My friends have not all left and probably never will, my question is why would they invest in the class and the twi for me as a friend and now betray me and consider me a lesser because I have left?
mj412...that's exactly what I'm talking about. Real friends don't cut and run just because you won't take a class or go to church with them. True friends stick.
For a long time, there were a lot of folks who acted like my good friends until I disagreed with them. The next day, I was a lepor not to be associated with. That's the only time in my life I was ever treated that way. I am fortunate today to have many real friends. Our friendships are not conditional on what church you go to or what you believe. How refreshing it is to live in a world that is not clouded by insincerity.
quote: We were all taught how to put on our "believer face" just to show people how spiritual we were and how loving we were...sorry it was just an act. As soon as we realized that you were not gonna take our class or believe the same things we believed, we cut you loose and never thought of you
We were all taught ---??? --> I must have missed that seminar, or slept through it, or something.
I have never turned my back on folks who refused pfal. I still see folks today, that I have offered pfal to 25 years ago (that refused to take it), and we are still friends, and can talk to each other in a civil manner.
One of them refused the class, and said his "church" was a river filled with brook trout. I never held that against him. Another signed up for the class -- then shot and killed an intruder in his house.
We (as a branch) prayed for him and his situation, and he got off scot-free (as well he should have). He thanked us for the prayer, and said he changed his mind about pfal.
I never held that against him either. Because I never cast these folks off, we still have meaningful dialogue, and now they actually are more receptive to the Word.
Glad I missed the seminar where "we were taught...."
I was -- and don't recall that teaching at all. I do recall some of the 6th Corps guys quoting some verses to some of the 6th Corps girls in Romans that says it isn't sin if you don't condemn yourself. But there was never any formal, or informal teaching that I attended where "it's okay if you can handle it" was the subject - doctrinal or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I recall hearing that Romans stuff when I was in the line waiting to go into lunch - but never anywhere else.
Alfa, Catcup, Geek, Evan? I'm sure a couple of you have better memories than I do.
UncleHairy never said there was a formal teaching on the stuff he mentioned. People can be taught by example also you know.
As non-Corps I observed the very things that UH talked about. Formally taught or not, many of us did some of the very stuff that UH mentioned. It must have been learned behavior, because I have never seen such a high concentration of know-it-all, pompus a$$es in any other group of folks as I did in the Way especially those who were Way Corps and who learned at the feet of the Mogs.
By the early 80's I could hardly stomach the bossy, smug, and elitist behavior of even the *nice* Corps folks like I am sure that many of you here were (or claim to have been). It's all a matter of prospective.
I do not say this to shame or demean anyone here, but face it, we were all in a friggin cult, promoting the agenda of a cult which was lead by a couple of sociopathic liars and abusers. The abuse may not have been formally taught, but it was taught none the less.
Uncle Harry said: We were all taught how to put on our "believer face" just to show people how spiritual we were and how loving we were...sorry it was just an act. As soon as we realized that you were not gonna take our class or believe the same things we believed, we cut you loose and never thought of you
-------------------------------------------
This is true, after the transition period of 1994-1995 and especially after LCMs WAP class came out. We were not allowed to fellowship with people whom were not signed up for the class or those who were not participating in fellowship with probablity of taking the class. It all stemmed from LCMs teachings on being Unequally Yoked. We were told to "Wipe the dust off your feet and keep on stepping" when it came to those who did not want to actively participate. There was very little short suffering let alone long suffering in awaiting new comers.
My husband and I never held on to the concept of "wipe the dust off your feet...." and we continued to break many rules until eventually we were marked and avoided.
I don't know if all people in all areas were told to do the same, but I can tell you this did happen. My husband is sitting here with me recalling these days and remembering this is what we eventually were confronted on when we were put in the HOT seat or JUDGEMENT seat of our peers.
We believe loving unconditionally comes from your heart regardless of what you have been instructed to do.
Maybe pure and altruistic folks like yourself weren't invited to the abuse seminars :D-->
Come on man, just because you resisted some of that carp, can you honestly say that you never saw it?
You seem like a perseptive and intelligent guy...do you really maintain that the "company line" was to disregard whether people wanted to committ to PFAL or not? You know better.
