
Hey Mods, has anyone ever thought about a "smiley" that shows a train wreck, or at least a train derailment? Like the "Off topic" button but more explicit?
I don't remember having taken it. If I did, it wasn't noteworthy.
I do remember our LC being invited to a ladies breakfast to talk and how he went on and on about how a guy needs to be relieved every 72 hours. All I said was "chapter and verse" (which belongs in one-liners) and that had to be the most unreasonable, selfish thing I had heard. Nothing about what was good for women.
I came home and asked my husband if that was the kind of crap taught in CF&S.
Did the Family and Sex class say anything about adultery?
In typical wierwille fashion, the issue of adultery was never directly addressed. Wierwille always (to the best of my knowledge) contended that "adultery" in the Bible was really talking about spiritual adultery, worshiping false idols, not a physical sex act. He also used that definition to belittle and control people by implying that if you didn't understand that, you must be "spiritually weak."
What about premarital sex?
Many young people sat through the class in anticipation of having this question answered. It never was. He hemmed and hawed around the issue. In essence, not verbatim, of course, what he said was that masturbation was Ok for single people but not for married people unless it was a mutual activity. In a clouded manner, as was typical of him, he implied that the sex act was defined by penetration. So, he left it up to the students to extract a conclusion from that.
If you don't remember anything particular about this- what impression did you get from Wierwille (or Martindale or Coulter) about premarital sex or sex outside marriage?
I don't remember having taken it. If I did, it wasn't noteworthy.
I do remember our LC being invited to a ladies breakfast to talk and how he went on and on about how a guy needs to be relieved every 72 hours. All I said was "chapter and verse" (which belongs in one-liners) and that had to be the most unreasonable, selfish thing I had heard. Nothing about what was good for women.
I came home and asked my husband if that was the kind of crap taught in CF&S.
It wouldn't surprise me that LCM used the would "need" with regard to men and this 72 hour subject, in my opinion, a better way of putting it is that when you are 18 - 30something men feel "pressure" or "discomfort" after 72 hours without having sexual relations or self-stimulation. I am 55 so I have been there. There are a lot of books on Christian Marriage that go into the subject, far better than TWI did, and their position on it is that a part of the responsibility of a wife is to be aware of the physical differences between men and women, and yes, it goes the same for husbands (being aware of the physical, emotion, and mental differences of the sexes). One of the best books on marriage, I have read, is "Kosher Sex", a book written by a Rabbi, and its focus for the most part is the relationship, not the physical act itself.. Another example of the extreme differences between men and women is that men are far, far more visual as far as stimulation, than women. Some women upon being aware of this, even have extreme reactions, like disgust at the notion of its existence. In closing, I would note that women inherently are better communicators than men, the left side and the right side of their brain is physically far better connected than men. In my own life, I have spent a great deal of time in learning HOW to communicate and HOW to listen, due to this specific capability of women.
Yes, TWI was way, way into the "grace" thing with regard to sexual matters. My WOW brother engaged in some "peeping" with my WOW sister on the field, toward the end of the WOW year and I did not learn of it til 2 years later. Nothing even hinted of it or pointed to it, was not discussed, or mentioned while I was on the field, that would be my only personal, or closest brush with sexual abuse in TWI. After TWI, I have read account after account of sexual abuse in TWI, and almost all of it happened way above my level of association in TWI, like HQ, and Branch Leaders, State Coordinators and its very shocking, still is shocking.
Although, the grace concept, ignore it, live in love, and move on concept with regard to these matters was in force for the most part, there were exceptions and I saw one in FLO, were two young people had done some "petting" that involved touching and removing clothes, and they were sent home.
In bringing this back to the umbrella of the topic and thread, I would say that the CF&S Class fell into TWI's notion to "endeavor" to rightly divide the Word, but I feel they, TWI, never really consistently reached or applied the "endeavor" mindset or goal, some individuals did, but as a whole..I don't feel that way.
