In the past you have claimed that TWI leadership has no problem with you checking out ex-Way sites or even posting here.
If that is so, there should be no problem giving information that would get other "innies" thrown out.
That's why insurgent and wayward wayfer and other "innies" don't give out private info, because they know that it would cause problems. You say it won't.
LLP, I do believe you when you say that you experience no pressure to attend meetings or submit your vacation itinerary, etc. I think that the BOT has had to face the reality (FINALLY!)that such overt tactics are bad for business. Certainly, they had spent enough time reading this web site (and Waydale before it), in which innies on the verge of departing complained about being sick to death of having their lives micromanaged. There is a lot of wisdom and insight on these boards, even if they would never in a million years acknowledge that. They knew they had to lighten up on people, or loose what was left of TWI, especially in the wake of the Martindale scandel.
My husband, also, has repeatedly insisted that things are not the way they use to be. I believe him, also. I think that the average innie probably now finds the TWI experience "pleasant" (if not slightly boring). But most of them also remember a time, not so long ago, when they spent most of their time shaking in their boots, afraid of ambush confrontations and ever more unreasonable demands on their time and resources. Naturally you're bound to be relieved (even thankful) when the guy who was choking you removes his fingers off your windpipe.
There was a time when there was an active campaign to woo me into returning to The Household. But that boat left the docks a loooong time ago, never to return. I know too much now, and quite frankly, not enough has changed for me to even consider going back.
One question keeps returning to mind: How is it that people who were supposedly so spiritually right-on, could be so willfully blind to the spiritual darkness that prevailed in TWI? How could they now be trusted to have "seen the light" (especially in light of the fact that they will not even acknowledge that there was light in need of seeing)? If you'd been bitten by a poisonous snake, would you not think it unreasonable that people expect you to believe that that same snake is now harmless? How, in God's name, does one trust the snake?
As for no one here being willing to reveal their real names or identifying information, that's certainly not true. There are several people here who have identified themselves by name and other such info. Rafael (just as one example) uses both is own name, and has his picture next to all his posts. Is that really you, Raf?---LOL!
Given the fact that my spouse is still "in", I don't quite feel comfortable using my real name. But if we were both "out", I'd have no problem doing so. However, I'm sure that if someone really wanted to know my identity, it wouldn't be too terribly hard to figure it out.
Cherished, you obviously missed the key word in my previous post concerning identity – and then you contradict yourself.
I asked you (or anyone here) to show me one innie posting who identifies him/herself. Plenty of folks identify themselves here, you say – citing Rafael as an example – and then, you excuse yourself from the same standard to which you would hold me because your hubby is still in.
I do understand why you don’t feel comfortable using your real name, but I really don’t understand where you are coming from with respect to what you feel I should be doing, Cher – not that it matters. Folks have been posting anonymously all over the internet (not just at GS) from its earliest days. It is an accepted and perfectly legal practice except if one is using the tactic in the commission of a crime.
I’m glad that your husband is finding life in TWI more to his liking, and I appreciate that you are willing to admit so in this post. Perhaps others here will find my description more credible as a result of your comment.
I can understand your choice not to return to TWI – please try to understand that I choose to maintain my relationship for the positives it presently and has always offered me. I never experienced some of the negatives I hear related here at GS, and don’t feel I have to reconcile my experience to that of others, especially those who have chosen to leave.
If you observe (from your husband or others) that changes (for the better) have occurred in TWI, it’s your choice to give them credit for making the change or to deride them for not making it sooner. It’s your choice to accept whatever reason they may give for making the change or to assume that the reason was to maintain/regain/increase the number of participants. Those choices are for each of us to make for ourselves. I’ll respect your choices, I promise.
I’m not here to approve/disprove anyone else’s experience or perspective, only to express my own.
Sorry Lolly, I actually misread your question. I thought you had asked if "anyone" here on G-spot actually revealed his/her true identity. But you were specifically speaking of "innies" (God only knows how I missed that---LOL!).
Yep, you are absolutely right. I know of no "innie" who has EVER posted under his/her true name. And I totally understand why. I Certainly don't blame you for not doing the same. An innie posting under his true identity would be the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of the bull, wouldn't it? It stands to complicate matters considerably---which is exactly why, given my own circumstances, I don't reveal my own identity. For the record, I was not one of those who challenged you to "reveal" yourself to the larger G-spot audience. You are as entitled to remain anonymous as anyone else here.
Lolly, I'm glad your TWI experience has thus far been positive. I wouldn't wish upon anyone the type of hell many of us experienced in The Way. If overall, they are finally giving people breathing room, after years of spiritual strangulation, that can only be a good sign. But you know, I keep hearing in my mind something Dr. Phil often says (and everyone knows he's the authority on such things... ): "Past behavior" he says, "is often the best predictor of future behavior". I did notice, he said "often", and not "always". However, given the many other indices still in place within TWI, I think it's a safe bet that things could very readily return to "the bad old days". Please trust me when I say that my experience with TWI almost ruined my physical health, and threatened to destroy my emotional one. The best time to destroy someone (all in the name of "Godly Love", "Spiritual Suspicion", ect., of course) is after you have lulled them into a false sense of security. I will never allow TWI to place me under those circumstances again. Had you had my experience, I'm fairly sure you'd feel the same way.
