The reason TWI originally flourished was because Wierwille was a narcissistic, sociopathic con man. Every other factor was incidental to that one. TWI fell apart soon after Wierwille died because he NEVER raised anybody up as an alternate leader, but surrounded himself with incompetent sycophants. The current leader of TWI came to that position because she also is a narcissistic, sociopathic con woman, but she doesn't have the same set of skills that Wierwille used to build the organization. Her skill set was in the sack instead of on the main stage at the Rock of Ages.
-----
I Corinthians 2 has intrigued me for some time now. A few years ago I wrote a paper on 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 which deals with knowledge. A little over a year ago I wrote a 38 page paper on I Corinthians 12-14, and it strikes me that an understanding of 1 Corinthians 2 is foundational for both 1 Corinthians 8:1-6 AND 1 Corinthians 12-14. I intend to write my exegesis paper for BIST 6220 this semester on 1 Corinthians 2.
There is one thing I can say for sure though, based on the research I did for 1 Corinthians 8:1-6, the cosmology the Corinthians held and understood was Stoic, not Platonic. When Wierwille taught that there are two realms, the spiritual realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm take precedence over the laws of the senses realm, he was blowing Platonic bovine fecal matter!
The literal meaning of "spirit" is "air in motion." Things that have air moving in and out of them are alive. Things that no longer have air moving in and out of them are dead. So the word "spirit" took on the figurative meaning of "life-force", or "that which makes something otherwise dead alive." What 1 Corinthians 2 means needs to be re-thought.
Love,
Steve
Now, I can relate to that. All of that. Thanks Steve.
As Twinky suggested, this seems like a tangent from the original question at the top of the thread. But really,
I see it as getting to one answer to that original question. Twi isn't as big now as it was in the 1970s because
so many people who experienced twi in the 1970s realized, for whatever reason, that Wierwille's flavor of Christianity
(or maybe Christianity itself) doesn't provide a fulfilling, satisfying spiritual or otherwise experience.
. . .
John 10:10a.
I think Steve's post helps point out how narrow thinking gets in "The Cult of PFAL". Minds get so small that they need to be told "you're happy and having a good time" and then they do. If those minds don't, the mental knots just start piling up.
To communicate with Wayfers, at times, you have to find that tiny, narrow bandwidth and stay on it. Once in that rut . .
There is one thing I can say for sure though, based on the research I did for 1 Corinthians 8:1-6, the cosmology the Corinthians held and understood was Stoic, not Platonic. When Wierwille taught that there are two realms, the spiritual realm and the senses realm, and that the laws of the spirit realm take precedence over the laws of the senses realm, he was blowing Platonic bovine fecal matter!
Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism?
Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism Plato?
Hi TLC.
I have read with interest your recent posts. They seem to have a slant directed toward me which smacks of sarcasm and hyperbole. I trust your prejudices may be overcome by honest dialogue, if you can get over your obvious attitudes. My recount of the ordinations stands as is. There are only date errors. The turd corpse was "invited" to be ordained one year after they graduated, as were the 2nd corpse. I PERSONALLY discussed the denial of ordination to 3 different 3rd corpse individual with them and "elders". Two males, one female. They were NOT invited to be ordained nor were their requests for same m considered. These points have been made here before by Charlene Lamy Edge, 2nd corpse grad and have been acknowledged by yours truly. So , your sly attempt to attack my credibility regarding 30 year old facts has fallen to pieces. I'll put my memory up against your's any second of any day. How many corpse placement meetings did you attend starting in 1977?? What corpse were you in? What are your twit "credentials"? Tell us oh cryptic one. You are not sparse with your sarcastic opinions, so how about telling us about your twit involvement? NO lying or embellishments now.......LOL!
TLC, you appear to be to have a personal agenda that goes beyond exposing authentic facts regarding twit and your involvement therein. That's fine, but also quite obvious. The posts I have made recounting the facts behind twit ordinations have been verified by several who have been ordained and others who observed ordinations. Get your facts straight and try again. Also, try reading ALL the info posted here regarding twit ordinations. You might learn some things or, at least have your sleepy memory woken up. Then, maybe, there may be some value and veracity to your sardonic sarcastic editorializing. TY.
Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism Plato?
TLC,
What I got out of Steve's comment was a reminder that I often interpret Bible verses, and life, the way Victor Paul Wierwille (via The Way International, PFAL, etc.) taught to view it. That perception provides a tunnel vision, unfair judgments, and missed opportunities. It's a position that needs constant defense and leads to arguments over esoteric minutia. That takes some work to become aware of.