1. Power over others, masquerading as Godly authority.
2. Adultery masquerading as freedom in Christ
3. Temper tantrums over trivial matters masquerading as attention to detail
4. Verbal abuse masquerading as righteous anger
5. Summarily dropping former "friends" masquerading as "shaking the dust off" or mark and avoid
6. Paranoia masquerading as "the household."
7. Lying by omission masquerading as the "lock box."
8. No guilt masquerading as "no condemnation in Christ."
(By the way, at the risk of being a one-note singer, all the above traits are typical of the narcissistic personality, others just use different reasons to justify their behaviors.)
Most of this was taught by example. Didn't we want to be like the Man of God? Shoot, people even started talking like VP, laughing like him. And those that were abusers to begin with certainly found an outlet.
I think there were two things at work. One is that the abusers wanted to escape criticism, and be allowed to abuse with impunity.
The other is that the abusers wanted others to do it with them. It takes the sting out of guilt to know that others did it, too. And it takes the sting out of disapproval. I see children do this all the time. When one wants to be naughty, he often looks around for someone else to be naughty with. When I correct them, they just look at each other and grin.
So escape disapproval when you can, and make sure you're not alone if you can't. And yell "freedom in Christ" and "no condemnation" if anyone catches you, so you can blame the whistleblower for being "judgmental."
It was absolutely taught by the wc in our area to AC grads and TCs. The logic started with LCM focusing on not being equally yoked. In typical fashion, the whole doctrine ran amok to the point where you were expected to only be talking to people who you thought would sign up for "the class." It was almost like you were harvesting people. Different stages of being ripe, just waiting to pluck them. If it was too much work, move on. Every person was shown as a potential registrant, nothing more.
I don't think this was entirely new though. Even during PFAL days, I saw flirting women, etc. I had a female friend who went WOW and was sent to C?with 3 other "hot babes" (their term, not mine) to a town outside a military base. They even joked about "moving the Word with our skirts." That was in the 80s during VP's reign.
Is abuse the right word though? Choosing not to be my friend is bad. Being one with a hidden agenda is worse. But are you doing it with the purpose of harming me?
Dictionary definition of abuse:
Abuse occurs when someone does not treat a person with dignity and violates their human or civil rights » Abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, or financial.
Maybe it is. I'll leave it to smarter people than me.
quote:There were huge arguments about this issue as some of these guys would constantly quote the famous doctrine taught to the 6th corps...
Goey - I'm not one to split hairs - but that's what UH said - it was taught to us. It wasn't. It was spread around by the Corps members themselves - at least that's the way I heard it. I remember talking about it in the dorm among ourselves, but that's about it.
I don't know who got the ball rolling or who came up with that particular interpretation of Romans, but I know it wasn't formally taught. I abolutely agree with 99.999% of what Uncle Hairy said, except for that one little point. I just wanted to set the record straight. T-t-t-t-that's all folks!
Shaz, that was an excellent list. One of the best I've read in a long time.
I think, if you were going to climb the ladder of TWI and "go to the top" - you had to become hard, an abuser and a manipulator, or else you would have been run over by someone more ruthless than you.
That said, I think this began once the corps went from 20-40 people to 600. I know many early corps who were wonderful people and were loved.
Its when the corps grew, and there was more competition for the few spaces at "the top," and with all these young men wanting to "prove" themselves, that it got really nasty.
I got out in 86/87, glad I didn't have to put up with loys crap.
I went through alot of classes, from pfal to advanced and many inbetweens and never saw what you guys were talking about other than a few flirty women.
when I left my TC's still talked to me and came to my house, some twigites are still friends, but then that was in a different country, louisiana haha. we've always been a friendly bunch.
quote: Remember hearing "just shake the dust off your feet"? What this really meant was he's not gonna take the class, we won't be getting his money, therefore we have no more time to waste on him.
Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe? This also happened even when folks didn't want twig. If folks are sincerely interested in me as a person, they'd check out what I was into. Relationships with girlfriends ring a bell. I'd share with them about twig, or PFAL, that I got lots of goodies from it, you'd think they'd check it out just to see where I'm coming from? Sometimes. There's always two sides to this argument.
quote: The care and concern we had for people was always being "tempered" by twi leadership. True unconditional love was not allowed.
You speak in such absolutes; but I've seen true love, care and concern during my stint. If some folks didn't see it, I can't imagine why they would've stayed so long.
quote:We were all taught how to put on our "believer face" just to show people how spiritual we were and how loving we were...sorry it was just an act.