Although, the grace concept, ignore it, live in love, and move on concept with regard to these matters was in force for the most part, there were exceptions and I saw one in FLO, were two young people had done some "petting" that involved touching and removing clothes, and they were sent home.
Yo, Waysider, I am merely a simple country guy, so I am not familiar with "big city" slang, would you clue me in on "bums' rush", I would enjoy getting in on the joke...oh, wait, I have the internet..ok, I will look it up...
**** fourteen seconds later******** Ok, waysider, I got it...ya, that is a good one. I like that, thanks.
It wouldn't surprise me that LCM used the would "need" with regard to men and this 72 hour subject, in my opinion, a better way of putting it is that when you are 18 - 30something men feel "pressure" or "discomfort" after 72 hours without having sexual relations or self-stimulation.
It wasn't LCM who said this (it was either before he took over, or shortly after), it was our Limb Coordinator. Again, this wasn't a "biblical" standard by which you base a belief, it was an opinion that somehow took on a life of its own.
To the best of my knowledge, no one was sitting the guys down and talking about this marital benevolence being a two way street. It was presented to me as being part of the virtuous woman standard.
As in many things that Wierwille did, there was an ulterior motive to the CF&S class...
1-instill the idea in the minds of his young female followers that sexual activity is not only permissible but a way in which to "bless a man of God" who had "needs".
2-to consider abortion as a viable alternative for any pregnancies that occurred due to their promiscuity.
3-to subjugate women in the submissive role that Wierwille so cherished
...There was additional "sexual information" that was eeked out through various twi venues...such as in the advanced class when Wierwille mentions in passing that God has given us sexual freedoms that we are not yet spiritually mature enough to "handle"...this would set the stage for Wierwiile telling his victims that they WERE spiritually mature enough to "handle it".
Having Wierwille (or Martindale) teach about Christian family and sex is like Jeffrey Dahmer teaching about gourmet cooking.
there was very much an attitude in the early 90's that if a woman didn't spread her legs for her man, then whatever went wrong in the marriage was her fault.
a branch leader who was caught stealing ABS and having an affair with a "new believer" that traumatized her so much she went up the food chain to confess was outted to everyone in the area, and in the aftermath the branch leader's marriage failed. word coming down from the LC's was that the marriage failed because the couple was only having sex a few times a year.
sorry, don't buy it. I knew the guy well and the marriage failed because he was a dick. his wife didn't want to have sex with him because he was a dick. that's exactly how I felt at the end of my marriage. why should any woman have to have sex with a man who can't show her a shred of respect or treat her like a person? to hell with that.
CF&S gave lip service to an equitable marriage, but the reality is that all it really did is set up the expectation that the woman should service the man whether she wanted to or not, essentially meaning if he got horny after beating her up, she was out of fellowship if she denied him.
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.
Mike
Maybe you should have read a few lines down before asking me that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
edited --- cause it just ain't worth the fight.
You do and say what ya gotta say Mike.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I took the class several times, both the early 70's video in B&W and the final one in color. I was constantly looking for information that would be useful to me and people with little experience. I was constantly finding that I could not relate to it. It was obviously addressed to people who were "doing it" and feeling either guilty or bored or sinful about it. I had none of those needs, having no partner, and I was constantly disappointed in that class.
Here's an example: the vocabulary rundowns. It was for ministers, who presumably were married, and less experienced people in their flock would be looking to them for sex counseling. Dr specifically said this in the class. I'll paraphrase with double-double quotes because I've never felt a need to seek out the video and look it up:
""If someone comes to you for counseling and uses some street vocabulary for an anatomical body part or some sexual action, and you blanch with embarrassment, that person will never be able to trust you in another counseling session, so I'm giving you all this vocabulary to get you accustomed to hearing it.""
As street hippies, we'd burst out with laughter at all this, because we were totally used to most of the language. When he brought a word on those vocabulary lists we had not heard it was double funny. But for older straight laced establishment adults, they would turn beet red at many things in the class because they were raised to think it was all dirty and/or ultra private.