But, having said all that, I also understand why you would choose to go with your own experiences, and not make a stay-or-go decision based on the postings of annoymous message board visitors. I did the same thing almost twenty years ago. Right after starting my involvement with TWI, I received an amazing number of warnings from several different sources about the perils of "that destructive cult". It scared the Bejeezus out of me, but I stayed put, because my experiences thus far had been so positive, even life-saving (yes, I STILL say that!). I stayed because, by and large, the believers and leadership in my area were some of the sweetest, most giving, most sincerely God-seeking people I had ever met. They showed genuine love and acceptance of me, in ways both great and small, on a continual basis. Nobody---and I do mean, NOBODY, was going to make me walk away from that. And for a while, it was the best thing I'd ever had.
I know there are others whose experiences were not like mine. I know there are those who report having never experienced the blissful fellowship I experienced. I believe them, but that still doesn't negate the true blessings I received for a number of years. However, when things started heading "south", they did so increadibly gradually---almost imperceptibly so. Only when that snow ball started to build up a good head of steam on its way downhill, was there was no denying that it was time to say goodbye to something that was no longer good.
Lolly, for your sake, and for the sake of everyone who remains in TWI, I only hope things continue to get better. I hope leadership sees that it's necessary to be honest and forthcoming, and not act as if the believer has no right to ask questions and receive answers. In other words, I hope they lift the veil of secrecy that still prevails within The Way, because secrets are best hidden in darkness.
I hope they review, with honesty and integrity, every self-serving doctrine that they push (such as the no-debt doctrine and the tithe doctrine) and stop using them to manipulate people.
I hope they suspend the use of pretzel logic teachings (such as the "Eve-and-The-Devil-doing-the-lesbian-dirty" teaching) until they can more clearly show it from The Word. And while they're at it, reexamine every doctrine/pratice/teaching implemented by their former HMFIC---if indeed he is, "former".
But most importantly of all, I hope they one day show the Godly integrity necessary to admit that at one point, things got VERY SPIRITUALLY DARK, and that the critical leaders at the top (many of whom remain in the current BOD and and "Directors' Household" to this day) decided to call it "light", and that as a result of their hubris, countless people were hurt or destroyed. I want them to take ownership of that. But I'm not holding my breath.
If they were actually to do that, I MIGHT seriously consider attending a Way Fellowship (albeit, while sitting close to the door ;)-->).
[This message was edited by Cherished Child on March 25, 2004 at 10:50.]
Hard to take issue with anything expressed in your last post. One of the reasons I keep coming here is to maintain a broad perspective. We've pretty much worked to death poor old Mel (well, old, at least) and his motives, but, for me, it was a stimulating and profitable (no pun intended, LOL) exchange.
Well, PamSan, anyone who would make the comment you just did, obviously hasn’t been around. I can tell from your post that you, obviously, are a non-traveling type, your Milton-Bradleyish moniker notwithstanding.
Get out of your rut, dare to step off the board, take a spin around the block, breathe deeply the (fresh??) air. It will clear your head. Then, apply the newly energized burst of logic that results to my profile. You’ll quickly surmise that I am the vagabond type – one who sings show tunes but doesn’t sing in the shower obviously doesn’t take showers – unless one is singing in the rain, but that was DVD’s moment in the sun.
Wake up, PanSan! Get fresh! Free your cloistered logic!
And, please, unless you’re willing to get out of the house and actually do something other than stay home all the time, don’t go prying into the deeper meanings of my very simple profile.
It says exactly what it says (de Gualle of some people!!!).
LLP
quote:Originally posted by pamsandiego:
And now on to the REAL question burning in our minds, LLP.
Do you or do you not sing in the shower... and if so, are they or are they not show tunes??????
Your profiles have thrown us all into a veritable torment of contradictions. We simply MUST know.
quote:Please spare me any elevation of M Gibson's motivation in the sacrifice of "his own money" to make this film (and thereby expose XXX number of otherwise ignorant souls to Christ).
His top priority is to reap profits (which priority he is executing in handsome fashion).
LLP
O.K. I read your above post again. Before this I checked to see if there was any dirt in my ear. I could not find any. However, I could have had a bad hair day when I previously posted a commentary about your above brief post. That is always possible I suppose. However, reading Grease Spot threads rarely agitates me. Even the crazy political section here. You should read some of that stuff if you want to read some real legitimate bias. Some of this is "through the roof Alice".
I forget what I said to you now. Maybe I should look it up, huh? Sorry if I was hard on you. However, my buddy Wordwolf and a few others I suppose, explained very well the personal financial risk that Mel Gibson took in making this movie. The money out of his own pocket was enormous even for a rich dude like Mel. There was no guarantee that he was going to even break even on this and earn his money back. In fact, he could have lost his shirt on this endeavor.