Speak for yourself -- why accuse your brothers and sisters of acting this way? I think most of us just wanted to love folks, and see them also have the benefits we enjoyed.
quote:It was all about looking good and making them money.
Another insult. I think if that was the case, most of us wouldn't have ever gotten involved.
quote:Sexual promiscuity was not limited to just top way leadership. I had guys in my twig that were constantly trying to get some way girl into the sack. There were huge arguments about this issue as some of these guys would constantly quote the famous doctrine taught to the 6th corps that it was ok as long as you could "handle it". Well all these guys thought that they could "handle it" just fine.
We agree on this point. Fornication was always a private matter between the participants.
quote:In the process of cult recovery, I think it's important to recognize the fact that we were not only victims, but that many of us were also victimizers.
The victim mentality propaganda machine wants us to believe we were all victims, and victimizers. How else can they sell all their endless books and tapes?
quote:As reprobate as both wierwille and martindale were, thousands of folks weren't taken advantage of by just two guys. It was a corrupt sytem and we all played a part in it.
Another insult designed to think of yourself as a glassy-eyed brainwashed zombie who had no will of your own, no commitment and dedication to God's Word, no love of your own, and no reason for involvement other than supply the needs of the "monsters".
quote:mj412...that's exactly what I'm talking about. Real friends don't cut and run just because you won't take a class or go to church with them. True friends stick.
Real friends are genuinely interested in what you're into. If they can't be bothered knowing, or even making a small attempt in knowing, what interests you, how are these folks your friends?
Are they worth hanging around, knowing they couldn't give a fig about what you thought and believed?
Jesus said something about this, that his true family wasn't necessarily his earthly brethen, but those who hung around him and were genuinely interested in his life, thoughts, words and deeds.
That said, I think this began once the corps went from 20-40 people to 600. I know many early corps who were wonderful people and were loved.
There were also people in those early corps who were abused, and even had nervous breakdowns. I agree that it got worse with the bigger corps. But I don't think it was just because of size.
VPW, as evil as he was, could also be charming. As his influence and personal involvement diminished - because LCM took over the corps, because it moved to Emporia and Gunnison etc - then more of the nasty stuff and less of the charm was left.
Also vpw himself got more and more legalistic and would put up with less disagreement as he became richer and more powerful. In the days of the early corps, everything from dress codes to tithing and certainly time management of self and others was a lot looser.
I actually think a lot of the legalism and abuse came from vpw, but a lot didn't. It came from others who were hungry for power. But it all was allowed by him.
The further you got from hq the more things differed depending on the personality of your local leadership. That's why some on this thread never saw what others did. If you could put classes together, and keep the numbers flowing then you were pretty much able to do what you wanted.
If I want to be friends with people who don't necessarily subscribe to my beliefs or buy into the religious organization I'm controlled...err..blessed to attend, then it is really no one's business but my own.
The twi(t)s don't necessarily see it that way. I remember many times helping new friends with issues or just enjoying getting to know people. They then might want to come to fellowship with me. Some sign up for the class, some don't.
The ones who don't want to come back I'm told by my immediate leadership that it's too sad that they didn't want the truth. They say I could have had a real friend there. (The implication is that I don't have a friend and I shouldn't spend any more time with that person.)
With the people who come back I feel constant pressure from the leadership and the others in the fellowship to get them to sign up for the freaking class. It was insane now that I look back on it, but at the time I was really stressed about not getting them signed up for the class soon enough (you know, like before they figured out that it was a cult?)
With those who signed up for the class (and I've had my share I'm ashamed to say), there was super intense pressure weekly to "see growth" in their lives. This "growth" took the form of them reading the ragazine, listening to my sts tapes, reading in the collaterals and working with them on speaking in tongues, getting them to tithe.
This is just my experience, but I very much relate to this conditional friendship everyone is talking about. Sometimes I would go out of my way to avoid these people after they "refused the truth" that I made available to them. Others I just quit being so nice to and spending time with.
Where did I learn this? It wasn't in the church I grew up in. It wasn't in my family. The twi(t)s and especially the leadership including the bc's and rc's were very good at pushing and pressuring people without "teaching" them specifically that this is the expected behavior.
"Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe?"
