quote:Sexual predators are not men just falling into sin...they just do not have a weakness for the ladies.. but it is a SERIAL mind set ....
This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
So if some of them are ok it was part good for you and good enough?
Many knew, they freaking knew but the cost was to high to metion it again.
I mean you like the guy , he taught you the word changed your life.
who is this young pretty girl who just took the class hear tell she is divorced or has been on drugs whatever it took to dismiss a possible gossip or slander against the mog.
She is an unbeliever really and why just last year this guy sang in way productions or taught at some limb meeting. He is important to God.
You know satan uses a woman to destroy a mans minisrty right?
Who is she anyway? I think she has problems and she doesnt know the word for sure, not an advanced class grad.
It is ok buddy of mine we do not believe her.
You know I am ok right? and I know jack is ok.
God bless your stand on the rightly divided word.
I must say this tho for all the cover up and cult brain that stuck together it was the women who were the best at denial and covering the sick *** holes.
If he molested your child, well I know he didt because he has lived with me before and I have children and well I am NOT going to think about the possible fact it happened to mine.
we have a hedge of protection you know.
We need a free babysiter and he was always avaiable on a minute notice he served God.
Anger at the possible thought....
Or the constant fact a pretty young girl must want their sorry *** husband as a man .
Yes, the young girls go to fellowship steal their man, and as a woman with no say at all in the house , no money and several children and battered for years by constant dictate and neglect the enemy was any girl with life left in her, she must be a slut.
Those same wifes were lonely for the attention from a man. I saw it over and over they were under to much pressure to be perfect the house the kids everything had to be perfect .
Guess who was allowed to keep them company? it wasnt the disconnected husband and father with the cult brain it was the guys who had the silver mouth of helping them, of just being there, sucking up getting in the emotional relationships that was neccesary to blind these wifes.
They were the real men of many of these households, they played these woman and the husband was glad to have some one eles help with the kids make sure everything was the way it was suppose to be without the hassle of dealing with such earthly matters. The ministry came first.
they were good buddies, thank God he was there when the kid started or to keep her company get her off me..... I have to move the word classes are to be run etc.
I saw alot of emotional relationship that were adulterous , and the way encouraged them .
the woman needed them ,the men thought God provided all their needs including someone to attend to his wifes emotional and physical needs in the home. no they didnt have sex maybe but everything eles was in place to allow her to truly love him like a husband.
So hey if these single girls want to complain about their men whether a leader or not they were God men and she needed him. many times more than one him.... a brother in christ ya know.
She would be alone at home at night with the kids , in the shell of being human, never allowed any interests outside the way, and moving next year anyway... she needed him, he would never be capable of that.... he was her friend.
Even if he did rape her so what she didnt give to God her entire being , like i have done and he talks to me and understands what this life is like for me... I have to be strong , all the time, husabd doesnt have time or concern anymore the word comes first. .
She is a slut anyway . I will tell my husband not to listen to her and make like good bible face in twig for my entire life.
God says I have no choice, divorce is not an option, I would have to give up this lifestyle and my husband and people stand up and clap the hands when he enters the room he must be something even if it isnt to my heart anymore.
my entire family is in the way and his, where would I go to complain? he is my brother in christ , he understands how it really is with this twi life..I will shut her up... how dare she.?..I love him....
Believe me they knew about the abuse in twi and covered it up they had so much abuse a little child molestation or rape or assult was nothing next to what they had to endure for life.....
She better shut up!
It was taught in the C f & S class it was the woman responsibility to keep the devil spirts out of her home. Remember that?
So denial was needed.
the woman got sick to you know....
Well gs people if you read this far.
God bless ya
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 01, 2003 at 9:57.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 01, 2003 at 10:37.]
quote:Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
Orange Cat and Evan,
I am saying all, because the premise of the argument Excathedra brought up applies to all pastors according to her article:
quote:As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.
If that statement is true, then you may say that about VPW and all other pastors in TWI too, right?
I think what's fair is fair, if you're going to apply that standard to VPW you might as well apply it to all of them.
A side comment to Orange Cat: you may dislike me very much, hate my guts even, but in the future if you want me to answer your questions please address me by my handle.
Hail to thee oldiesman, don't flatter yourself, I don't hate you I just hate to type.
You maketh no sense Oldiesman, by whatever moniker you like. When confronted with Vic's predation you try to dodge and make it look like it applies to everyone. Hardy. You can't possibly misunderstand to the degree you seem to.
You can call me OC if you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Some times you need to just keep your opinions to yourself on a thread like this. These women who had these experiences need this to help in healing. Ex hasn't talked much about this, and she is entitled to talk about it without anybody else trying to discredit any aspect what she is saying.
I used to be like you. Now I am more understanding because I realized I haven't walked in their shoes and that not everybody would react to a situation the same way I would.
So I guess I'm saying that compassion is in order here instead of arguing (discussing--whatever you want to call it).
You said earlier:
quote:I think that if one wanted to, one can make a case that everyone born on this earth has been a victim.
It all depends upon your point of view...