I know that Mel never took PFAL or the WAP class or whatever "flavor of the month" class they have now at TWI. In spite of this obvious mark on Mel's character. Lowly Lolly Poppy, do you think it is possible that Mel may actually have a heart felt passion for Jesus Christ?
I’m not going back to look up your post, either, but you said something about my comment concerning Mel’s motives for making the film as being downright mean-spirited.
I don’t see anything mean-spirited about it. MG put up his own money to back a high-risk venture over which he had ultimate control with the potential to return very handsome profits – classic capitalism, nothing of which to be ashamed.
Does the subject of this film somehow elevate Mel’s entrepreneurial quest above that of, say, someone who puts up his own money to build a factory or invent and bring to market some new fast food or a better mousetrap? You may feel it does. I do not.
I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie. Most of us put up our own money to initiate a venture – and the dollars we offer to a project, whether we fund 100% or some lesser portion, can be significant for us. On the other hand, few of the businesspersons I know would risk their lifestyle on a single project, and, while I have no intimate knowledge of Mel’s financial resources, I suspect that his lifestyle was not imperiled by the 25 million he risked on this project. I also doubt he had to just plunk down 25 million as though he was betting on roulette or blackjack. Business (even show business) doesn’t work that way.
"Lowly Lolly Poppy, do you think it is possible that Mel may actually have a heart felt passion for Jesus Christ?"
Sure, Mark. It’s quite possible. I know many passionate Christians who are also passionate about business and bold in their investment practices. Those passions are not mutually exclusive.
"In spite of this obvious mark on Mel's character." Why so cynical, Mark? I have expressed not one word of disrespect for Mel, his Catholic faith, his movie, or his intentions, and you certainly can’t accuse me of framing any alleged disrespect in the context of whether or not he has taken "PFAL or the WAP class or whatever "flavor of the month" class they have now at TWI."
For all the bemoaning on this board that TWI robs its people of their power to think independently, outie folks here sure seem to get their panties all tied in knots when an innie dares to speak outside the context of TWI.
My comments are mine – I have not, as one poster suggested, run my thoughts up the “Way Tree” for prior approval from leadership. There are many from TWI in my area who have seen this film and generally praised it for its accuracy and as a piece of good cinema. For many others, having seen the hype about the purported blood and guts, the desire to see this film is only lukewarm. Those perspectives are not unique to TWI.
There is no right or wrong here. See the film if you want – elevate it and its producer to their rightful place aside your sacred tomes if you ascribe to them that much weightiness.
For me, the film represents a project that, while risky, was well executed, and for which the producer is realizing a well-deserved return on investment.
I was in TWI for 14 years. The one thing that bristles my fur the most about this corporation is their lack of respect for and in fact down right at times scorn for other Christians and Christian groups. If there is one thing that I would highly advise you to avoid in TWI thought is the TWI leadership's arrogant self righteous attitude that some how there group is the only true household of faith and better than all others. Besides the fact that this wreaks of the Catholic inquisition it leaves a very bad taste in ones mouth. Now I am not judging you here on whether you have this attitude or don't have this attitude. However, as someone with 14 years experience in dealing with this group (TWI), if you ever even get a small taste of this brand of self centered religious pharisaical grandeur spit it out immediately.
Again Lolly I am not judging you in telling you this. However, I am judging TWI leadership as they have been very guilty of this. I am telling you now as a brother. Do not allow this brand of deceit into your thinking. I can overlook a lot of stuff, but if any leader from TWI or from any other Christian denomination for that matter ever brings this directly in my path they would know the error of their ways in a hurry.
Why am I telling you this you may be thinking? Because I like you and I don't want you to fall into this same brand of deceit that I know TWI leaders promulgate.
"I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie."
LLP, I understand that for you this is 'no biggie', but it was for Mel, I'm sure. More importantly, this kind of personal investment on such a scale is unprecedented in Hollywood. Which makes it quite the 'biggie'.
Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?
I tend to think if Mel's primary objective for making this movie had been profit, the movie he would have made would have been "Jesus vs. The Powerpuff Girls".
Or "Jesus vs. Freddy Krueger - Nightmare on The Streets Paved With Gold, Volume One".
Well, I am looking forward to the sequeal, "The Lethal Weapon: The Battle of Armageddon," with Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and his eyes a blaze of fire, and a robe soaked in blood, and a sharp sword comes out of his mouth so he can subdue nations...
OK, Mark. I hear you and see where you're coming from.
LLP
quote:Originally posted by Mark Sanguinetti:
Hi Lolly Poppy:
I was in TWI for 14 years. The one thing that bristles my fur the most about this corporation is their lack of respect for and in fact down right at times scorn for other Christians and Christian groups. If there is one thing that I would highly advise you to avoid in TWI thought is the TWI leadership's arrogant self righteous attitude that some how there group is the only true household of faith and better than all others. Besides the fact that this wreaks of the Catholic inquisition it leaves a very bad taste in ones mouth. Now I am not judging you here on whether you have this attitude or don't have this attitude. However, as someone with 14 years experience in dealing with this group (TWI), if you ever even get a small taste of this brand of self centered religious pharisaical grandeur spit it out immediately.