Spoken like a true Wayferite. Gawddam, don't you bump your head a lot, living in such a small place? Gosh, maybe you could spend some time with folks who aren't a carbon-copy of yourself, and learn a little about the outside world.
Just a thought.
Personally I think I can relate to the arguments VERY well. We WERE subjected to all sorts of abuse and either learned to dole it out ourselves or acquired a sort of learned dependance on the esteemed leader du jour ("Oh, you're so right. I DO need to build my believing better. Thank you for beating me up verbally! I really needed that."). Or, maybe in most cases, got a little combination of the two.
Whatever the case, it was a closed,"top-down", perverted system. And it stunk (still does)...
quote:Spoken like a true Wayferite. Gawddam, don't you bump your head a lot, living in such a small place?
George, let's get real. Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now? I can't think of too many scenarios where'd that be reasonable, except perhaps work, where you earn a paycheck and are there to perform tasks for your employer.
You know, now that you mention it, I spend a lot of time with people who don't even speak the same language as me. A dictionary, a few phrases and a whole lot of sign langauge, and we make it work somehow.
I have aquaintances that have no clue what I believe or don't believe, nor I them. And we get along famously.
What superstitions I or they may have never enters the conversation, and we're none the worse for it, might I add...
quote: If folks are sincerely interested in me as a person, they'd check out what I was into.
to
quote: Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now?
There is a vast chasm between "checking out... " and "couldn't care less..."
I have a lot of friends that are not LDS I am. THey ask questions from time to time and I answer them ..but I don't feel the need to have them sitting next to me on Sunday in order to keep them as friends
I have a lot of friends who are into serious exercise I'm not. But I understand that from 8-9 every morning is not the time to call them unless blood is flowing
I have friends who aren't into genealogy I am.
But they understand when I answer the phone and begin talking about the new GGG Grandmother I finally located--it might be a good idea to schedule something for the next day because I'm on a role.
I have a friend who is into music collecting I'm not. But just like he listens to my burbling about geneaology I enjoy listening to his excitement about his newest aquisition that he's been looking for for 20 years. I may not have the level of enthusiam or interest he has for the subject but his elation makes me elated.
The Idea that one has to believe what you believe, like what you like or isn't worth having around is the same ideology that makes people commit suicide while smashing planes into tall buildings.
As far as a formal teaching that sex outside the confines of marriage or adulterous sex is ok "if you can handle it," NO, there was never any formal teaching or fireside "chat" that said that.
However, I can vouch for what Hope said about the guys pulling that line on the girls.
But-- in private, one to one counsel, that was another story. My room mate Mar*h* K. H*g*e was personally told by Loy Craig Martindale that sex with married 6th Corps R**k P*ny*rd was A-OK "if she could handle it."
Fast forward several months later, and R**k P*ny*rd having adulterous sex with another single young woman in our Corps was NOT ok. R**K and the single chick were publicly denounced for their affair, and were sent off packing, as well as R**K's poor wife M*ch*ll*, who was horribly embarassed by the public humiliation.
The difference between what Martindale told my roomie privately and what he did publicly to the same man for the same offense?
Publicity.
R**k's little affair with this other girl became public knowledge.
You see, it wasn't the adultery that Martindale viewed as erroneous. It was the hurt it caused his wife and the rest of the Way Corps and Ministry because R**k's private business became a public issue.
And that is the ONLY reason Martindale is not STILL president of TWI today. Not because he committed "adultery." Not because he committed it once, or even hundreds or thousands of times. Not because he used his power, position, and authority to intimidate women into sexual subjection. No, none of those.
It's because of the publicity involved. Plain and simple. Not the right or wrong of it.
If a certain courageous Irishman had just swept it under the rug like Martindale expected or knuckled under to pressure or bribes as others had done, Martindale would still be in that office today, doing the same thing he and his predecessor had done for decades.
And if you think TWI has changed it's policy, it hasn't. To them, adultery STILL is a spiritual issue, not sexual.
Some of you other 6th Corps might remember this one.
We had a special meeting with VPW in the campus center one night because of some sexual hanky panky that was occuring in our Corps that VPW had gotten wind of.
R*nd*ll M*cek was asked to stand up and recount a "locker room" conversation he had overheard in the men's dormatory regarding one particular Corps woman and the men she was having sex with. Then VPW got on his high horse about how hurtful it was for the guys to talk about it like that.