Again, I say that you haven't walked in their shoes, therefore, it is impossible to determine victimization. Everybody is different. I know I've been in a few situations that would be described as victimization. I didn't feel that way, but it doesn't mean that someone else would feel the same. It's all in the heart of the person.
Example: You say something to someone and they take it the wrong way. You don't realize that you affected the person that way until they express their hurt or anger. A compassionate response would be to say sorry, you didn't mean to sound the way it was taken. It allows you to move on.
Well, sure, this applies to all pastors....who indulge in such a serious ethical & moral breach. We weren't unerstanding each other. But then, it doesn't apply to those who have remained morally & ethically pure with their congregation. Seems simple enough.
Were all the Way reverends hose monsters? Certainly not. I will venture there were more of them than in a typical group of mainstream ministers...simply because the system allowed for it and because of the example of the Man of Gawd & others. Just my informed guess...
I feel like I need to stick up for oldiesman here.
I don't think he's saying that NO ONE was a victim, or that NO ONE was manipulated, or that NO ONE was abused, misused and discarded by VPW.
I think (correct me if I'm mistaken here) he's saying that NOT EVERYONE who was with Wierwille was his victim. This idea that all the interactions between Wierwille and women - ALL of them - were Predator-Prey relationships, is unprovable.
Again (and again and again), even if a woman threw herself at Wierwille, it was his responsibility as a minister to get them to back off. That's not the whole point.
Do you all contend that EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ENCOUNTER between Wierwille and someone else was de facto non-consensual? I can't honestly argue that because I wasn't there. I consider that position extreme, just as extreme as arguing that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN was asking for it and just as responsible as Wierwille.
And again, that does not invalidate a single horror story. It doesn't invalidate a single malicious abuse of power. It doesn't invalidate the torment he put people through. I know there are those who believe that EVERY case was one in which the woman came onto Wierwille and he succumbed to temptation. I find that position morally, ethically and spiritually repugnant, not to mention insulting.
But I don't buy the opposite extreme either.
I guess neither is provable, so the point is really difficult to discuss. But I don't see where oldiesman is saying anything that's all that unreasonable.
And AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!!!!! I'm not excusing or denying ANY of Wierwille's indiscretions or abuses. I'm just saying it's possible that some SOME (not a lot, not a majority, SOME) of the encounters may have possibly been just a tad consensual.
OCD Wrote:
quote:Rafael, it does not matter one Goddamn bit if there were 1000 that willingly had sex with the wrinkled fart, it does not change the intentional stalking of young women and following abuse.
Come on, this is unfair. How many ways until Sunday do I have to say that I wasn't excusing Wierwille's behavior or denying his culpability?
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 01, 2003 at 16:01.]
This is not a doctrinal thread. Why the need to discuss semantics?
Was it just the several women here at CS that VPW had non-consentual sex with?
Was it only 10, 20 wommen?
Was it 100, 200?
Was it concentual with 10, 20 all but ten or twenty?
Lets not kid ourselves. This is not the point.
Would it matter if he only raped 20 and had consentual sex with the other 100? Would that make some of you feel better? How about if it were only a few head leaders that did the same thing? Would that make you feel better?
You think this nit-picking does not take something from these women?
Then why do we see these responces you get?
It does not matter if it was not every single sexual encounter.
Take a look at the thread the Profile of a Sexual Preditor.
The reality is that it was probably more like hundreds of women.
The man was a preditor. Lets not nit-pick how what I just said is not provable. But you know it is probably true.
"I must say this tho for all the cover up and cult brain that stuck together it was the women who were the best at denial and covering the sick *** holes."
Yes we were.
"God says I have no choice, divorce is not an option, I would have to give up this lifestyle and my husband and people stand up and clap the hands when he enters the room he must be something even if it isnt to my heart anymore."
Exactly how I felt.
"husabd doesnt have time or concern anymore the word comes first. . "
So very true.
"She would be alone at home at night with the kids , in the shell of being human, never allowed any interests outside the way,"
A shell of a human being, exactly what we became.
"Believe me they knew about the abuse in twi and covered it up"
Yes, they knew!
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Dammit! I was going to stay out of this, which is exactly what Oldiesman and Rafael should do.
Oldiesman, I think you know exactly what you're doing. If so, you're an ***. If not, you are still acting like one. Rafael, I'd like to think that you just don't get it.
IT MATTERS NOT ONE BIT that some woman, somewhere along the way, could have possibly had truly consensual sexual relations with Wierwille. THE POINT is that TWI believers, who thought of him as THE MAN OF GOD, did not.
"It's not about sex but about power" does not mean that either the abuser or the VICTIM is necessarily thinking about power, rather than sex. It means that the abuser uses his POWER to deceive, coerce, manipulate, or whatever it takes to gain the "consent" or overcome the nonconsent of the VICTIM.
Oldiesman, your constant nit-picking about "consent" and what it means to be a victim is designed to deflect accusations away from your precious ABUSER, by constantly offering up the possibility that his VICTIMS might not have really been victims at all, but consenting adults. Hell, the way you stretch and distort things, I'm surprised you don't say that a woman who consents to sex at the point of a gun is a consenting adult, and therefore not a rape victim.