I have read with interest your recent posts. They seem to have a slant directed toward me which smacks of sarcasm and hyperbole. I trust your prejudices may be overcome by honest dialogue, if you can get over your obvious attitudes. My recount of the ordinations stands as is. There are only date errors. The turd corpse was "invited" to be ordained one year after they graduated, as were the 2nd corpse. I PERSONALLY discussed the denial of ordination to 3 different 3rd corpse individual with them and "elders". Two males, one female. They were NOT invited to be ordained nor were their requests for same m considered. These points have been made here before by Charlene Lamy Edge, 2nd corpse grad and have been acknowledged by yours truly. So , your sly attempt to attack my credibility regarding 30 year old facts has fallen to pieces. I'll put my memory up against your's any second of any day. How many corpse placement meetings did you attend starting in 1977?? What corpse were you in? What are your twit "credentials"? Tell us oh cryptic one. You are not sparse with your sarcastic opinions, so how about telling us about your twit involvement? NO lying or embellishments now.......LOL!
TLC, you appear to be to have a personal agenda that goes beyond exposing authentic facts regarding twit and your involvement therein. That's fine, but also quite obvious. The posts I have made recounting the facts behind twit ordinations have been verified by several who have been ordained and others who observed ordinations. Get your facts straight and try again. Also, try reading ALL the info posted here regarding twit ordinations. You might learn some things or, at least have your sleepy memory woken up. Then, maybe, there may be some value and veracity to your sardonic sarcastic editorializing. TY.
Not to mention his pseudo-intellectualist efforts to make sense of "spiritual knowledge."
He also did a nice sidestep when challenged on the premise of the entire twit theology. :)
TLC,
What I got out of Steve's comment was a reminder that I often interpret Bible verses, and life, the way Victor Paul Wierwille (via The Way International, PFAL, etc.) taught to view it. That perception provides a tunnel vision, unfair judgments, and missed opportunities. It's a position that needs constant defense and leads to arguments over esoteric minutia. That takes some work to become aware of.
Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism Plato?
If you want to learn the truth about such things, TLC, you can always google them.
On the "God-breathed?" thread, when Raf pointed out your sloppy research, you responded, "Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
Why do you ask questions about things when you don't want to spend the energy it takes to find the real answers for yourself?
I have read with interest your recent posts. They seem to have a slant directed toward me which smacks of sarcasm and hyperbole. I trust your prejudices may be overcome by honest dialogue, if you can get over your obvious attitudes.
A while back I was moved to take a more honest look at what effect my involvement in the minitsty may have had on my own elitist, know more truth than others, attitude. To put it bluntly, it wasn't a pretty picture. (The road to recovery ususally starts by first recognizing and acknowleding the problem.) Having said that, I can say with a clear and pure conscious that I do not (and have never, really) held any bitterness, anger, or resentment in my heart towards anyone or anything that took place during those years. Mistakes were made, and I certainly own my share of them. But given where I am at now, I would neither trade, nor want to go through them again for anything.
As for your mistaken and misperceived comments, I'll set the record straight. No such slant exists. Who you were then had little or no effect on me, nor had I any on you. (So there is no reason whatsoever for such a slant.) What I've posted to date on this site have been straightforward and honest efforts to communicate my thoughts and recall the accurate facts to the best of my ability. If I am unsure about something, I'll say as much. If sure, then that's my recollection of it. If you don't like it, or disagree with it, you can then discuss it, or you can flame away, as you're poised to do in this post. I really don't care.
My recount of the ordinations stands as is. There are only date errors.
Think what you want. I believe that my comments are accurate. If you care to look again, you'll see that I said all were invited. If some were subsequently "disapproved," as per your account, that's another matter. Furthermore, there is the matter of ordination vs. "gift ministiries." Perhaps you missed the meeting (imagine that) where VPW plainly stated that everyone in the first three corps had gift ministries. Not all were ordained, obviously. Nor am I saying that VPW was necessarily correct. I'm relating what he actually said, which is in opposition to your "obviously not every one had gift ministries according to the "revelation" given vic by god" statement.
I PERSONALLY discussed the denial of ordination to 3 different 3rd corpse individual with them and "elders". Two males, one female. They were NOT invited to be ordained nor were their requests for same m considered. These points have been made here before by Charlene Lamy Edge, 2nd corpse grad and have been acknowledged by yours truly. So , your sly attempt to attack my credibility regarding 30 year old facts has fallen to pieces. I'll put my memory up against your's any second of any day. How many corpse placement meetings did you attend starting in 1977?? What corpse were you in? What are your twit "credentials"? Tell us oh cryptic one. You are not sparse with your sarcastic opinions, so how about telling us about your twit involvement? NO lying or embellishments now.......LOL!
It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy as you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip.
Perhaps it's worth repeating something I posted a few days ago on this very same thread:
(Needless to say, I think the nametags, the "Rev's", and the Corps program itself did sufficient damage on their own. They all did a swell job of inflating ego's and puffing heads... and I'm unaware of any exceptions, if there were any.)
Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego?
Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)
If you want to learn the truth about such things, TLC, you can always google them.
Wasn't the truth I was looking for (I go to God for that, not Google.) I was interested in what you were trying to communicate.