Now, here I am, innocent me, thinking, "See, now, he's not condoning it, he's nailing it."
But now that I look back on it, it wasn't the act of sexual promiscuity he was condemning, it was the men talking about it publicly..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
17
23
52
Popular Days
Apr 21
71
Apr 22
69
Apr 13
40
Apr 14
37
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 18 posts
Goey 17 posts
Raf 23 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
Popular Days
Apr 21 2004
71 posts
Apr 22 2004
69 posts
Apr 13 2004
40 posts
Apr 14 2004
37 posts
mj412
yes I agree.
My friends have not all left and probably never will, my question is why would they invest in the class and the twi for me as a friend and now betray me and consider me a lesser because I have left?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
mj412...that's exactly what I'm talking about. Real friends don't cut and run just because you won't take a class or go to church with them. True friends stick.
For a long time, there were a lot of folks who acted like my good friends until I disagreed with them. The next day, I was a lepor not to be associated with. That's the only time in my life I was ever treated that way. I am fortunate today to have many real friends. Our friendships are not conditional on what church you go to or what you believe. How refreshing it is to live in a world that is not clouded by insincerity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
We were all taught ---???
--> I must have missed that seminar, or slept through it, or something.
I have never turned my back on folks who refused pfal. I still see folks today, that I have offered pfal to 25 years ago (that refused to take it), and we are still friends, and can talk to each other in a civil manner.
One of them refused the class, and said his "church" was a river filled with brook trout. I never held that against him. Another signed up for the class -- then shot and killed an intruder in his house.
We (as a branch) prayed for him and his situation, and he got off scot-free (as well he should have). He thanked us for the prayer, and said he changed his mind about pfal.
I never held that against him either. Because I never cast these folks off, we still have meaningful dialogue, and now they actually are more receptive to the Word.
Glad I missed the seminar where "we were taught...."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Uncle Hairy - were you in the 6th Corps?
I was -- and don't recall that teaching at all. I do recall some of the 6th Corps guys quoting some verses to some of the 6th Corps girls in Romans that says it isn't sin if you don't condemn yourself. But there was never any formal, or informal teaching that I attended where "it's okay if you can handle it" was the subject - doctrinal or otherwise. As a matter of fact, I recall hearing that Romans stuff when I was in the line waiting to go into lunch - but never anywhere else.
Alfa, Catcup, Geek, Evan? I'm sure a couple of you have better memories than I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Jeeze You Guys.
UncleHairy never said there was a formal teaching on the stuff he mentioned. People can be taught by example also you know.
As non-Corps I observed the very things that UH talked about. Formally taught or not, many of us did some of the very stuff that UH mentioned. It must have been learned behavior, because I have never seen such a high concentration of know-it-all, pompus a$$es in any other group of folks as I did in the Way especially those who were Way Corps and who learned at the feet of the Mogs.
By the early 80's I could hardly stomach the bossy, smug, and elitist behavior of even the *nice* Corps folks like I am sure that many of you here were (or claim to have been). It's all a matter of prospective.
I do not say this to shame or demean anyone here, but face it, we were all in a friggin cult, promoting the agenda of a cult which was lead by a couple of sociopathic liars and abusers. The abuse may not have been formally taught, but it was taught none the less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Uncle Harry said: We were all taught how to put on our "believer face" just to show people how spiritual we were and how loving we were...sorry it was just an act. As soon as we realized that you were not gonna take our class or believe the same things we believed, we cut you loose and never thought of you
-------------------------------------------
This is true, after the transition period of 1994-1995 and especially after LCMs WAP class came out. We were not allowed to fellowship with people whom were not signed up for the class or those who were not participating in fellowship with probablity of taking the class. It all stemmed from LCMs teachings on being Unequally Yoked. We were told to "Wipe the dust off your feet and keep on stepping" when it came to those who did not want to actively participate. There was very little short suffering let alone long suffering in awaiting new comers.
My husband and I never held on to the concept of "wipe the dust off your feet...." and we continued to break many rules until eventually we were marked and avoided.
I don't know if all people in all areas were told to do the same, but I can tell you this did happen. My husband is sitting here with me recalling these days and remembering this is what we eventually were confronted on when we were put in the HOT seat or JUDGEMENT seat of our peers.