We have read numerous accounts of Wierwille having used several different means to get his VICTIMS to "consent." Sometimes, he used his power as "Man of God" to deceive the victim into thinking that sex with him was God's will. At best, that would be consent based on fraud, which is not genuine, informed consent. Sometimes, Wierwille used the power of his position to lure women into situations in which they felt like they had no way out, even though no actual force was used. That would be "consent" by coercion. Some accounts indicate that Wierwille drugged women in order to get their "consent." That would be rape, plain and simple.
This is about real people and real life, not some remote possibility that you seem to think offers some sort of defense for your precious Wierwille. There are many accounts of Wierwille using his power to victimize women. You can't cite a single example of Wierwille's having genuinely consensual sex outside of marriage. Even if you could, it wouldn't change a thing but, since you can't, you should SHUT THE HELL UP!
Rafael, usually you are the most reasonable of reasonable people but...in this I think you've over streached your bounds by "sticking up for Oldiesman" to the point that I wonder if you may be enabling the enablers. Whatever that means.
Oldiesman is a neo-Wierwillite, surely you know that. He so busies himself in whitewashing Wierwille's sepluchure that he has little time to do ought but sugar coat the great sugar daddy on the pulpit. Wierwille's sins are real.
Some times you need to just keep your opinions to yourself on a thread like this. These women who had these experiences need this to help in healing. Ex hasn't talked much about this, and she is entitled to talk about it without anybody else trying to discredit any aspect what she is saying.
Wayfer Not!,
My view is that genuine healing comes from God and Christ, not forums on Greasespot Cafe. "He sent his word, and healed them". Forums on GS are full of varying opinions and debate, and as long as folks like myself are respectful to others, we are (or should be) able to post dissenting opinions without worrying about offending others. Those are the GS rules.
quote: Meanwhile, may I suggest you aquaint yourself with some sensitivity or at least show respect...for an experience
you don't know very much about!
Ginger,
As best as I know, I've been respectful to posters, and when I haven't, I've apologized. But it looks like what you may be really suggesting here is: "agree with me, otherwise keep your mouth shut"?
quote:Olds-
Really, Are you okay?
It is begining to look like Hmmmmm. (as GT said.)
Were you a Rev? Did you fall into the weird doctrine? Have you been in a personal battle over some of your conduct perhaps?
Look, if VP taught you the doctrine of devils and you were caught up in it then you are also a victum.
Are you alright?
Dot Matrix,
Yes I'm fine. But I thought it was interesting you said if I was "caught up in it then I am also a victim". Thank you for trying to comfort me in that you say I was also a victim. But consider this too: if I was caught up in the doctrine of devils, then can't you apply that same logic to VPW? He ALSO was caught up in this doctrine of devils, no? He (VPW) was a victim of the devil too then, wasn't he?
quote:I feel like I need to stick up for oldiesman here.
I don't think he's saying that NO ONE was a victim, or that NO ONE was manipulated, or that NO ONE was abused, misused and discarded by VPW.
I think (correct me if I'm mistaken here) he's saying that NOT EVERYONE who was with Wierwille was his victim. This idea that all the interactions between Wierwille and women - ALL of them - were Predator-Prey relationships, is unprovable.
Rafael,
Thanks again for the support and trying to see the viewpoints I've been expressing.
quote:Would it matter if he only raped 20 and had consentual sex with the other 100? Would that make some of you feel better? How about if it were only a few head leaders that did the same thing? Would that make you feel better?
Lindyhopper,
I still have a problem with that word "rape". If you're talking about VPW administering those date rape drugs (which admittedly is still hard for me to believe) then you'd have to call it rape. No question about it. Other than that, I don't see it as rape, but more like sexual harassment. Does it matter? Well, sexual harassment conveys one idea, and rape conveys another. Rape conveys that you simply couldn't say no, and couldn't get up and walk out. But we've seen testimonies of women declining VPW's advances, so I know it was possible. But certainly please don't misunderstand me, its bad enough for me and others who respected VPW to now think that he had a very sleazy sexual problem.
quote:Rafael, usually you are the most reasonable of reasonable people but...in this I think you've over streached your bounds by "sticking up for Oldiesman" to the point that I wonder if you may be enabling the enablers. Whatever that means.
Oldiesman is a neo-Wierwillite, surely you know that. He so busies himself in whitewashing Wierwille's sepluchure that he has little time to do ought but sugar coat the great sugar daddy on the pulpit. Wierwille's sins are real.
Orange Cat,
I think you've distorted Rafael's intent to be fair and intellectually honest. He's bringing up viewpoints, just like I am. Why do you have to label him as bordering on an enabler? He's trying to be objective, just like I am.
quote:this has been om's mo since waydale, where he posted under another handle...didn't you, om???
...thought nobody paid attention, didja???
Alfakat,
What difference does it make whether I may or may have not discussed these points on Waydale? If it does, please let me know because I'm missing your point.
Objective. Now that's not exactly what I thought you were being. I'd much rather you express yourself and clarify your murky posts than have Rafael throw you a lifeline.