But, have fun entertaining others with your mind games, if that's all you're into.
On the "God-breathed?" thread, when Raf pointed out your sloppy research, you responded, "Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
It wasn't intended as, nor was it set forth as, any kind of quality research. Evidently you didn't follow the thought. Then again, the discussion wasn't with you.
Why do you ask questions about things when you don't want to spend the energy it takes to find the real answers for yourself?
But go right on ahead and jump onboard that wagon DWBH is steering, if that's your style.
"It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
TLC......TY on behalf of all "the younger readers here". We all your appreciate your stepping in voluntarily as the wise old sage under the guise of asking questions (my opinion), seeming to want to encourage contemplative, objective critical thought and hindsight. However, when re-read and followed closely, they are not contemplative at all IMO. Rather, they are combative and filled with YOUR personal recollections and opinions stated as if they are indeed factual. When confronted with these matters of fact, having no logical retort, you resort to the old tried and true logical fallacies of the ad hominem attack, straw man arguments, false equivalencies, false choices, and red herring arguments quickly get thrown around, again under a guise of encouraging contemplative, objective critical thought, but in actuality, setting up another combat zone to stake out whichever ground it is you desire to own or represent. Why? What is your reasoning behind these writings? What is your objective in posting them here?
"it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
Your opinion, maybe based on facts in which you were involved, but still it is YOUR opinion and not a recounting of those facts. I never had "the right credentials as far as those twits were concerned. My politics were "wrong", being from NY was "wrong" my personality was "wrong", I had no college degrees and was basically a hippie musician bangin' around the clubs and music scene of 1960s NYC. Not a jock. Apparently, some one treated you as "a mere bug to be squashed" at one point or another, but I am confident it was not me. If indeed it was, recount the facts and let's get them straight.
But, no matter, the ad hominem attacks have been made and the straw men laid......lol. You have presented your personal opinions and hypotheses as fact when they are not. They are false premises and opinions dressed up in pseudo-intellectual pop psycho-babble IMO. Now the playing field is a huge vicious cycle of argument and not a transparent, honest debate or discussion.
Point in fact? "No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
Yes. I was there, and I did speak up. I got thrown off of that "bandwagon" far more often than I was allowed to jump on it. I allowed myself to be brainwashed into a John Birch Society Christian. I take responsibility for that. But I also take responsibility for continuing to keep the record straight as to the crimes and misdemeanors committed against wayfers by their "leaders and elders". That is my choice. And the need to continue doing so still persists. Tell me TLC: How do YOU KNOW "how I was then, and evidently, is still you today."? Did I know you then? Were you in the third or 4th corpse, or on staff? How did you get to be such an authority on me then and now, pray tell? I apologize if it seems to you as if I am asking for "your credentials". Like you, these are honest questions, take them as you will.
The GSC STILL has posters representing a variety of positions, often contradicting
each other. When one begins to think it's all in agreement,
another look, much slower, is warranted.
Of course, there will ALWAYS be posters represent a variety of positions......BUT
how interesting it is to reread this thread and see when the "food-fight" began.
This thread....addressing TWI in the 1970s, and some of us posters undercut wierwille's plagiarist
and predatory past and the psycho-babble of revelations that vpee claimed, namely me. Then, DWBH
walks into the Café and says, quite loudly, for all to hear:
Twit will never regain anywhere near it's late 70's-80's status. Never. Yes, the Internet has made the single biggest difference in exposing and limiting twit all over the world. GSC, IMO, is the single biggest reason for the near total dissolution of twit. Congratulations to you all!
There is way too much info that is 100% verifiable, documentable, and legally damaging to twit available in all media. There is so much info just here at GSC, that any rational human being who reads the threads here can decide quickly and confidently that twit is a stereotypical, fundamentalist bible cult with the credibility of Josef Goebbels. Same belief system too.
The public record of twit is so grossly stained by the most selacious and lowlife trailer-trash facts that thinking people would just run from any involvement with it. You look at their website, videos, publications, way productions, etc., and it looks like something produced by the terminally ill producers of the last Lawrence Welk shows, and performed by The Borg. Gomer Pyle, USMC is the closest to twit media that comes to mind. Rosie's tastes are somewhat dimwitted and have been since high country caravan. She's still stuck in vp and she can't get out.
Twit will continue to contract until it's dead. No one to keep it going. Much ado about nothing. An insignificant grain of sand on the forsaken beaches of human failure. They'll die out soon. There will be a few silver spoon in the mouth keedz who will valiantly try to resurrect the twit death machine. There will be a tiny flicker and then poof! Gone forever to decompose on the trash heap of human depravity. What a legacy dictor paul. Congratulations!"
Then, on January 19th.....TLC walks into the Café, [first post, having joined GSC that day] and wants
to state his position. Fine. Free country, free membership, open forum. Why this topic? Why now?