Another example was the teaching in that class about how sex could be made more interesting. Having hardly ever had ANY of it, I could not relate at all to this. It ALL seemed interesting to me. It took me a lot of time hearing things like this to realize that just like ice cream and candy, if you get it a lot, sex could get a little boring for some people unless they got "creative" about it.
That class was even more than 99% addressed to couples who were having trouble with sex. This is indisputable to me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Think what you want. Say what you will. It's all BS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well I just posted some specific details.
Let's see yours.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang.
Conclusion? The lists were not intended specifically to make it easier for the students to
counsel others.
Furthermore, there was never a set of requirements that excluded non-ministers,
the neophyte who just finished pfal, nor the 13 year old who just took pfal.
13-year olds were able to take that class-and many did. Some have posted here
about it.
I agree it was to get people to be willing to discuss sex. WHY it was desirable to have
people willing to discuss sex is another matter entirely.
What's indisputable to me is vpw showed the early classes a bestiality video,
and that included MINORS.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who
didn't see it.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was
masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough
to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed.
What's indisputable to me is that LONG lists of terms rarely even used in slang were given
to talk about sex and body parts.
What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed
class to which stills from pornographic movies were added.
What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in
counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out.
What's indisputable to me is that it's been reported here that vpw had brought a
pornographic pen to one class, and had one of the young women come up to see it.
That's the intro. I can go on, with specifics. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Mike Mike - you clearly need to spend a good weekend at OTL - that'll cure ya of your religious worship of Der Victoid's sexual aberrations
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The lists were extensive, and included words that were barely ever used, even in slang.
Conclusion? The lists were not intended specifically to make it easier for the students to
counsel others.
And your evidence for this is....?
I assume you have a complete list of the words used in the class, from which you did your extensive research to see that in ALL PARTS of the country they were rarely used, and FOR ALL GENERATIONS they were rarely used.
This means not only do you have a list of the words from the class, but you also have a lot of data on the use of words all over different sections of the country and for many years.
Where did you get all that data? Hmmmmmmmm?
Where did you get all that time to gather all that data and come to your clonclusion? Hmmmmmm?
I remember that from the class itself. Long lists when slang doesn't dump dozens
and dozens of synonyms a few years apart. Even the suggestion of updating
the lists brought in as many as 2 terms in actual usage.
Or did you just shoot from the hip and assume that the words were rarely used.
My memory is that there were only a FEW words we hadn't heard of before and they made us laugh a lot.
My memory was that there were LOTS of words we hadn't heard used that way
before and made us laugh a lot.
Where's YOUR list of the usages and locations?
One cannot prove a negative- so I can't prove "it wasn't used"
any more than I can prove no space aliens were involved in taping a class.
So, if you're going to refute me, you'll need the corresponding evidence.
I'm confident most people here weren't used to hearing the majority of the slang-terms
used the way they were in CFS.
Furthermore, there was never a set of requirements that excluded non-ministers,
the neophyte who just finished pfal, nor the 13 year old who just took pfal.
13-year olds were able to take that class-and many did. Some have posted here
about it.
I agree it was to get people to be willing to discuss sex. WHY it was desirable to have
people willing to discuss sex is another matter entirely.
I noticed you skipped this point-which was important- to spend paragraphs saying
"I remember differently than you" on the slang list. Was it to draw attention away
from this point?
What's indisputable to me is vpw showed the early classes a bestiality video,
and that included MINORS.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw described the bestiality video to the classes who
didn't see it.
I only remember hearing that certain behaviors were screwed up and that was one of them. If there was a film or still photos of that in the 70's classes they didn't make much of an impression on me.