One thing that amazes me is that I can say in EACH and EVERY post that I've made on this thread that NOTHING excuses Wierwille's repugnant, reprehensible behavior, and STILL be accused of either being an ebabler or aiding and abetting enablers.
My goodness, Ginger, you actually felt the need to inform me that OCD was right? My friend, I WAS AGREEING WITH OCD!!! I've been agreeing with OCD all along!
What I'm trying to say is that you folks can be 100% right - 100% - and still leave room for the possibility that not every example will fit the critical view we have of Wierwille.
Excath, Dot: I'm sorry. I have no intent to hurt you. I believe you both, and I believe there were many, TOO many more like you. I do not excuse Wierwille. Do I need to put that sentence in BOLD before anyone reads it? Because I know that Wierwille put a lot of people through a lot of pain. And I know that he did so in God's name. And I know the damage that does not only to those people, but to God's name. IT IS INEXCUSABLE.
I really wish you folks saw Oldiesman the way I do: as someone seeking to come to terms with the dismantling of a belief system he once held dear: as someone who's recognizing, slowly but surely, that a man he really looked up to did some things that at first seem just dishonest, but increasingly realizing how horrible they were.
You want him to join you in your point of view instantly? He's not going to. But he's going to start by recognizing, as I believe he has, that at least SOME of what you guys are saying is true. That there WERE times when Wierwille did exactly what he's been accused of doing. Do you have any idea how much it takes for him to concede that point? It's HUGE. So forgive me for recognizing that breakthrough and encouraging him onward in at least small steps.
Take a look at oldies' posts on the Actual Errors thread. You want to call him a Wierwille worshipper? Take a look over there and recognize, as I clearly do, that he's got an open mind to Wierwille's faults, and he's working them through in his mind and heart with prayer.
Maybe if you helped him along in his journey instead of calling him a multiple-asterisk, maybe, just maybe, you'll see him as I do.
Yes I'm fine. But I thought it was interesting you said if I was "caught up in it then I am also a victim". Thank you for trying to comfort me in that you say I was also a victim. But consider this too: if I was caught up in the doctrine of devils, then can't you apply that same logic to VPW? He ALSO was caught up in this doctrine of devils, no? He (VPW) was a victim of the devil too then, wasn't he?
Now this is my response:
Olds
I did apply the logic that VPW was caught up in the doctrine of devils. I went to him personally to show him he was deceived, and I sent him a letter in the letter I told him I believed he was being led/attacked by deceiving spirits, etc.
The difference is HE WAS CONFRONTED and did not stop. He always said it was a Biblical Research and teaching ministry and if you showed him from the word he would change his opinion. He did not.
Other ministers Rev.'s DId stop/change when they saw it from the word and left the illogic of VPW's teachings. A Kansas Rev who got into TWI was then broken into the "free sex" stuff. When he SAW it was wrong he sent an apology letter out to all the women he had hurt! The Bible still meant something to him!
VPW did not elevate the Bible, IMO, above his own narcissistic view of his sexual desires.
So, yes at first I thought he needed reproof. When I did it and Ralph and others and he WOULD NOT listen, then I no longer saw him as a victim of devilish doctrines but one who aliened himself with those doctrines despite the Biblical evidence that they were incorrect.
I no longer saw it as a trick but a decision made as he taught Adam knowingly and willfully disobeyed God and followed Eve.
He KNEW and he choose his evil ways over goodness.
Your kindness toward VPW maybe because you are a better person than I am. Truly, if the Apostle Paul killed a bunch of people in the church today, then repented, I do not have what it takes to forgive him. Maybe over time. Maybe. But VPW, to my knowledge, NEVER said he was wrong or sorry. If he said he was sorry and meant it, this thread maybe different.
If I were a kid, I would rather you be my parent then I. You would stay in their corner.
Not an altogether bad quality. I would be the parent who would turn their kid in, I would be Ted Kivinsky's brother....
Who is to say I am wrong or you are wrong?
I beleive VPW was willfully a monster. You do not. It is okay.
I just thought maybe you were a Rev. and had gotten into that "sex" stuff and were having a hard time with this thread.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 12:12.]
That is until we change our mind or learn differently.
Many spent years renewing the mind to "what the word says".
Alot of this stuff was taught .
Listen alot of this stuff is taught...made rational, excused, tolerated and done by example by
USING SCRPITURE!!!!!
HOW? the bible is holy it must be good.
They used stuff from the bible and twisted it to cover sins.
to hurt one another.
to build an empire.
It is very difficult to spend your honest soul studying scripture as "God breathed" I mean the whole world agrees the bible is good right?
it cant be wrong .
To consider how, I said HOW the scripturs were used to apply behaviours done and not done , to think they actualy teach tolerance for sin and abuse is difficult .
and painful, because the bible means so much to so many.
Yet the way folks did use the bible as a bullet to destroy , to justify, to allow circumstances far removed from Gods will for His people.