His first comment: "No, we were merely a generation in search of the truth, anywhere it could be found."
Apparently, TLC feels the need to represent "a generation in search of the truth".....and, it seems fair to
say, that TLC seems provoked to defend this "truth" [ie twi's classes, programs]. Of course, none of this is
overtly stated.....a number of posts banter back and forth in terms of innuendos, subtleties, and generic
concepts [ie spiritual knowledge]. But...this forum IS *About The Way* and TLC references this 1970s
generation and DWBH. Did he/she know DWBH back then? Why the arrows towards DWBH?
Maybe soon....TLC will be more forthright in clarifying.
Until then....the arrows towards DWBH and the condescending attitude towards the rest of us
For some of us it's about bridging the generation of the sixties and seventies to people born 3 or 4 decades later . . . that's 3-4 generations to bridge.
We have to listen in on folks fighting a war on several fronts that was already lost decades ago, before our own memories.
And if everyone here agreed, then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
"Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego?
Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)
Yes I have TLC. I have spent many hours in retrospection, reflection, and discussion regarding all things twit in my life. I was a wild'n'crazy hippie musician from New York City who was having a blast. I had been deeply involved in the anti-establishment activism of the 60s and disillusioned with the same by 1969. I went to Woodstock. Went to the Fillmore East almost every weekend, and I lived in the greatest city in the world. I got "witnessed to" by Joe fair and Paul Cuoco in late 1970. Then I took PFAL to disprove it and get Joe Fair to replace my Hagstrom guitar which he had blown up in a car accident at Prospect Circle, paying $45 to sign me up for the class instead of replacing my guitar. Well, that began a 16 year dance in the religious gulags of twi.
I became deeply involved in "moving the word" in NYC & The Way of Long Island. By the summer of 1971 I was working full-time for the way of Long Island for $10/week plus petty cash for gas and expenses. Then, in July, 1973, I went into the corpse. I went in so I could come back to NY and run the Brooklyn/Queens area again and play music. I saw the handwriting on the subway walls. If you wanted to run a branch or anything bigger in twit, you had to "go corpse". So I did. The next 13 years were a detour from the life I had "planned". I got to do a lot of things and travel to a lot of places I never would have had i not stumbled into da corpse. I also wound up knowing far too much about the rotten underbelly of Christian cultism and its criminal "leaders" than I ever wanted to know. It has made me a stronger, wiser, and more thoughtful human being.
I am really happy and at peace with where I'm at now, physically, mentally and spiritually. Not satisfied or "done", but rather at peace with my God and myself. I am lucky and thankful to be alive and living in a great part of the free-est country in the world. Very thankful indeed.
For some of us it's about bridging the generation of the sixties and seventies to people born 3 or 4 decades later . . . that's 3-4 generations to bridge.
We have to listen in on folks fighting a war on several fronts that was already lost decades ago, before our own memories.
And if everyone here agreed, then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
Oh....I think there's more here than that.
Go back and re-read this thread. TLC has made subtle references to the internet.
Perhaps, TLC does NOT like having all this twi-information exposed for all to see.
Seems like the areas that strike a nerve with TLC are......
1)What was the 1970s generation searching for truth about
2)The internet.....juxtaposed against just going to God
3)DWBH and his outspoken recollections of twi's past
4)Ordinations....and gift ministries
Anyone bringing up those 4 areas has been around [in, out or scorned?] quite awhile.
Heck, maybe some innie clergy just wanting to settle some old score or something.
Time will tell.....or, maybe not.
I suspect that if GSC stays online for the next 30 years
that there might be plenty more of this to come.
Life is short...and some might want to "get in the last word."
Fine. It's an open forum.
But I think that the condescending attitude tells us a lot.
"I went in so I could come back to NY and run the Brooklyn/Queens area again and play music."
That pretty much describes my FellowLaborer experience, as well. I left my musical aspiration behind and went into the program. We were supposed to spend 2 years honing our skills in a "first century church" environment, then, go back to our areas, better prepared to do what we had already been doing. That's how it was pitched to me by one Earl B^r!0n. It didn't unfold as promised, to say the least. You can't do those kind of things today. Not because people are any smarter or less gullible but, because there are so many informational resources available for those who want to get the facts straight before making life-altering decisions.
However, when re-read and followed closely, they are not contemplative at all IMO. Rather, they are combative and filled with YOUR personal recollections and opinions stated as if they are indeed factual.
Clearly most of that is your opinion. Of course what I post are my recollections and personal opinions. However, they were not combative (certainly not in intent), and they were written entirely as a contemplative response to what someone else posted. IF they came across as combative to everyone else here, then evidently I did a .... poor job of communicating in in a manner that anyone here is open to, and for that I apologize. Perhaps this is completely the wrong forum to be in, and having no pressing need or desire to be here, and I have no problem moving on. No skin off my nose, as they say.