Again Lolly I am not judging you in telling you this. However, I am judging TWI leadership as they have been very guilty of this. I am telling you now as a brother. Do not allow this brand of deceit into your thinking. I can overlook a lot of stuff, but if any leader from TWI or from any other Christian denomination for that matter ever brings this directly in my path they would know the error of their ways in a hurry.
Why am I telling you this you may be thinking? Because I like you and I don't want you to fall into this same brand of deceit that I know TWI leaders promulgate.
“Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?”
Just call me a doubting Thomas. I think it’s great that this film has stirred up so much interest – and if this interest nets one new believer, then, it really doesn’t matter what any of us think about Mel’s motives.
My opinion is no more or less whimsical than anyone else’s on this board – and probably no more or less jaded by my experience in and observations of the “biz” than are opinions expressed by outies concerning current conditions in TWI jaded by their experience in and observations of “that biz.”
Mel’s personal investment in this venture may be unprecedented in Hollywood, I just don’t think that fact, in and of itself, is an indicator of his motive(s) per se. I can respect your opinion, however.
Lolly, why is it so hard for you to believe that something other than money could have been the main reason MG made this film? Do you believe he's lying when he says his religious convictions were primarily what drove him in this project? You certainly must.
Are you so callous and jaded in your assessment of everyone's motives? Somehow, if I thought the answer to that question was, "yes", I doubt you'd be so committed to The Way. What have Rosie and The BOD done to convince you that their motives are honorable? HONESTLY...?
If TWI had undertaken to make such a film, would you have suspected that their motives were primarily profit driven? If not, why not?
I have heard the leaders talk nice about Mel's movie, but they are concerned because the movie doesn't tell people how to be born again and it doesn't give anyone who wants to know more a place to go. That's why they don't like the movie so much. With TWI people have someone who will undersheperd them and answer all their questions. Big gatherings and huge events don't provide the one-on-one undershepherding that you get with TWI.
They also think there is not enough on the resurrection and that the focus should have been on that and not the death of Jesus Christ.
The comments have been the same disrespect for anyone outside of TWI that I am used to hearing. They just don't seem to like it when anyone does something well. It's like they don't like the "Purpose Driven Life" even though that book has helped a lot of people and gotten some excited about reading the Bible again.
On a personal note: I don't care why Mel did the movie. I'm glad he did it and he deserves every penny that movie generates. He made a great movie that showed more accuracy than most people had been familiar with and he promoted it heavily and well enough to generate interest for lots of people to go see the movie. I think God's pretty proud of him. Obviously I don't know God's thoughts, but that's my take on the situation.
I never thought that TWI would have a totally negative reaction to anything that had to do with Jesus Christ that was trying to be bible based - as was "The Passion". With all the hoopla surrounding the film, especially in the Christian community, they'd be stupid to critique it too drastically. It wouldn't win anyone over who might be taking a look at TWI.
Instead, they make their usual comments, which don't sound that heinous. Remember, VP used to criticize Billy Graham for not giving anyone a "place to go" after one of his revivals (which, btw, was not true - but that's another thread).
And I agree that they really don't like anyone to have a positive impact on an individual's spirituality unless it comes from them - or is promoted by them. A few years ago they promoted books by Larry Burkett on debt-free living. Of course, along with those books there were teachings to give it the TWI "spin" (Burkett doesn't think mortgages are debt).
I'm happy for Mel Gibson. I'm glad he made money on a movie he was passionate about making. Whether his motives were spiritual or financial isn't really any of my concern. The fact is he initally made the film because of his faith, and then made money on it because he is a good film-maker and because of the incredible publicity the movie received.
I have heard the leaders talk nice about Mel's movie, but they are concerned because the movie doesn't tell people how to be born again and it doesn't give anyone who wants to know more a place to go. That's why they don't like the movie so much. With TWI people have someone who will undersheperd them and answer all their questions. Big gatherings and huge events don't provide the one-on-one undershepherding that you get with TWI.
They also think there is not enough on the resurrection and that the focus should have been on that and not the death of Jesus Christ.
The comments have been the same disrespect for anyone outside of TWI that I am used to hearing. They just don't seem to like it when anyone does something well. It's like they don't like the "Purpose Driven Life" even though that book has helped a lot of people and gotten some excited about reading the Bible again.
On a personal note: I don't care why Mel did the movie. I'm glad he did it and he deserves every penny that movie generates. He made a great movie that showed more accuracy than most people had been familiar with and he promoted it heavily and well enough to generate interest for lots of people to go see the movie. I think God's pretty proud of him. Obviously I don't know God's thoughts, but that's my take on the situation.
What ever happened to He that is for me is not against me (think that's how it's written).