That is why is so very difficult for people to hear the truth in situations ,to break away from the group think . the word and nothing but the word people, we got the power, its the grace adminstration.
even love one another was twisted to mean love our leaders more.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 02, 2003 at 8:08.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
43
17
23
32
Popular Days
Jan 29
100
Feb 3
48
Feb 2
36
Feb 4
22
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 43 posts
Raf 17 posts
oldiesman 23 posts
Dot Matrix 32 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2003
100 posts
Feb 3 2003
48 posts
Feb 2 2003
36 posts
Feb 4 2003
22 posts
excathedra
dot,you are so wonderful, i love you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
It's still a little extreme, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Nobody alleged they were all serial predators. My recollection about serial predators only includes Wierwille© and Martindale®. Though I am quite sure a few of Wierwille's? understudies aspired to his level of debasedness. And the system was certainly in place for them to function unhindered.
None of which stains the fine people who kept themselves clean from immorality while in the Gulag.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
So if some of them are ok it was part good for you and good enough?
Many knew, they freaking knew but the cost was to high to metion it again.
I mean you like the guy , he taught you the word changed your life.
who is this young pretty girl who just took the class hear tell she is divorced or has been on drugs whatever it took to dismiss a possible gossip or slander against the mog.
She is an unbeliever really and why just last year this guy sang in way productions or taught at some limb meeting. He is important to God.
You know satan uses a woman to destroy a mans minisrty right?
Who is she anyway? I think she has problems and she doesnt know the word for sure, not an advanced class grad.
It is ok buddy of mine we do not believe her.
You know I am ok right? and I know jack is ok.
God bless your stand on the rightly divided word.
I must say this tho for all the cover up and cult brain that stuck together it was the women who were the best at denial and covering the sick *** holes.
If he molested your child, well I know he didt because he has lived with me before and I have children and well I am NOT going to think about the possible fact it happened to mine.
we have a hedge of protection you know.
We need a free babysiter and he was always avaiable on a minute notice he served God.
Anger at the possible thought....
Or the constant fact a pretty young girl must want their sorry *** husband as a man .
Yes, the young girls go to fellowship steal their man, and as a woman with no say at all in the house , no money and several children and battered for years by constant dictate and neglect the enemy was any girl with life left in her, she must be a slut.
Those same wifes were lonely for the attention from a man. I saw it over and over they were under to much pressure to be perfect the house the kids everything had to be perfect .
Guess who was allowed to keep them company? it wasnt the disconnected husband and father with the cult brain it was the guys who had the silver mouth of helping them, of just being there, sucking up getting in the emotional relationships that was neccesary to blind these wifes.
They were the real men of many of these households, they played these woman and the husband was glad to have some one eles help with the kids make sure everything was the way it was suppose to be without the hassle of dealing with such earthly matters. The ministry came first.
they were good buddies, thank God he was there when the kid started or to keep her company get her off me..... I have to move the word classes are to be run etc.
I saw alot of emotional relationship that were adulterous , and the way encouraged them .
the woman needed them ,the men thought God provided all their needs including someone to attend to his wifes emotional and physical needs in the home. no they didnt have sex maybe but everything eles was in place to allow her to truly love him like a husband.
So hey if these single girls want to complain about their men whether a leader or not they were God men and she needed him. many times more than one him.... a brother in christ ya know.
She would be alone at home at night with the kids , in the shell of being human, never allowed any interests outside the way, and moving next year anyway... she needed him, he would never be capable of that.... he was her friend.
Even if he did rape her so what she didnt give to God her entire being , like i have done and he talks to me and understands what this life is like for me... I have to be strong , all the time, husabd doesnt have time or concern anymore the word comes first. .
She is a slut anyway . I will tell my husband not to listen to her and make like good bible face in twig for my entire life.
God says I have no choice, divorce is not an option, I would have to give up this lifestyle and my husband and people stand up and clap the hands when he enters the room he must be something even if it isnt to my heart anymore.
my entire family is in the way and his, where would I go to complain? he is my brother in christ , he understands how it really is with this twi life..I will shut her up... how dare she.?..I love him....
Believe me they knew about the abuse in twi and covered it up they had so much abuse a little child molestation or rape or assult was nothing next to what they had to endure for life.....
She better shut up!
It was taught in the C f & S class it was the woman responsibility to keep the devil spirts out of her home. Remember that?
So denial was needed.
the woman got sick to you know....
Well gs people if you read this far.
God bless ya
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 01, 2003 at 9:57.]
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 01, 2003 at 10:37.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Orange Cat and Evan,
I am saying all, because the premise of the argument Excathedra brought up applies to all pastors according to her article:
If that statement is true, then you may say that about VPW and all other pastors in TWI too, right?
I think what's fair is fair, if you're going to apply that standard to VPW you might as well apply it to all of them.
A side comment to Orange Cat: you may dislike me very much, hate my guts even, but in the future if you want me to answer your questions please address me by my handle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i got this far, mj
thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Hail to thee oldiesman, don't flatter yourself, I don't hate you I just hate to type.
You maketh no sense Oldiesman, by whatever moniker you like. When confronted with Vic's predation you try to dodge and make it look like it applies to everyone. Hardy. You can't possibly misunderstand to the degree you seem to.
You can call me OC if you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Oldies:
Some times you need to just keep your opinions to yourself on a thread like this. These women who had these experiences need this to help in healing. Ex hasn't talked much about this, and she is entitled to talk about it without anybody else trying to discredit any aspect what she is saying.