I do remember that at that time in our culture LOTS of porn and LOTS of "new" forms of perversion was coming to the surface with lots of sensational publicity and acceptance by the media and messing with people's minds. What we learned in those 70's video classes was to not let it mess with our minds. Yes, minors were to warned and instructed because they too were exposed to the flood of new style porn of the time.
The biggest exposure I had to it at the time was in the CFS class!
There wasn't a hammering on of right action and wrong action, what makes
one right and one wrong, etc.
We DID have a description of a pornographic bestiality film where some women were
trying to have sex with a dog, and they tried to physically stimulate him, then get
him to have sex, but that "the dog had more sense than the women" because
he was trying to get away from them.
I have yet to find people (other than Mike et al) who think this enhanced their
understanding of anything other than that the guy who decided this should be
covered was a major perv.
If there were warnings, they weren't the thrust of mentioning that.
What's indisputable to me is that vpw used that class to teach that the "original sin" was
masturbation- and went on to say that NOW it was perfectly fine, but THEN it was enough
to kick them out of paradise- and spun that out of VERY thin reed.
I don't think this is correct.
You have a right to think differently.
Other people remember it exactly the same, however.
That's come up before.
What's indisputable to me is that LONG lists of terms rarely even used in slang were given
to talk about sex and body parts.
What's indisputable to me is that large portions of the class were a simple hygiene/sex ed
class to which stills from pornographic movies were added.
It was, by the standards of that day, rather soft porn. By today’s standards it was VERY soft porn.
How do I know this...? Um... Ah.... ........I read it in a book! Yeah, that's the ticket, I read it in a book.
So, a supposed Biblical research organization was showing "rather soft porn"
(not counting the classes that saw the bestiality video).
What's indisputable to me is that a man who had no training in biology, no training in
counseling, was teaching this class-when those who WERE qualified were sitting it out.
In the video Dr had Dr. Fritz Wiengarner come on camera and discuss medical and physiological things.
If this was necessary at all-and no strong case has been made that it was-
why was a man who had no training in biology and counseling teaching it, and
the medical guy only brought in briefly?
Should the BEST QUALIFIED people speak on Biology, Psychology, etc?
If that's the actual goal....
What's indisputable to me is that it's been reported here that vpw had brought a
pornographic pen to one class, and had one of the young women come up to see it.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well if the SNL Church Lady said that to me I’d say “LIGHTEN UP, Church Lady!”
Attorney General Ashcroft had the bare breasted statues in the Justice Department shrouded in the name of decency.
E-gads! How stupid people can act about sex is all about us.
A lot of the message I got from the CF&S class is that we ought not to be so up tight about sex. Yes, and this is the duty of a Biblical research ministry, otherwise how should we deal with “pornographic” images such as these:
Proverbs 5:18,19
Let thy fountain be blessed:
and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe;
let her breasts satisfy thee at all times;
and be thou ravished always with her love.
Songs 1:13
A bundle of myrrh is my wellbeloved unto me;
he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts.
From “Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed” we can read written Biblical teaching on this subject of sex.
JCPS page187
Matthew 1:20 and 21:
But while [after] he [Joseph] thought [had pondered] on these things,
behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream [vision],
saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife:
for that which is conceived [begotten] in her is of the Holy Ghost [Holy Spirit].
And she shall bring forth a son,
and thou [Joseph] shalt call his name JESUS:
for he shall save his people [israel] from their sins.
This vision appeared to Joseph, according to verse 18, “before they came together,” referring to sexual intercourse; but now he is specifically instructed “take unto thee Mary thy wife,” which means to have sexual intercourse with her.
Couple that with what we have printed in JCPS pages 192,193:
When studied in context, Matthew 1 makes it clear that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary before Jesus was born, but not before Jesus was conceived. This should have been very evident to us long ago. However, because tradition has taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, our minds were led away from the simple accuracy of God’s Word. Many people have considered the subject of sex as unclean, and so do not properly understand passages like this one which specifically deals with sex. God’s Word covers all facets of life, from man’s deepest physical and emotional desires to the great spiritual realities of man’s redemption. God’s Word never degrades such aspects of living, but elevates them, dealing with them honestly and openly.