When confronted with these matters of fact, having no logical retort, you resort to the old tried and true logical fallacies of the ad hominem attack,
You appear quite expert at that, stepping in here with the flame thrower that you did on this thread, in light of the fact I had never once mentioned you here. Unless, of course, you presumed my earlier nametag and "Rev" comment was somehow aimed specifically at you. It wasn't. But I don't know what else you thought might have been. So, when you start a fire, don't be surprised when you get burnt with some blowback.
Why? What is your reasoning behind these writings? What is your objective in posting them here?
Why purport that my reasons are any less honorable or noble than yours?
Maybe you'd see they aren't if you'd ever ditch the already prejudiced attitude.
But as I said once already, if everyone sees it as you do, I have no problem with bowing out.
I never had "the right credentials as far as those twits were concerned. My politics were "wrong", being from NY was "wrong" my personality was "wrong", I had no college degrees and was basically a hippie musician bangin' around the clubs and music scene of 1960s NYC. Not a jock.
Still, you were part of the hierarchy that was built, by your own admission.
Apparently, some one treated you as "a mere bug to be squashed" at one point or another, but I am confident it was not me.
Not me, but enough others were hurt by the rampant and out of control egotism so prevalent in the structure of TWI.
You have presented your personal opinions and hypotheses as fact when they are not. They are false premises and opinions dressed up in pseudo-intellectual pop psycho-babble IMO. Now the playing field is a huge vicious cycle of argument and not a transparent, honest debate or discussion.
It is your opinion they are not, as you have repeatedly indicated. But they are what they are, regardless of your opinion of them.
Does your ad hominem flaming have "off" valve?
Apparently not.
Yes. I was there, and I did speak up. I got thrown off of that "bandwagon" far more often than I was allowed to jump on it.
That diseased bandwagon is one of egotism and arrogance, that no ever gets thrown off of. (Unless they're knocked off in a manner like Saul.)
Tell me TLC: How do YOU KNOW "how I was then, and evidently, is still you today."?
Do you honestly think and claim that you were not arrogant and egotistical back then?
Did I know you then? Were you in the third or 4th corpse, or on staff? How did you get to be such an authority on me then and now, pray tell?
It isn't an issue of being an authority on you. It was a ministry wide issue (and not just in leadership, where it flourished.)
I apologize if it seems to you as if I am asking for "your credentials". Like you, these are honest questions, take them as you will.
But you still are. I'd simply prefer any validity or credibility be observed in what is actually said, rather than hinge upon who I am.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
30
43
38
Popular Days
Jan 26
37
Jan 24
26
Jan 22
17
Jan 20
16
Top Posters In This Topic
skyrider 17 posts
waysider 30 posts
Bolshevik 43 posts
TLC 38 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2016
37 posts
Jan 24 2016
26 posts
Jan 22 2016
17 posts
Jan 20 2016
16 posts
Popular Posts
Twinky
How ridiculous, Mrs A has a wealth of knowledge. And that's appropriate to share. It's part of the Body of Christ working together, every part contributing what it can. Mrs A, having raised all you
waysider
It all goes back to the non-existent *law of believing*. You were supposed to *believe* for things to get better. If they didn't, it was your own fault. Then, to add insult to injury, you were consid
Rocky
Alas and alak, we get to the roots of the thing. Btw, this might also be the roots/foundation of the concept of gaslighting as we've experienced it in twi. It is inherently human to be curious. To e
Rocky
Now, I can relate to that. All of that. Thanks Steve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Okay, Steve, take it away to Doctrinal. I always enjoy your posts. They give me something to think about. The make a lot more bloody sense than PFAL!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
John 10:10a.
I think Steve's post helps point out how narrow thinking gets in "The Cult of PFAL". Minds get so small that they need to be told "you're happy and having a good time" and then they do. If those minds don't, the mental knots just start piling up.
To communicate with Wayfers, at times, you have to find that tiny, narrow bandwidth and stay on it. Once in that rut . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"To communicate with Wayfers, at times, you have to find that tiny, narrow bandwidth and stay on it. Once in that rut . . "
Trying to have a discussion with a Wayfer can be like listening to a crystal radio in the digital era.
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism?
(duplicated word edited out.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Hi TLC.
I have read with interest your recent posts. They seem to have a slant directed toward me which smacks of sarcasm and hyperbole. I trust your prejudices may be overcome by honest dialogue, if you can get over your obvious attitudes. My recount of the ordinations stands as is. There are only date errors. The turd corpse was "invited" to be ordained one year after they graduated, as were the 2nd corpse. I PERSONALLY discussed the denial of ordination to 3 different 3rd corpse individual with them and "elders". Two males, one female. They were NOT invited to be ordained nor were their requests for same m considered. These points have been made here before by Charlene Lamy Edge, 2nd corpse grad and have been acknowledged by yours truly. So , your sly attempt to attack my credibility regarding 30 year old facts has fallen to pieces. I'll put my memory up against your's any second of any day. How many corpse placement meetings did you attend starting in 1977?? What corpse were you in? What are your twit "credentials"? Tell us oh cryptic one. You are not sparse with your sarcastic opinions, so how about telling us about your twit involvement? NO lying or embellishments now.......LOL!