I used to be like you. Now I am more understanding because I realized I haven't walked in their shoes and that not everybody would react to a situation the same way I would.
So I guess I'm saying that compassion is in order here instead of arguing (discussing--whatever you want to call it).
You said earlier:
Again, I say that you haven't walked in their shoes, therefore, it is impossible to determine victimization. Everybody is different. I know I've been in a few situations that would be described as victimization. I didn't feel that way, but it doesn't mean that someone else would feel the same. It's all in the heart of the person.
Example: You say something to someone and they take it the wrong way. You don't realize that you affected the person that way until they express their hurt or anger. A compassionate response would be to say sorry, you didn't mean to sound the way it was taken. It allows you to move on.
Let these women move on. Thanks.
There once was a girl from Nantucket....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
oldies, you quoted
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, sure, this applies to all pastors....who indulge in such a serious ethical & moral breach. We weren't unerstanding each other. But then, it doesn't apply to those who have remained morally & ethically pure with their congregation. Seems simple enough.
Were all the Way reverends hose monsters? Certainly not. I will venture there were more of them than in a typical group of mainstream ministers...simply because the system allowed for it and because of the example of the Man of Gawd & others. Just my informed guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Olds-
Really, Are you okay?
It is begining to look like Hmmmmm. (as GT said.)
Were you a Rev? Did you fall into the weird doctrine? Have you been in a personal battle over some of your conduct perhaps?
Look, if VP taught you the doctrine of devils and you were caught up in it then you are also a victim.
Are you alright?
Dot Matrix
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 9:20.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I feel like I need to stick up for oldiesman here.
I don't think he's saying that NO ONE was a victim, or that NO ONE was manipulated, or that NO ONE was abused, misused and discarded by VPW.
I think (correct me if I'm mistaken here) he's saying that NOT EVERYONE who was with Wierwille was his victim. This idea that all the interactions between Wierwille and women - ALL of them - were Predator-Prey relationships, is unprovable.
Again (and again and again), even if a woman threw herself at Wierwille, it was his responsibility as a minister to get them to back off. That's not the whole point.
Do you all contend that EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ENCOUNTER between Wierwille and someone else was de facto non-consensual? I can't honestly argue that because I wasn't there. I consider that position extreme, just as extreme as arguing that EVERY SINGLE WOMAN was asking for it and just as responsible as Wierwille.
And again, that does not invalidate a single horror story. It doesn't invalidate a single malicious abuse of power. It doesn't invalidate the torment he put people through. I know there are those who believe that EVERY case was one in which the woman came onto Wierwille and he succumbed to temptation. I find that position morally, ethically and spiritually repugnant, not to mention insulting.
But I don't buy the opposite extreme either.
I guess neither is provable, so the point is really difficult to discuss. But I don't see where oldiesman is saying anything that's all that unreasonable.
And AGAIN! AGAIN! AGAIN!!!!! I'm not excusing or denying ANY of Wierwille's indiscretions or abuses. I'm just saying it's possible that some SOME (not a lot, not a majority, SOME) of the encounters may have possibly been just a tad consensual.
OCD Wrote:
Come on, this is unfair. How many ways until Sunday do I have to say that I wasn't excusing Wierwille's behavior or denying his culpability?
[This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on February 01, 2003 at 16:01.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
What is the deal here!!!
This is not a doctrinal thread. Why the need to discuss semantics?
Was it just the several women here at CS that VPW had non-consentual sex with?
Was it only 10, 20 wommen?
Was it 100, 200?
Was it concentual with 10, 20 all but ten or twenty?
Lets not kid ourselves. This is not the point.
Would it matter if he only raped 20 and had consentual sex with the other 100? Would that make some of you feel better? How about if it were only a few head leaders that did the same thing? Would that make you feel better?
You think this nit-picking does not take something from these women?
Then why do we see these responces you get?
It does not matter if it was not every single sexual encounter.
Take a look at the thread the Profile of a Sexual Preditor.
The reality is that it was probably more like hundreds of women.
The man was a preditor. Lets not nit-pick how what I just said is not provable. But you know it is probably true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Wow MJ - what a post!
"The woman got sick to you know...."
Yes, we did.
"So denial was needed."
Denial was survival.
"I must say this tho for all the cover up and cult brain that stuck together it was the women who were the best at denial and covering the sick *** holes."
Yes we were.
"God says I have no choice, divorce is not an option, I would have to give up this lifestyle and my husband and people stand up and clap the hands when he enters the room he must be something even if it isnt to my heart anymore."
Exactly how I felt.
"husabd doesnt have time or concern anymore the word comes first. . "
So very true.
"She would be alone at home at night with the kids , in the shell of being human, never allowed any interests outside the way,"
A shell of a human being, exactly what we became.
"Believe me they knew about the abuse in twi and covered it up"
Yes, they knew!
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Dammit! I was going to stay out of this, which is exactly what Oldiesman and Rafael should do.
Oldiesman, I think you know exactly what you're doing. If so, you're an ***. If not, you are still acting like one. Rafael, I'd like to think that you just don't get it.