We believe loving unconditionally comes from your heart regardless of what you have been instructed to do.
We were not corps and were taught this.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
dmiller:
Maybe pure and altruistic folks like yourself weren't invited to the abuse seminars
:D-->
Come on man, just because you resisted some of that carp, can you honestly say that you never saw it?
You seem like a perseptive and intelligent guy...do you really maintain that the "company line" was to disregard whether people wanted to committ to PFAL or not? You know better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
I hear you, Uncle Hairy.
1. Power over others, masquerading as Godly authority.
2. Adultery masquerading as freedom in Christ
3. Temper tantrums over trivial matters masquerading as attention to detail
4. Verbal abuse masquerading as righteous anger
5. Summarily dropping former "friends" masquerading as "shaking the dust off" or mark and avoid
6. Paranoia masquerading as "the household."
7. Lying by omission masquerading as the "lock box."
8. No guilt masquerading as "no condemnation in Christ."
(By the way, at the risk of being a one-note singer, all the above traits are typical of the narcissistic personality, others just use different reasons to justify their behaviors.)
Most of this was taught by example. Didn't we want to be like the Man of God? Shoot, people even started talking like VP, laughing like him. And those that were abusers to begin with certainly found an outlet.
I think there were two things at work. One is that the abusers wanted to escape criticism, and be allowed to abuse with impunity.
The other is that the abusers wanted others to do it with them. It takes the sting out of guilt to know that others did it, too. And it takes the sting out of disapproval. I see children do this all the time. When one wants to be naughty, he often looks around for someone else to be naughty with. When I correct them, they just look at each other and grin.
So escape disapproval when you can, and make sure you're not alone if you can't. And yell "freedom in Christ" and "no condemnation" if anyone catches you, so you can blame the whistleblower for being "judgmental."
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
It was absolutely taught by the wc in our area to AC grads and TCs. The logic started with LCM focusing on not being equally yoked. In typical fashion, the whole doctrine ran amok to the point where you were expected to only be talking to people who you thought would sign up for "the class." It was almost like you were harvesting people. Different stages of being ripe, just waiting to pluck them. If it was too much work, move on. Every person was shown as a potential registrant, nothing more.
I don't think this was entirely new though. Even during PFAL days, I saw flirting women, etc. I had a female friend who went WOW and was sent to C?with 3 other "hot babes" (their term, not mine) to a town outside a military base. They even joked about "moving the Word with our skirts." That was in the 80s during VP's reign.
Is abuse the right word though? Choosing not to be my friend is bad. Being one with a hidden agenda is worse. But are you doing it with the purpose of harming me?
Dictionary definition of abuse:
Abuse occurs when someone does not treat a person with dignity and violates their human or civil rights » Abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, or financial.
Maybe it is. I'll leave it to smarter people than me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Goey - I'm not one to split hairs - but that's what UH said - it was taught to us. It wasn't. It was spread around by the Corps members themselves - at least that's the way I heard it. I remember talking about it in the dorm among ourselves, but that's about it.
I don't know who got the ball rolling or who came up with that particular interpretation of Romans, but I know it wasn't formally taught. I abolutely agree with 99.999% of what Uncle Hairy said, except for that one little point. I just wanted to set the record straight. T-t-t-t-that's all folks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Shaz, that was an excellent list. One of the best I've read in a long time.
I think, if you were going to climb the ladder of TWI and "go to the top" - you had to become hard, an abuser and a manipulator, or else you would have been run over by someone more ruthless than you.
That said, I think this began once the corps went from 20-40 people to 600. I know many early corps who were wonderful people and were loved.
Its when the corps grew, and there was more competition for the few spaces at "the top," and with all these young men wanting to "prove" themselves, that it got really nasty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
papajohn
I got out in 86/87, glad I didn't have to put up with loys crap.
I went through alot of classes, from pfal to advanced and many inbetweens and never saw what you guys were talking about other than a few flirty women.
when I left my TC's still talked to me and came to my house, some twigites are still friends, but then that was in a different country, louisiana haha. we've always been a friendly bunch.
or else I'm to stupid to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe? This also happened even when folks didn't want twig. If folks are sincerely interested in me as a person, they'd check out what I was into. Relationships with girlfriends ring a bell. I'd share with them about twig, or PFAL, that I got lots of goodies from it, you'd think they'd check it out just to see where I'm coming from? Sometimes. There's always two sides to this argument.