Oh well, I am sure all those wonderful unsaved people with questions will be guided to TWI II NOT!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
7
9
15
Popular Days
Mar 24
33
Mar 13
19
Mar 19
18
Mar 12
14
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Cherished Child 7 posts
Steve! 9 posts
LowlyLollyPoppy 15 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2004
33 posts
Mar 13 2004
19 posts
Mar 19 2004
18 posts
Mar 12 2004
14 posts
Oakspear
LLP:
In the past you have claimed that TWI leadership has no problem with you checking out ex-Way sites or even posting here.
If that is so, there should be no problem giving information that would get other "innies" thrown out.
That's why insurgent and wayward wayfer and other "innies" don't give out private info, because they know that it would cause problems. You say it won't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
LLP, I do believe you when you say that you experience no pressure to attend meetings or submit your vacation itinerary, etc. I think that the BOT has had to face the reality (FINALLY!)that such overt tactics are bad for business. Certainly, they had spent enough time reading this web site (and Waydale before it), in which innies on the verge of departing complained about being sick to death of having their lives micromanaged. There is a lot of wisdom and insight on these boards, even if they would never in a million years acknowledge that. They knew they had to lighten up on people, or loose what was left of TWI, especially in the wake of the Martindale scandel.
My husband, also, has repeatedly insisted that things are not the way they use to be. I believe him, also. I think that the average innie probably now finds the TWI experience "pleasant" (if not slightly boring). But most of them also remember a time, not so long ago, when they spent most of their time shaking in their boots, afraid of ambush confrontations and ever more unreasonable demands on their time and resources. Naturally you're bound to be relieved (even thankful) when the guy who was choking you removes his fingers off your windpipe.
There was a time when there was an active campaign to woo me into returning to The Household. But that boat left the docks a loooong time ago, never to return. I know too much now, and quite frankly, not enough has changed for me to even consider going back.
One question keeps returning to mind: How is it that people who were supposedly so spiritually right-on, could be so willfully blind to the spiritual darkness that prevailed in TWI? How could they now be trusted to have "seen the light" (especially in light of the fact that they will not even acknowledge that there was light in need of seeing)? If you'd been bitten by a poisonous snake, would you not think it unreasonable that people expect you to believe that that same snake is now harmless? How, in God's name, does one trust the snake?
As for no one here being willing to reveal their real names or identifying information, that's certainly not true. There are several people here who have identified themselves by name and other such info. Rafael (just as one example) uses both is own name, and has his picture next to all his posts. Is that really you, Raf?---LOL!
Given the fact that my spouse is still "in", I don't quite feel comfortable using my real name. But if we were both "out", I'd have no problem doing so. However, I'm sure that if someone really wanted to know my identity, it wouldn't be too terribly hard to figure it out.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Cherished, you obviously missed the key word in my previous post concerning identity – and then you contradict yourself.
I asked you (or anyone here) to show me one innie posting who identifies him/herself. Plenty of folks identify themselves here, you say – citing Rafael as an example – and then, you excuse yourself from the same standard to which you would hold me because your hubby is still in.
I do understand why you don’t feel comfortable using your real name, but I really don’t understand where you are coming from with respect to what you feel I should be doing, Cher – not that it matters. Folks have been posting anonymously all over the internet (not just at GS) from its earliest days. It is an accepted and perfectly legal practice except if one is using the tactic in the commission of a crime.
I’m glad that your husband is finding life in TWI more to his liking, and I appreciate that you are willing to admit so in this post. Perhaps others here will find my description more credible as a result of your comment.
I can understand your choice not to return to TWI – please try to understand that I choose to maintain my relationship for the positives it presently and has always offered me. I never experienced some of the negatives I hear related here at GS, and don’t feel I have to reconcile my experience to that of others, especially those who have chosen to leave.
If you observe (from your husband or others) that changes (for the better) have occurred in TWI, it’s your choice to give them credit for making the change or to deride them for not making it sooner. It’s your choice to accept whatever reason they may give for making the change or to assume that the reason was to maintain/regain/increase the number of participants. Those choices are for each of us to make for ourselves. I’ll respect your choices, I promise.
I’m not here to approve/disprove anyone else’s experience or perspective, only to express my own.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fortunateone
A friend of mine went back to a local TWI
fellowship and said it was dead dead dead except for the attempts to manipulate and control her life as before.
One month was all she could stand.
She had to get tough to make them leave her alone
again.
Get out of TWI now!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
Sorry Lolly, I actually misread your question. I thought you had asked if "anyone" here on G-spot actually revealed his/her true identity. But you were specifically speaking of "innies" (God only knows how I missed that---LOL!).
Yep, you are absolutely right. I know of no "innie" who has EVER posted under his/her true name. And I totally understand why. I Certainly don't blame you for not doing the same. An innie posting under his true identity would be the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of the bull, wouldn't it? It stands to complicate matters considerably---which is exactly why, given my own circumstances, I don't reveal my own identity. For the record, I was not one of those who challenged you to "reveal" yourself to the larger G-spot audience. You are as entitled to remain anonymous as anyone else here.