TLC, you appear to be to have a personal agenda that goes beyond exposing authentic facts regarding twit and your involvement therein. That's fine, but also quite obvious. The posts I have made recounting the facts behind twit ordinations have been verified by several who have been ordained and others who observed ordinations. Get your facts straight and try again. Also, try reading ALL the info posted here regarding twit ordinations. You might learn some things or, at least have your sleepy memory woken up. Then, maybe, there may be some value and veracity to your sardonic sarcastic editorializing. TY.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
TLC,
What I got out of Steve's comment was a reminder that I often interpret Bible verses, and life, the way Victor Paul Wierwille (via The Way International, PFAL, etc.) taught to view it. That perception provides a tunnel vision, unfair judgments, and missed opportunities. It's a position that needs constant defense and leads to arguments over esoteric minutia. That takes some work to become aware of.
Hope that helps.
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Not to mention his pseudo-intellectualist efforts to make sense of "spiritual knowledge."
He also did a nice sidestep when challenged on the premise of the entire twit theology. :)
You nailed that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If you want to learn the truth about such things, TLC, you can always google them.
On the "God-breathed?" thread, when Raf pointed out your sloppy research, you responded, "Given the speed at which I searched, found, and scanned it, it wouldn't surprise me if it fell short on substance. Doesn't mean there isn't more (as in better) substance out there, I simply didn't spend much time looking for it. Allowing for such possibilities leaves the door open.
Why do you ask questions about things when you don't want to spend the energy it takes to find the real answers for yourself?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
A while back I was moved to take a more honest look at what effect my involvement in the minitsty may have had on my own elitist, know more truth than others, attitude. To put it bluntly, it wasn't a pretty picture. (The road to recovery ususally starts by first recognizing and acknowleding the problem.) Having said that, I can say with a clear and pure conscious that I do not (and have never, really) held any bitterness, anger, or resentment in my heart towards anyone or anything that took place during those years. Mistakes were made, and I certainly own my share of them. But given where I am at now, I would neither trade, nor want to go through them again for anything.
As for your mistaken and misperceived comments, I'll set the record straight. No such slant exists. Who you were then had little or no effect on me, nor had I any on you. (So there is no reason whatsoever for such a slant.) What I've posted to date on this site have been straightforward and honest efforts to communicate my thoughts and recall the accurate facts to the best of my ability. If I am unsure about something, I'll say as much. If sure, then that's my recollection of it. If you don't like it, or disagree with it, you can then discuss it, or you can flame away, as you're poised to do in this post. I really don't care.
Think what you want. I believe that my comments are accurate. If you care to look again, you'll see that I said all were invited. If some were subsequently "disapproved," as per your account, that's another matter. Furthermore, there is the matter of ordination vs. "gift ministiries." Perhaps you missed the meeting (imagine that) where VPW plainly stated that everyone in the first three corps had gift ministries. Not all were ordained, obviously. Nor am I saying that VPW was necessarily correct. I'm relating what he actually said, which is in opposition to your "obviously not every one had gift ministries according to the "revelation" given vic by god" statement.
It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy as you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip.
Perhaps it's worth repeating something I posted a few days ago on this very same thread:
Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego?
Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Now at least I see why you didn't respond to my last question to you. You weren't really interested.
No big deal. Think what you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Wasn't the truth I was looking for (I go to God for that, not Google.) I was interested in what you were trying to communicate.
But, have fun entertaining others with your mind games, if that's all you're into.
It wasn't intended as, nor was it set forth as, any kind of quality research. Evidently you didn't follow the thought. Then again, the discussion wasn't with you.
But go right on ahead and jump onboard that wagon DWBH is steering, if that's your style.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You asked me a question?
I thought that I had asked you questions that you decided you weren't going to answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
FLASH IN THE PAN
TWI was a flash in the pan.
The pan's still there but the flash is long gone.
Second verse
(Same as the first)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The GSC STILL has posters representing a variety of positions, often contradicting
each other. When one begins to think it's all in agreement,
another look, much slower, is warranted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
GSC in agreement????
Now, THAT'S funny!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
TLC wrote:
"It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
TLC......TY on behalf of all "the younger readers here". We all your appreciate your stepping in voluntarily as the wise old sage under the guise of asking questions (my opinion), seeming to want to encourage contemplative, objective critical thought and hindsight. However, when re-read and followed closely, they are not contemplative at all IMO. Rather, they are combative and filled with YOUR personal recollections and opinions stated as if they are indeed factual. When confronted with these matters of fact, having no logical retort, you resort to the old tried and true logical fallacies of the ad hominem attack, straw man arguments, false equivalencies, false choices, and red herring arguments quickly get thrown around, again under a guise of encouraging contemplative, objective critical thought, but in actuality, setting up another combat zone to stake out whichever ground it is you desire to own or represent. Why? What is your reasoning behind these writings? What is your objective in posting them here?