You speak in such absolutes; but I've seen true love, care and concern during my stint. If some folks didn't see it, I can't imagine why they would've stayed so long.
Speak for yourself -- why accuse your brothers and sisters of acting this way? I think most of us just wanted to love folks, and see them also have the benefits we enjoyed.
Another insult. I think if that was the case, most of us wouldn't have ever gotten involved.
We agree on this point. Fornication was always a private matter between the participants.
The victim mentality propaganda machine wants us to believe we were all victims, and victimizers. How else can they sell all their endless books and tapes?
Another insult designed to think of yourself as a glassy-eyed brainwashed zombie who had no will of your own, no commitment and dedication to God's Word, no love of your own, and no reason for involvement other than supply the needs of the "monsters".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zshot
There are basicaly 2 ways to learn:
1. By "formal" means (direct lessons/instructions).
2. By "in-formal" means (watching, listening, etc).
Many times "behavior" and/or "attitudes" were heavely influenced by "in-formal" means, which includes "pressure" from "peers" and/or "leadership".
Sometimes we (and I include me) may have applied such pressure and/or in-formal learning.
I hope and pray that those I may have influenced in a negative way, may have learned better and forgive me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Real friends are genuinely interested in what you're into. If they can't be bothered knowing, or even making a small attempt in knowing, what interests you, how are these folks your friends?
Are they worth hanging around, knowing they couldn't give a fig about what you thought and believed?
Jesus said something about this, that his true family wasn't necessarily his earthly brethen, but those who hung around him and were genuinely interested in his life, thoughts, words and deeds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
There were also people in those early corps who were abused, and even had nervous breakdowns. I agree that it got worse with the bigger corps. But I don't think it was just because of size.
VPW, as evil as he was, could also be charming. As his influence and personal involvement diminished - because LCM took over the corps, because it moved to Emporia and Gunnison etc - then more of the nasty stuff and less of the charm was left.
Also vpw himself got more and more legalistic and would put up with less disagreement as he became richer and more powerful. In the days of the early corps, everything from dress codes to tithing and certainly time management of self and others was a lot looser.
I actually think a lot of the legalism and abuse came from vpw, but a lot didn't. It came from others who were hungry for power. But it all was allowed by him.
The further you got from hq the more things differed depending on the personality of your local leadership. That's why some on this thread never saw what others did. If you could put classes together, and keep the numbers flowing then you were pretty much able to do what you wanted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
If I want to be friends with people who don't necessarily subscribe to my beliefs or buy into the religious organization I'm controlled...err..blessed to attend, then it is really no one's business but my own.
The twi(t)s don't necessarily see it that way. I remember many times helping new friends with issues or just enjoying getting to know people. They then might want to come to fellowship with me. Some sign up for the class, some don't.
The ones who don't want to come back I'm told by my immediate leadership that it's too sad that they didn't want the truth. They say I could have had a real friend there. (The implication is that I don't have a friend and I shouldn't spend any more time with that person.)
With the people who come back I feel constant pressure from the leadership and the others in the fellowship to get them to sign up for the freaking class. It was insane now that I look back on it, but at the time I was really stressed about not getting them signed up for the class soon enough (you know, like before they figured out that it was a cult?)
With those who signed up for the class (and I've had my share I'm ashamed to say), there was super intense pressure weekly to "see growth" in their lives. This "growth" took the form of them reading the ragazine, listening to my sts tapes, reading in the collaterals and working with them on speaking in tongues, getting them to tithe.
This is just my experience, but I very much relate to this conditional friendship everyone is talking about. Sometimes I would go out of my way to avoid these people after they "refused the truth" that I made available to them. Others I just quit being so nice to and spending time with.
Where did I learn this? It wasn't in the church I grew up in. It wasn't in my family. The twi(t)s and especially the leadership including the bc's and rc's were very good at pushing and pressuring people without "teaching" them specifically that this is the expected behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
OM,
quote:
"Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe?"
Spoken like a true Wayferite. Gawddam, don't you bump your head a lot, living in such a small place? Gosh, maybe you could spend some time with folks who aren't a carbon-copy of yourself, and learn a little about the outside world.
Just a thought.