Well now, isn’t that SPAYSHELL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If you're stating that as an opinion, that's fine.
However, if you're presenting that as a statistic, you'll need to cite a source.
I'm puzzled why you think VPW would develop a class that was "99% aimed at married couples who weren't having sex" at a time when the ministry was comprised, to a high degree, (IMO) of young single people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I remember vic saying that "the word doesn't REALLY address premarital sex, because it just did not happen in that culture.." or words to that effect. My impression was that if one did not fornicate in the open light of day, he could close his eyes to it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
Still a pretty good discussion going on in the thread. Some of it is more like debate and thats all good with me.
One thing I felt that has come up recently, and I thought I would put my memory in about it is that there was that one part where I believe Doctor talked about married couples, in some sort of context of counselling was the couple having difficulties...and Doctor counselled both of them, telling the man to "cool" it a bit and the woman to "enjoy it a little more"..
I really do not recall feeling put off about any of what has been described here as "soft porn" or "porn" or in that context. The word porn is in the eye of the beholder, unless we are talking about "obscenity", which has a legal standard to my knowledge, that body of law, case law, including Supreme Court rulings, but then again I do acknowledge that "porn" could well be a term, that legal standand, local or state, that has to do with adult material, that is restricted to an age minimum, age of majority... So, the bottom line, with regard to my opinion, is that the dog, bestiality subject, area, in the class, didn't seem to have any point to it...and I have another example of that:
Howard Yeremian, in an FLO teaching, and I do not recall what context that teaching was in, announced, delved into telling us FLOers, that the most recent video going on in "adult theaters" was men beating up prostitutes...and at the time, I felt wierd hearing that, because I was thinking at the time, what does that have to do with the bible. Now it may be that he was pointing out how the world was getting spiritually darker and darker, but if that was Yeremian's point, it did not come across that way to me at the time...
I really can't recall, adult-like material some of the postings referred to, nudity, or naked pictures of women, along that line in CF&S..I do remember retaking the class in Washington State, many years after taking it in FLO and the instructor had a center fold of Playboy, held it up and sort of said "is this was sex was all about"...and then proceeded to tell the class that the paper Playboy centerfolds are printed on is some sort of special paper, a paper that has a feeling when you touch it, more like the feeling of touching human skin....So, what I am getting to with this is that TWI, came up with these details, from time to time, in teachings that went well beyond a sense of normal in order to drive home their, TWI's expertise and competency in areas in order to "convince us". And of course, it only worked for a short period of time, here we are laughing at them for these silly stunts.
Edited by mchud11Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Hey Mods, has anyone ever thought about a "smiley" that shows a train wreck, or at least a train derailment? Like the "Off topic" button but more explicit?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I don't remember having taken it. If I did, it wasn't noteworthy.
I do remember our LC being invited to a ladies breakfast to talk and how he went on and on about how a guy needs to be relieved every 72 hours. All I said was "chapter and verse" (which belongs in one-liners) and that had to be the most unreasonable, selfish thing I had heard. Nothing about what was good for women.
I came home and asked my husband if that was the kind of crap taught in CF&S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
It wouldn't surprise me that LCM used the would "need" with regard to men and this 72 hour subject, in my opinion, a better way of putting it is that when you are 18 - 30something men feel "pressure" or "discomfort" after 72 hours without having sexual relations or self-stimulation. I am 55 so I have been there. There are a lot of books on Christian Marriage that go into the subject, far better than TWI did, and their position on it is that a part of the responsibility of a wife is to be aware of the physical differences between men and women, and yes, it goes the same for husbands (being aware of the physical, emotion, and mental differences of the sexes). One of the best books on marriage, I have read, is "Kosher Sex", a book written by a Rabbi, and its focus for the most part is the relationship, not the physical act itself.. Another example of the extreme differences between men and women is that men are far, far more visual as far as stimulation, than women. Some women upon being aware of this, even have extreme reactions, like disgust at the notion of its existence. In closing, I would note that women inherently are better communicators than men, the left side and the right side of their brain is physically far better connected than men. In my own life, I have spent a great deal of time in learning HOW to communicate and HOW to listen, due to this specific capability of women.