Lolly, I'm glad your TWI experience has thus far been positive. I wouldn't wish upon anyone the type of hell many of us experienced in The Way. If overall, they are finally giving people breathing room, after years of spiritual strangulation, that can only be a good sign. But you know, I keep hearing in my mind something Dr. Phil often says (and everyone knows he's the authority on such things...
): "Past behavior" he says, "is often the best predictor of future behavior". I did notice, he said "often", and not "always". However, given the many other indices still in place within TWI, I think it's a safe bet that things could very readily return to "the bad old days". Please trust me when I say that my experience with TWI almost ruined my physical health, and threatened to destroy my emotional one. The best time to destroy someone (all in the name of "Godly Love", "Spiritual Suspicion", ect., of course) is after you have lulled them into a false sense of security. I will never allow TWI to place me under those circumstances again. Had you had my experience, I'm fairly sure you'd feel the same way.
But, having said all that, I also understand why you would choose to go with your own experiences, and not make a stay-or-go decision based on the postings of annoymous message board visitors. I did the same thing almost twenty years ago. Right after starting my involvement with TWI, I received an amazing number of warnings from several different sources about the perils of "that destructive cult". It scared the Bejeezus out of me, but I stayed put, because my experiences thus far had been so positive, even life-saving (yes, I STILL say that!). I stayed because, by and large, the believers and leadership in my area were some of the sweetest, most giving, most sincerely God-seeking people I had ever met. They showed genuine love and acceptance of me, in ways both great and small, on a continual basis. Nobody---and I do mean, NOBODY, was going to make me walk away from that. And for a while, it was the best thing I'd ever had.
I know there are others whose experiences were not like mine. I know there are those who report having never experienced the blissful fellowship I experienced. I believe them, but that still doesn't negate the true blessings I received for a number of years. However, when things started heading "south", they did so increadibly gradually---almost imperceptibly so. Only when that snow ball started to build up a good head of steam on its way downhill, was there was no denying that it was time to say goodbye to something that was no longer good.
Lolly, for your sake, and for the sake of everyone who remains in TWI, I only hope things continue to get better. I hope leadership sees that it's necessary to be honest and forthcoming, and not act as if the believer has no right to ask questions and receive answers. In other words, I hope they lift the veil of secrecy that still prevails within The Way, because secrets are best hidden in darkness.
I hope they review, with honesty and integrity, every self-serving doctrine that they push (such as the no-debt doctrine and the tithe doctrine) and stop using them to manipulate people.
I hope they suspend the use of pretzel logic teachings (such as the "Eve-and-The-Devil-doing-the-lesbian-dirty" teaching) until they can more clearly show it from The Word. And while they're at it, reexamine every doctrine/pratice/teaching implemented by their former HMFIC---if indeed he is, "former".
But most importantly of all, I hope they one day show the Godly integrity necessary to admit that at one point, things got VERY SPIRITUALLY DARK, and that the critical leaders at the top (many of whom remain in the current BOD and and "Directors' Household" to this day) decided to call it "light", and that as a result of their hubris, countless people were hurt or destroyed. I want them to take ownership of that. But I'm not holding my breath.
If they were actually to do that, I MIGHT seriously consider attending a Way Fellowship (albeit, while sitting close to the door
;)-->).
[This message was edited by Cherished Child on March 25, 2004 at 10:50.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Cherished:
Hard to take issue with anything expressed in your last post. One of the reasons I keep coming here is to maintain a broad perspective. We've pretty much worked to death poor old Mel (well, old, at least) and his motives, but, for me, it was a stimulating and profitable (no pun intended, LOL) exchange.
I trust you share that feeling.
Thanks for your post.
LLP
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
pamsandiego
And now on to the REAL question burning in our minds, LLP.
Do you or do you not sing in the shower... and if so, are they or are they not show tunes??????
Your profiles have thrown us all into a veritable torment of contradictions. We simply MUST know.
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Well, PamSan, anyone who would make the comment you just did, obviously hasn’t been around. I can tell from your post that you, obviously, are a non-traveling type, your Milton-Bradleyish moniker notwithstanding.
Get out of your rut, dare to step off the board, take a spin around the block, breathe deeply the (fresh??) air. It will clear your head. Then, apply the newly energized burst of logic that results to my profile. You’ll quickly surmise that I am the vagabond type – one who sings show tunes but doesn’t sing in the shower obviously doesn’t take showers – unless one is singing in the rain, but that was DVD’s moment in the sun.
Wake up, PanSan! Get fresh! Free your cloistered logic!
And, please, unless you’re willing to get out of the house and actually do something other than stay home all the time, don’t go prying into the deeper meanings of my very simple profile.
It says exactly what it says (de Gualle of some people!!!).
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pamsandiego
Stay home all the time! That's a hoot, LowlyLOL!Poppy. I wish.
ProfileS dude/dudette! They, not it. But hey, I ain't the one that forgot my password.