"it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
Your opinion, maybe based on facts in which you were involved, but still it is YOUR opinion and not a recounting of those facts. I never had "the right credentials as far as those twits were concerned. My politics were "wrong", being from NY was "wrong" my personality was "wrong", I had no college degrees and was basically a hippie musician bangin' around the clubs and music scene of 1960s NYC. Not a jock. Apparently, some one treated you as "a mere bug to be squashed" at one point or another, but I am confident it was not me. If indeed it was, recount the facts and let's get them straight.
But, no matter, the ad hominem attacks have been made and the straw men laid......lol. You have presented your personal opinions and hypotheses as fact when they are not. They are false premises and opinions dressed up in pseudo-intellectual pop psycho-babble IMO. Now the playing field is a huge vicious cycle of argument and not a transparent, honest debate or discussion.
Point in fact? "No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy at allas you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip."
Yes. I was there, and I did speak up. I got thrown off of that "bandwagon" far more often than I was allowed to jump on it. I allowed myself to be brainwashed into a John Birch Society Christian. I take responsibility for that. But I also take responsibility for continuing to keep the record straight as to the crimes and misdemeanors committed against wayfers by their "leaders and elders". That is my choice. And the need to continue doing so still persists. Tell me TLC: How do YOU KNOW "how I was then, and evidently, is still you today."? Did I know you then? Were you in the third or 4th corpse, or on staff? How did you get to be such an authority on me then and now, pray tell? I apologize if it seems to you as if I am asking for "your credentials". Like you, these are honest questions, take them as you will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Of course, there will ALWAYS be posters represent a variety of positions......BUT
how interesting it is to reread this thread and see when the "food-fight" began.
This thread....addressing TWI in the 1970s, and some of us posters undercut wierwille's plagiarist
and predatory past and the psycho-babble of revelations that vpee claimed, namely me. Then, DWBH
walks into the Café and says, quite loudly, for all to hear:
Twit will never regain anywhere near it's late 70's-80's status. Never. Yes, the Internet has made the single biggest difference in exposing and limiting twit all over the world. GSC, IMO, is the single biggest reason for the near total dissolution of twit. Congratulations to you all!
There is way too much info that is 100% verifiable, documentable, and legally damaging to twit available in all media. There is so much info just here at GSC, that any rational human being who reads the threads here can decide quickly and confidently that twit is a stereotypical, fundamentalist bible cult with the credibility of Josef Goebbels. Same belief system too.
The public record of twit is so grossly stained by the most selacious and lowlife trailer-trash facts that thinking people would just run from any involvement with it. You look at their website, videos, publications, way productions, etc., and it looks like something produced by the terminally ill producers of the last Lawrence Welk shows, and performed by The Borg. Gomer Pyle, USMC is the closest to twit media that comes to mind. Rosie's tastes are somewhat dimwitted and have been since high country caravan. She's still stuck in vp and she can't get out.
Twit will continue to contract until it's dead. No one to keep it going. Much ado about nothing. An insignificant grain of sand on the forsaken beaches of human failure. They'll die out soon. There will be a few silver spoon in the mouth keedz who will valiantly try to resurrect the twit death machine. There will be a tiny flicker and then poof! Gone forever to decompose on the trash heap of human depravity. What a legacy dictor paul. Congratulations!"
Then, on January 19th.....TLC walks into the Café, [first post, having joined GSC that day] and wants
to state his position. Fine. Free country, free membership, open forum. Why this topic? Why now?
His first comment: "No, we were merely a generation in search of the truth, anywhere it could be found."
Apparently, TLC feels the need to represent "a generation in search of the truth".....and, it seems fair to
say, that TLC seems provoked to defend this "truth" [ie twi's classes, programs]. Of course, none of this is
overtly stated.....a number of posts banter back and forth in terms of innuendos, subtleties, and generic
concepts [ie spiritual knowledge]. But...this forum IS *About The Way* and TLC references this 1970s
generation and DWBH. Did he/she know DWBH back then? Why the arrows towards DWBH?
Maybe soon....TLC will be more forthright in clarifying.
Until then....the arrows towards DWBH and the condescending attitude towards the rest of us
is a real nonstarter. Just saying.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
For some of us it's about bridging the generation of the sixties and seventies to people born 3 or 4 decades later . . . that's 3-4 generations to bridge.
We have to listen in on folks fighting a war on several fronts that was already lost decades ago, before our own memories.
And if everyone here agreed, then there wouldn't be much to talk about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
"Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego?
Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)
Yes I have TLC. I have spent many hours in retrospection, reflection, and discussion regarding all things twit in my life. I was a wild'n'crazy hippie musician from New York City who was having a blast. I had been deeply involved in the anti-establishment activism of the 60s and disillusioned with the same by 1969. I went to Woodstock. Went to the Fillmore East almost every weekend, and I lived in the greatest city in the world. I got "witnessed to" by Joe fair and Paul Cuoco in late 1970. Then I took PFAL to disprove it and get Joe Fair to replace my Hagstrom guitar which he had blown up in a car accident at Prospect Circle, paying $45 to sign me up for the class instead of replacing my guitar. Well, that began a 16 year dance in the religious gulags of twi.
I became deeply involved in "moving the word" in NYC & The Way of Long Island. By the summer of 1971 I was working full-time for the way of Long Island for $10/week plus petty cash for gas and expenses. Then, in July, 1973, I went into the corpse. I went in so I could come back to NY and run the Brooklyn/Queens area again and play music. I saw the handwriting on the subway walls. If you wanted to run a branch or anything bigger in twit, you had to "go corpse". So I did. The next 13 years were a detour from the life I had "planned". I got to do a lot of things and travel to a lot of places I never would have had i not stumbled into da corpse. I also wound up knowing far too much about the rotten underbelly of Christian cultism and its criminal "leaders" than I ever wanted to know. It has made me a stronger, wiser, and more thoughtful human being.
I am really happy and at peace with where I'm at now, physically, mentally and spiritually. Not satisfied or "done", but rather at peace with my God and myself. I am lucky and thankful to be alive and living in a great part of the free-est country in the world. Very thankful indeed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Oh....I think there's more here than that.
Go back and re-read this thread. TLC has made subtle references to the internet.
Perhaps, TLC does NOT like having all this twi-information exposed for all to see.
Seems like the areas that strike a nerve with TLC are......
1)What was the 1970s generation searching for truth about
2)The internet.....juxtaposed against just going to God
3)DWBH and his outspoken recollections of twi's past
4)Ordinations....and gift ministries
Anyone bringing up those 4 areas has been around [in, out or scorned?] quite awhile.
Heck, maybe some innie clergy just wanting to settle some old score or something.
Time will tell.....or, maybe not.
I suspect that if GSC stays online for the next 30 years
that there might be plenty more of this to come.
Life is short...and some might want to "get in the last word."
Fine. It's an open forum.
But I think that the condescending attitude tells us a lot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Google contains the Bible.
God magnified His Word above His Name.
Google is bigger than God.
There. That should please everyone. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I went in so I could come back to NY and run the Brooklyn/Queens area again and play music."
That pretty much describes my FellowLaborer experience, as well. I left my musical aspiration behind and went into the program. We were supposed to spend 2 years honing our skills in a "first century church" environment, then, go back to our areas, better prepared to do what we had already been doing. That's how it was pitched to me by one Earl B^r!0n. It didn't unfold as promised, to say the least. You can't do those kind of things today. Not because people are any smarter or less gullible but, because there are so many informational resources available for those who want to get the facts straight before making life-altering decisions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Clearly most of that is your opinion. Of course what I post are my recollections and personal opinions. However, they were not combative (certainly not in intent), and they were written entirely as a contemplative response to what someone else posted. IF they came across as combative to everyone else here, then evidently I did a .... poor job of communicating in in a manner that anyone here is open to, and for that I apologize. Perhaps this is completely the wrong forum to be in, and having no pressing need or desire to be here, and I have no problem moving on. No skin off my nose, as they say.
You appear quite expert at that, stepping in here with the flame thrower that you did on this thread, in light of the fact I had never once mentioned you here. Unless, of course, you presumed my earlier nametag and "Rev" comment was somehow aimed specifically at you. It wasn't. But I don't know what else you thought might have been. So, when you start a fire, don't be surprised when you get burnt with some blowback.
Why purport that my reasons are any less honorable or noble than yours?
Maybe you'd see they aren't if you'd ever ditch the already prejudiced attitude.
But as I said once already, if everyone sees it as you do, I have no problem with bowing out.
Still, you were part of the hierarchy that was built, by your own admission.
Not me, but enough others were hurt by the rampant and out of control egotism so prevalent in the structure of TWI.
It is your opinion they are not, as you have repeatedly indicated. But they are what they are, regardless of your opinion of them.
Does your ad hominem flaming have "off" valve?
Apparently not.
That diseased bandwagon is one of egotism and arrogance, that no ever gets thrown off of. (Unless they're knocked off in a manner like Saul.)
Do you honestly think and claim that you were not arrogant and egotistical back then?
It isn't an issue of being an authority on you. It was a ministry wide issue (and not just in leadership, where it flourished.)
But you still are. I'd simply prefer any validity or credibility be observed in what is actually said, rather than hinge upon who I am.
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.