michael
Edited by mchud11Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
Yes, TWI was way, way into the "grace" thing with regard to sexual matters. My WOW brother engaged in some "peeping" with my WOW sister on the field, toward the end of the WOW year and I did not learn of it til 2 years later. Nothing even hinted of it or pointed to it, was not discussed, or mentioned while I was on the field, that would be my only personal, or closest brush with sexual abuse in TWI. After TWI, I have read account after account of sexual abuse in TWI, and almost all of it happened way above my level of association in TWI, like HQ, and Branch Leaders, State Coordinators and its very shocking, still is shocking.
Although, the grace concept, ignore it, live in love, and move on concept with regard to these matters was in force for the most part, there were exceptions and I saw one in FLO, were two young people had done some "petting" that involved touching and removing clothes, and they were sent home.
In bringing this back to the umbrella of the topic and thread, I would say that the CF&S Class fell into TWI's notion to "endeavor" to rightly divide the Word, but I feel they, TWI, never really consistently reached or applied the "endeavor" mindset or goal, some individuals did, but as a whole..I don't feel that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think "bum's rush" might better describe it.
:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mchud11
Yo, Waysider, I am merely a simple country guy, so I am not familiar with "big city" slang, would you clue me in on "bums' rush", I would enjoy getting in on the joke...oh, wait, I have the internet..ok, I will look it up...
**** fourteen seconds later******** Ok, waysider, I got it...ya, that is a good one. I like that, thanks.
Edited by mchud11Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
It wasn't LCM who said this (it was either before he took over, or shortly after), it was our Limb Coordinator. Again, this wasn't a "biblical" standard by which you base a belief, it was an opinion that somehow took on a life of its own.
To the best of my knowledge, no one was sitting the guys down and talking about this marital benevolence being a two way street. It was presented to me as being part of the virtuous woman standard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
As in many things that Wierwille did, there was an ulterior motive to the CF&S class...
1-instill the idea in the minds of his young female followers that sexual activity is not only permissible but a way in which to "bless a man of God" who had "needs".
2-to consider abortion as a viable alternative for any pregnancies that occurred due to their promiscuity.
3-to subjugate women in the submissive role that Wierwille so cherished
...There was additional "sexual information" that was eeked out through various twi venues...such as in the advanced class when Wierwille mentions in passing that God has given us sexual freedoms that we are not yet spiritually mature enough to "handle"...this would set the stage for Wierwiile telling his victims that they WERE spiritually mature enough to "handle it".
Having Wierwille (or Martindale) teach about Christian family and sex is like Jeffrey Dahmer teaching about gourmet cooking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
So THAT's my problem!
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
there was very much an attitude in the early 90's that if a woman didn't spread her legs for her man, then whatever went wrong in the marriage was her fault.
a branch leader who was caught stealing ABS and having an affair with a "new believer" that traumatized her so much she went up the food chain to confess was outted to everyone in the area, and in the aftermath the branch leader's marriage failed. word coming down from the LC's was that the marriage failed because the couple was only having sex a few times a year.
sorry, don't buy it. I knew the guy well and the marriage failed because he was a dick. his wife didn't want to have sex with him because he was a dick. that's exactly how I felt at the end of my marriage. why should any woman have to have sex with a man who can't show her a shred of respect or treat her like a person? to hell with that.
CF&S gave lip service to an equitable marriage, but the reality is that all it really did is set up the expectation that the woman should service the man whether she wanted to or not, essentially meaning if he got horny after beating her up, she was out of fellowship if she denied him.
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.