Yet alas, it's true, some uncloistering is probably called for. Four years of singing show tunes while showering in a bucket sorta piles up on a girl.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
That was water piling up on you. Hope you wore ear plugs while singing in that bucket - otherwise, you will have suffered some hearing loss.
Oh, and perhaps I was wrong on that point about you staying home all the time. It was an honest misteak - I rarely make them (honest or not).
LOL - oops, I mean LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Lowly Lolly Poppy said,
O.K. I read your above post again. Before this I checked to see if there was any dirt in my ear. I could not find any. However, I could have had a bad hair day when I previously posted a commentary about your above brief post. That is always possible I suppose. However, reading Grease Spot threads rarely agitates me. Even the crazy political section here. You should read some of that stuff if you want to read some real legitimate bias. Some of this is "through the roof Alice".
I forget what I said to you now. Maybe I should look it up, huh? Sorry if I was hard on you. However, my buddy Wordwolf and a few others I suppose, explained very well the personal financial risk that Mel Gibson took in making this movie. The money out of his own pocket was enormous even for a rich dude like Mel. There was no guarantee that he was going to even break even on this and earn his money back. In fact, he could have lost his shirt on this endeavor.
I know that Mel never took PFAL or the WAP class or whatever "flavor of the month" class they have now at TWI. In spite of this obvious mark on Mel's character. Lowly Lolly Poppy, do you think it is possible that Mel may actually have a heart felt passion for Jesus Christ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
Hi, Mark.
I’m not going back to look up your post, either, but you said something about my comment concerning Mel’s motives for making the film as being downright mean-spirited.
I don’t see anything mean-spirited about it. MG put up his own money to back a high-risk venture over which he had ultimate control with the potential to return very handsome profits – classic capitalism, nothing of which to be ashamed.
Does the subject of this film somehow elevate Mel’s entrepreneurial quest above that of, say, someone who puts up his own money to build a factory or invent and bring to market some new fast food or a better mousetrap? You may feel it does. I do not.
I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie. Most of us put up our own money to initiate a venture – and the dollars we offer to a project, whether we fund 100% or some lesser portion, can be significant for us. On the other hand, few of the businesspersons I know would risk their lifestyle on a single project, and, while I have no intimate knowledge of Mel’s financial resources, I suspect that his lifestyle was not imperiled by the 25 million he risked on this project. I also doubt he had to just plunk down 25 million as though he was betting on roulette or blackjack. Business (even show business) doesn’t work that way.
"Lowly Lolly Poppy, do you think it is possible that Mel may actually have a heart felt passion for Jesus Christ?"
Sure, Mark. It’s quite possible. I know many passionate Christians who are also passionate about business and bold in their investment practices. Those passions are not mutually exclusive.
"In spite of this obvious mark on Mel's character." Why so cynical, Mark? I have expressed not one word of disrespect for Mel, his Catholic faith, his movie, or his intentions, and you certainly can’t accuse me of framing any alleged disrespect in the context of whether or not he has taken "PFAL or the WAP class or whatever "flavor of the month" class they have now at TWI."
For all the bemoaning on this board that TWI robs its people of their power to think independently, outie folks here sure seem to get their panties all tied in knots when an innie dares to speak outside the context of TWI.
My comments are mine – I have not, as one poster suggested, run my thoughts up the “Way Tree” for prior approval from leadership. There are many from TWI in my area who have seen this film and generally praised it for its accuracy and as a piece of good cinema. For many others, having seen the hype about the purported blood and guts, the desire to see this film is only lukewarm. Those perspectives are not unique to TWI.
There is no right or wrong here. See the film if you want – elevate it and its producer to their rightful place aside your sacred tomes if you ascribe to them that much weightiness.
For me, the film represents a project that, while risky, was well executed, and for which the producer is realizing a well-deserved return on investment.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Lolly Poppy:
I was in TWI for 14 years. The one thing that bristles my fur the most about this corporation is their lack of respect for and in fact down right at times scorn for other Christians and Christian groups. If there is one thing that I would highly advise you to avoid in TWI thought is the TWI leadership's arrogant self righteous attitude that some how there group is the only true household of faith and better than all others. Besides the fact that this wreaks of the Catholic inquisition it leaves a very bad taste in ones mouth. Now I am not judging you here on whether you have this attitude or don't have this attitude. However, as someone with 14 years experience in dealing with this group (TWI), if you ever even get a small taste of this brand of self centered religious pharisaical grandeur spit it out immediately.
Again Lolly I am not judging you in telling you this. However, I am judging TWI leadership as they have been very guilty of this. I am telling you now as a brother. Do not allow this brand of deceit into your thinking. I can overlook a lot of stuff, but if any leader from TWI or from any other Christian denomination for that matter ever brings this directly in my path they would know the error of their ways in a hurry.
Why am I telling you this you may be thinking? Because I like you and I don't want you to fall into this same brand of deceit that I know TWI leaders promulgate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
"I respect MG for his vision for this project. But, for me, that he “put up his own money” (or how much he invested) is not a biggie."