IT MATTERS NOT ONE BIT that some woman, somewhere along the way, could have possibly had truly consensual sexual relations with Wierwille. THE POINT is that TWI believers, who thought of him as THE MAN OF GOD, did not.
"It's not about sex but about power" does not mean that either the abuser or the VICTIM is necessarily thinking about power, rather than sex. It means that the abuser uses his POWER to deceive, coerce, manipulate, or whatever it takes to gain the "consent" or overcome the nonconsent of the VICTIM.
Oldiesman, your constant nit-picking about "consent" and what it means to be a victim is designed to deflect accusations away from your precious ABUSER, by constantly offering up the possibility that his VICTIMS might not have really been victims at all, but consenting adults. Hell, the way you stretch and distort things, I'm surprised you don't say that a woman who consents to sex at the point of a gun is a consenting adult, and therefore not a rape victim.
We have read numerous accounts of Wierwille having used several different means to get his VICTIMS to "consent." Sometimes, he used his power as "Man of God" to deceive the victim into thinking that sex with him was God's will. At best, that would be consent based on fraud, which is not genuine, informed consent. Sometimes, Wierwille used the power of his position to lure women into situations in which they felt like they had no way out, even though no actual force was used. That would be "consent" by coercion. Some accounts indicate that Wierwille drugged women in order to get their "consent." That would be rape, plain and simple.
This is about real people and real life, not some remote possibility that you seem to think offers some sort of defense for your precious Wierwille. There are many accounts of Wierwille using his power to victimize women. You can't cite a single example of Wierwille's having genuinely consensual sex outside of marriage. Even if you could, it wouldn't change a thing but, since you can't, you should SHUT THE HELL UP!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Rafael, usually you are the most reasonable of reasonable people but...in this I think you've over streached your bounds by "sticking up for Oldiesman" to the point that I wonder if you may be enabling the enablers. Whatever that means.
Oldiesman is a neo-Wierwillite, surely you know that. He so busies himself in whitewashing Wierwille's sepluchure that he has little time to do ought but sugar coat the great sugar daddy on the pulpit. Wierwille's sins are real.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
this has been om's mo since waydale, where he posted under another handle...didn't you, om???
...thought nobody paid attention, didja???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wayfer Not!,
My view is that genuine healing comes from God and Christ, not forums on Greasespot Cafe. "He sent his word, and healed them". Forums on GS are full of varying opinions and debate, and as long as folks like myself are respectful to others, we are (or should be) able to post dissenting opinions without worrying about offending others. Those are the GS rules.
Ginger,
As best as I know, I've been respectful to posters, and when I haven't, I've apologized. But it looks like what you may be really suggesting here is: "agree with me, otherwise keep your mouth shut"?
Dot Matrix,
Yes I'm fine. But I thought it was interesting you said if I was "caught up in it then I am also a victim". Thank you for trying to comfort me in that you say I was also a victim. But consider this too: if I was caught up in the doctrine of devils, then can't you apply that same logic to VPW? He ALSO was caught up in this doctrine of devils, no? He (VPW) was a victim of the devil too then, wasn't he?
Rafael,
Thanks again for the support and trying to see the viewpoints I've been expressing.
Lindyhopper,
I still have a problem with that word "rape". If you're talking about VPW administering those date rape drugs (which admittedly is still hard for me to believe) then you'd have to call it rape. No question about it. Other than that, I don't see it as rape, but more like sexual harassment. Does it matter? Well, sexual harassment conveys one idea, and rape conveys another. Rape conveys that you simply couldn't say no, and couldn't get up and walk out. But we've seen testimonies of women declining VPW's advances, so I know it was possible. But certainly please don't misunderstand me, its bad enough for me and others who respected VPW to now think that he had a very sleazy sexual problem.
Orange Cat,
I think you've distorted Rafael's intent to be fair and intellectually honest. He's bringing up viewpoints, just like I am. Why do you have to label him as bordering on an enabler? He's trying to be objective, just like I am.
Alfakat,
What difference does it make whether I may or may have not discussed these points on Waydale? If it does, please let me know because I'm missing your point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlie
in the days of "old", women ,,,well you know!
it's a new day, good morning
R-E-S-P-E-C-T
'member that tune? it's an "oldie"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orange Cat
Objective. Now that's not exactly what I thought you were being. I'd much rather you express yourself and clarify your murky posts than have Rafael throw you a lifeline.
Orange Cat color>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
One thing that amazes me is that I can say in EACH and EVERY post that I've made on this thread that NOTHING excuses Wierwille's repugnant, reprehensible behavior, and STILL be accused of either being an ebabler or aiding and abetting enablers.
My goodness, Ginger, you actually felt the need to inform me that OCD was right? My friend, I WAS AGREEING WITH OCD!!! I've been agreeing with OCD all along!
What I'm trying to say is that you folks can be 100% right - 100% - and still leave room for the possibility that not every example will fit the critical view we have of Wierwille.