Personally I think I can relate to the arguments VERY well. We WERE subjected to all sorts of abuse and either learned to dole it out ourselves or acquired a sort of learned dependance on the esteemed leader du jour ("Oh, you're so right. I DO need to build my believing better. Thank you for beating me up verbally! I really needed that."). Or, maybe in most cases, got a little combination of the two.
Whatever the case, it was a closed,"top-down", perverted system. And it stunk (still does)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
George, let's get real. Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now? I can't think of too many scenarios where'd that be reasonable, except perhaps work, where you earn a paycheck and are there to perform tasks for your employer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
OM,
"George, let's get real. Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now?"
Uh, yes, I do. The fact that you're so incredulous about that says more about you than you probably know...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
You know, now that you mention it, I spend a lot of time with people who don't even speak the same language as me. A dictionary, a few phrases and a whole lot of sign langauge, and we make it work somehow.
I have aquaintances that have no clue what I believe or don't believe, nor I them. And we get along famously.
What superstitions I or they may have never enters the conversation, and we're none the worse for it, might I add...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
You did it again Oldie--
You upped the ante from
to
There is a vast chasm between "checking out... " and "couldn't care less..."
I have a lot of friends that are not LDS I am. THey ask questions from time to time and I answer them ..but I don't feel the need to have them sitting next to me on Sunday in order to keep them as friends
I have a lot of friends who are into serious exercise I'm not. But I understand that from 8-9 every morning is not the time to call them unless blood is flowing
I have friends who aren't into genealogy I am.
But they understand when I answer the phone and begin talking about the new GGG Grandmother I finally located--it might be a good idea to schedule something for the next day because I'm on a role.
I have a friend who is into music collecting I'm not. But just like he listens to my burbling about geneaology I enjoy listening to his excitement about his newest aquisition that he's been looking for for 20 years. I may not have the level of enthusiam or interest he has for the subject but his elation makes me elated.
The Idea that one has to believe what you believe, like what you like or isn't worth having around is the same ideology that makes people commit suicide while smashing planes into tall buildings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
As far as a formal teaching that sex outside the confines of marriage or adulterous sex is ok "if you can handle it," NO, there was never any formal teaching or fireside "chat" that said that.
However, I can vouch for what Hope said about the guys pulling that line on the girls.
But-- in private, one to one counsel, that was another story. My room mate Mar*h* K. H*g*e was personally told by Loy Craig Martindale that sex with married 6th Corps R**k P*ny*rd was A-OK "if she could handle it."
Fast forward several months later, and R**k P*ny*rd having adulterous sex with another single young woman in our Corps was NOT ok. R**K and the single chick were publicly denounced for their affair, and were sent off packing, as well as R**K's poor wife M*ch*ll*, who was horribly embarassed by the public humiliation.
The difference between what Martindale told my roomie privately and what he did publicly to the same man for the same offense?
Publicity.
R**k's little affair with this other girl became public knowledge.
You see, it wasn't the adultery that Martindale viewed as erroneous. It was the hurt it caused his wife and the rest of the Way Corps and Ministry because R**k's private business became a public issue.
And that is the ONLY reason Martindale is not STILL president of TWI today. Not because he committed "adultery." Not because he committed it once, or even hundreds or thousands of times. Not because he used his power, position, and authority to intimidate women into sexual subjection. No, none of those.
It's because of the publicity involved. Plain and simple. Not the right or wrong of it.
If a certain courageous Irishman had just swept it under the rug like Martindale expected or knuckled under to pressure or bribes as others had done, Martindale would still be in that office today, doing the same thing he and his predecessor had done for decades.
And if you think TWI has changed it's policy, it hasn't. To them, adultery STILL is a spiritual issue, not sexual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Some of you other 6th Corps might remember this one.
We had a special meeting with VPW in the campus center one night because of some sexual hanky panky that was occuring in our Corps that VPW had gotten wind of.
R*nd*ll M*cek was asked to stand up and recount a "locker room" conversation he had overheard in the men's dormatory regarding one particular Corps woman and the men she was having sex with. Then VPW got on his high horse about how hurtful it was for the guys to talk about it like that.
Now, here I am, innocent me, thinking, "See, now, he's not condoning it, he's nailing it."
But now that I look back on it, it wasn't the act of sexual promiscuity he was condemning, it was the men talking about it publicly..
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.