LLP, I understand that for you this is 'no biggie', but it was for Mel, I'm sure. More importantly, this kind of personal investment on such a scale is unprecedented in Hollywood. Which makes it quite the 'biggie'.
Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kevlar2000
I tend to think if Mel's primary objective for making this movie had been profit, the movie he would have made would have been "Jesus vs. The Powerpuff Girls".
Or "Jesus vs. Freddy Krueger - Nightmare on The Streets Paved With Gold, Volume One".
Or "Lethal Jesus".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Well, I am looking forward to the sequeal, "The Lethal Weapon: The Battle of Armageddon," with Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and his eyes a blaze of fire, and a robe soaked in blood, and a sharp sword comes out of his mouth so he can subdue nations...
That will be one bloody movie!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
OK, Mark. I hear you and see where you're coming from.
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LowlyLollyPoppy
“Regarding Mel's motives, all we can go on are his words. It's clear from his many interviews that he says he did not do it for the profit. His stated motives are to honor Christ and to impact others with the Gospel. I believe him and have no reason to disbelieve him. Do you have evidence, in words or actions, to the contrary? Or are you basing your opinion on a whim (or predisposition) plucked out of the air?”
Just call me a doubting Thomas. I think it’s great that this film has stirred up so much interest – and if this interest nets one new believer, then, it really doesn’t matter what any of us think about Mel’s motives.
My opinion is no more or less whimsical than anyone else’s on this board – and probably no more or less jaded by my experience in and observations of the “biz” than are opinions expressed by outies concerning current conditions in TWI jaded by their experience in and observations of “that biz.”
Mel’s personal investment in this venture may be unprecedented in Hollywood, I just don’t think that fact, in and of itself, is an indicator of his motive(s) per se. I can respect your opinion, however.
Respectfully,
LLP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
Lolly, why is it so hard for you to believe that something other than money could have been the main reason MG made this film? Do you believe he's lying when he says his religious convictions were primarily what drove him in this project? You certainly must.
Are you so callous and jaded in your assessment of everyone's motives? Somehow, if I thought the answer to that question was, "yes", I doubt you'd be so committed to The Way. What have Rosie and The BOD done to convince you that their motives are honorable? HONESTLY...?
If TWI had undertaken to make such a film, would you have suspected that their motives were primarily profit driven? If not, why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Not so fast, LLP. Your opinion IS based on a whim, a notion, pulled out of the, um, air.
Mine is based on Mel's own words, which I find no reason to disbelieve. That's not a whim.
And your EVIDENCE to disbelieve is your own internal feeling? Try not eating so much pizza before betime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simpleton
I have heard the leaders talk nice about Mel's movie, but they are concerned because the movie doesn't tell people how to be born again and it doesn't give anyone who wants to know more a place to go. That's why they don't like the movie so much. With TWI people have someone who will undersheperd them and answer all their questions. Big gatherings and huge events don't provide the one-on-one undershepherding that you get with TWI.
They also think there is not enough on the resurrection and that the focus should have been on that and not the death of Jesus Christ.
The comments have been the same disrespect for anyone outside of TWI that I am used to hearing. They just don't seem to like it when anyone does something well. It's like they don't like the "Purpose Driven Life" even though that book has helped a lot of people and gotten some excited about reading the Bible again.
On a personal note: I don't care why Mel did the movie. I'm glad he did it and he deserves every penny that movie generates. He made a great movie that showed more accuracy than most people had been familiar with and he promoted it heavily and well enough to generate interest for lots of people to go see the movie. I think God's pretty proud of him. Obviously I don't know God's thoughts, but that's my take on the situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Thanks Simpleton -
I never thought that TWI would have a totally negative reaction to anything that had to do with Jesus Christ that was trying to be bible based - as was "The Passion". With all the hoopla surrounding the film, especially in the Christian community, they'd be stupid to critique it too drastically. It wouldn't win anyone over who might be taking a look at TWI.
Instead, they make their usual comments, which don't sound that heinous. Remember, VP used to criticize Billy Graham for not giving anyone a "place to go" after one of his revivals (which, btw, was not true - but that's another thread).
And I agree that they really don't like anyone to have a positive impact on an individual's spirituality unless it comes from them - or is promoted by them. A few years ago they promoted books by Larry Burkett on debt-free living. Of course, along with those books there were teachings to give it the TWI "spin" (Burkett doesn't think mortgages are debt).
I'm happy for Mel Gibson. I'm glad he made money on a movie he was passionate about making. Whether his motives were spiritual or financial isn't really any of my concern. The fact is he initally made the film because of his faith, and then made money on it because he is a good film-maker and because of the incredible publicity the movie received.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
What ever happened to He that is for me is not against me (think that's how it's written).
Oh well, I am sure all those wonderful unsaved people with questions will be guided to TWI II NOT!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Have any of you heard about the confessions?
Some people who committed crimes came forward and confessed after watching the
movie. They were convicted of their own consciences.
(No, really. I checked the story directly off the Reuters website to confirm I
was getting it right.)
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.