Excath, Dot: I'm sorry. I have no intent to hurt you. I believe you both, and I believe there were many, TOO many more like you. I do not excuse Wierwille. Do I need to put that sentence in BOLD before anyone reads it? Because I know that Wierwille put a lot of people through a lot of pain. And I know that he did so in God's name. And I know the damage that does not only to those people, but to God's name. IT IS INEXCUSABLE.
I really wish you folks saw Oldiesman the way I do: as someone seeking to come to terms with the dismantling of a belief system he once held dear: as someone who's recognizing, slowly but surely, that a man he really looked up to did some things that at first seem just dishonest, but increasingly realizing how horrible they were.
You want him to join you in your point of view instantly? He's not going to. But he's going to start by recognizing, as I believe he has, that at least SOME of what you guys are saying is true. That there WERE times when Wierwille did exactly what he's been accused of doing. Do you have any idea how much it takes for him to concede that point? It's HUGE. So forgive me for recognizing that breakthrough and encouraging him onward in at least small steps.
Take a look at oldies' posts on the Actual Errors thread. You want to call him a Wierwille worshipper? Take a look over there and recognize, as I clearly do, that he's got an open mind to Wierwille's faults, and he's working them through in his mind and heart with prayer.
Maybe if you helped him along in his journey instead of calling him a multiple-asterisk, maybe, just maybe, you'll see him as I do.
Forgive me if I'm out of line.
Rafael
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
You make a good point Rafael. Sometimes we forget where it is we came from. It is good to remember that when we are dealing with other people.
To every man his own truth and his own God within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Olds:
I wrote:Olds-
Really, Are you okay?
It is begining to look like Hmmmmm. (as GT said.)
Were you a Rev? Did you fall into the weird doctrine? Have you been in a personal battle over some of your conduct perhaps?
Look, if VP taught you the doctrine of devils and you were caught up in it then you are also a victum.
Are you alright?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you answered:
Dot Matrix,
Yes I'm fine. But I thought it was interesting you said if I was "caught up in it then I am also a victim". Thank you for trying to comfort me in that you say I was also a victim. But consider this too: if I was caught up in the doctrine of devils, then can't you apply that same logic to VPW? He ALSO was caught up in this doctrine of devils, no? He (VPW) was a victim of the devil too then, wasn't he?
Now this is my response:
Olds
I did apply the logic that VPW was caught up in the doctrine of devils. I went to him personally to show him he was deceived, and I sent him a letter in the letter I told him I believed he was being led/attacked by deceiving spirits, etc.
The difference is HE WAS CONFRONTED and did not stop. He always said it was a Biblical Research and teaching ministry and if you showed him from the word he would change his opinion. He did not.
Other ministers Rev.'s DId stop/change when they saw it from the word and left the illogic of VPW's teachings. A Kansas Rev who got into TWI was then broken into the "free sex" stuff. When he SAW it was wrong he sent an apology letter out to all the women he had hurt! The Bible still meant something to him!
VPW did not elevate the Bible, IMO, above his own narcissistic view of his sexual desires.
So, yes at first I thought he needed reproof. When I did it and Ralph and others and he WOULD NOT listen, then I no longer saw him as a victim of devilish doctrines but one who aliened himself with those doctrines despite the Biblical evidence that they were incorrect.
I no longer saw it as a trick but a decision made as he taught Adam knowingly and willfully disobeyed God and followed Eve.
He KNEW and he choose his evil ways over goodness.
Your kindness toward VPW maybe because you are a better person than I am. Truly, if the Apostle Paul killed a bunch of people in the church today, then repented, I do not have what it takes to forgive him. Maybe over time. Maybe. But VPW, to my knowledge, NEVER said he was wrong or sorry. If he said he was sorry and meant it, this thread maybe different.
If I were a kid, I would rather you be my parent then I. You would stay in their corner.
Not an altogether bad quality. I would be the parent who would turn their kid in, I would be Ted Kivinsky's brother....
Who is to say I am wrong or you are wrong?
I beleive VPW was willfully a monster. You do not. It is okay.
I just thought maybe you were a Rev. and had gotten into that "sex" stuff and were having a hard time with this thread.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on February 02, 2003 at 12:12.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
We "know" only what we think we "know".
That is until we change our mind or learn differently.
Many spent years renewing the mind to "what the word says".
Alot of this stuff was taught .
Listen alot of this stuff is taught...made rational, excused, tolerated and done by example by
USING SCRPITURE!!!!!
HOW? the bible is holy it must be good.
They used stuff from the bible and twisted it to cover sins.
to hurt one another.
to build an empire.
It is very difficult to spend your honest soul studying scripture as "God breathed" I mean the whole world agrees the bible is good right?
it cant be wrong .
To consider how, I said HOW the scripturs were used to apply behaviours done and not done , to think they actualy teach tolerance for sin and abuse is difficult .
and painful, because the bible means so much to so many.
Yet the way folks did use the bible as a bullet to destroy , to justify, to allow circumstances far removed from Gods will for His people.
That is why is so very difficult for people to hear the truth in situations ,to break away from the group think . the word and nothing but the word people, we got the power, its the grace adminstration.
even love one another was twisted to mean love our leaders more.
[This message was edited by mj412 on February 02, 2003 at 8:08.]
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.