When the LC jumped on it and took the time to call us’n lil tc’s I really thought some rather overly horny singles were looking for justification for what they had been doing any way. I hadn’t thought much about it until WayDale did some exposing. There was a tc meeting with in a few months and some of us joked about the *need* thing, this had to be in 80-81, any way it was suggested it was some one traveling with, turned out not to be *in* the band.
But, this slippery doctrine was always like this. It appeared to be none sanctioned, whenever it cropped up it was soon shot down. When the big public exposure hit just before the mass exodus, some of the finger pointers did have fingers pointing back at themselves.
It wasn’t that hard to write it off as bull, far removed from HQ out on the field......
But Grizz, I hear what you're saying, but ya gotta remember the standard MO of the corporation has always been to duck and weave, lie, coverup, whatever the NEED is to preserve "the intergrity of the Word."
Sure some of the "finger pointers" were "involved." Which made their first-hand testimony all the more believable.
The whispering/gossip machine was powerful and vicious in TWI. My experience was that when I called the "whistleblowers" and asked them point blank questions, they spoke the truth, even when it got ugly. I heard them out, and made my own decision, based on my own experience. Lots of people did that.
I admit, if you didn't know some of the people involved, it would've been alot harder to go to the source. That's the unfortunate thing. Not everybody had access to the truth about what was going on.
Slippery's a good word Griz. I was thinking about this since I posted, trying to get back in to the head I was in then, my attitudes, what I really thought about stuff. Things like "there's no condemnation", "we're not under the law", not being legalistic or religious. (which of course we were, just in ways we accepted). In the interest of not going to that extreme I think we tended to round the edges off of the other. To find a "balance" and not go off the deep end in either direction. But looking back, I think overall the Way Ministry did, just in it's own defined ways.
I always hated someone slapping me on the back and saying "come on, have a beer, loosen up man!" like I needed to loosen up and needed someone to tell me that. But then if I wanted to drink when I did, I could easily talk myself in to allowing it. I could be so fetishy about certain little tiny things that didn't matter to a hill or beans, but then blow off something very important and not even see it till later.
If I can collect my thoughts, I've been thinking of starting a thread to get feedback on how others view the topic of "sin" in relation to the Way's teaching of all sin being sin, with no variance in God's eyes between "big" or "little" and only a difference in the "consequences". I have a feeling that there was the slightest of tendencies to belittle sinful actions as something we've been forgiven for and now that our ticket's punched we're going to heaven, all hell can't stop us and so what's a little sin? Confess it to God and move on. Does that lead to less awareness and self-examination, heart felt understanding of the moral and ethical difference and consequences of our actions? Responsibility, accountability? If we're cleaving to that which is good, there should be an effect when we choose wrong, however we're brought to that point-a point at which we're aware of our own failure and we face God and fellow man with both sorrow and the desire to make it right and pursue our better nature. Yes, with renewed strength and conviction, the kind that comes from real learning.
The O.T. - "for our learning" we were taught. If so, we can learn that for different transgressions there were different compensations expected. Lying one, murder another. The compensation is to make restitution, both to man and God. With Christ's sacrifice we can see the ultimate consequence of sin and it's restitution in an action that perfectly provided for it, not death and then dead, but death and resurrection. God's ultimate solution - a full rendering for the sin and the result - new life as He would give it. I'm of the mind now that how we view the unfolding of our own lives in relation to that sin is one of the ways that we truly know our salvation, as less an answer to a problem and more of an obligation to be now fulfilled. Christ died FOR us, a debt paid, but now a debt of a differend kind - how to be redeemed in life. Actually the Way's Teaching requires the same response from me to the seemingly "smallest" of wrongdoing as to the largest - if they're really all the same to God, that is they're ALL "bad". Nothing can be whitewashed to be of lesser consquence in that view, nothing allowed. Yet, it seemed to move in a different direction, I think. Maybe for some. Sorta.
Socks...actually what you are saying fits right into this thread. It was mr wierwilles doctrine on "all sins are equal" that opened the door for a lot of the abuse that was dished out.
I believe that people's perspective on sin was totally distorted. Adultry was no worse than telling a lie or perhaps driving 59 mph in a 55 zone. Sin was minimilized into a "whoops, oh well" type of attitude. Just say the magic words ..."Fatherforgivemeinthenameofjesuschristamen"...and presto!...everything is cool once again.
Twi's teaching on repentance was a joke. wierwille loved to teach that repentance is what you get before you're born again and forgiveness is what you get after you're born again. That was about it...very simple to understand and also totally wrong. As I understand it now, repentance is a process that leads a person to "godly sorrow" first and then progresses into some real heart felt, teeth gnashing, fist pounding, type of experience that is soul cleansing and genuine. I've heard of people who enter into some kind of "crucible" in their minds and stay there until honest repentance occurs. I believe that true repentance is an intense experience and nothing at all like the drivel that veepee taught.
This all ties in with the arrogant and casual attitude that was rampant in twi. Because sin was so easily desposed of, and so superficially understood, people never developed a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord...oops, forgot, he was absent anyway. I think most twiers were more concerned with their "leadership" finding out than they were of God finding out. Of course that fits in with veepee (and later lcm) being the head of the body in a practical sense. The whole thing was a joke!
I think I pretty well knew all the folks on the actual Way International Staff research team back in the early 80's-- BTW there was no "official" research team until then.
"The only two people on the research team from Way Corps 6 that I remember in 1982-83 or thereabouts, were, let's see....John Sch*enh*it and Jon N*ssl*-- ...."
"...Which of these men were the seducer?"
Cut the stupid crap Catcup.
I got the Corps number wrong for this "reverend" ...that's all.
So instead of asking if I maybe got the Corps number wrong (Didn't think of that possibility, did you?), you want to go on with this stupid logical deduction of yours suggesting that I am speaking about your husband or JS?. Freaking amazing.... It's folks like you that keep me away from the offshoots.
You know good and damned well I am not accusing your husband of this (or JS for that matter).
In fact my intention was not to name names at all but rather to show that indeed this stuff was taught and was in use by TWI "leaders" early on and that it has even carried over past TWI to offshoots. If I had wanted to name names, I would have.
quote:"...Because sin was so easily desposed of, and so superficially understood, people never developed a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord...oops, forgot, he was absent anyway. I think most twiers were more concerned with their "leadership" finding out than they were of God finding out."
You were pretty specific about what you said. I happened to know of only two people who fit your description, know them both pesonally and wanted to know which one it was. How am I supposed to automatically know you had the Corps number wrong?
I do my best to double-check my material before I post, so I get my facts straight and don't hurt innocent people.
A simple apology would have sufficed, rather than a snide remard to defend your own error.
Catcup's right, Goey. That was uncharacteristically snide for you. In order for her to know you had made a numbering mistake, she would have had to know exactly which person you were talking about in the first place.
I have teens that were never in TWI. (thank goodness) I thought the same thing. Loyboy's attitude is pretty pathetic, spoken like the true sex addict he was. Sad.
Socks and Unc, I think the whole "in fellowship/out of fellowship" thing was also a factor in the minimizing of sin. Heck, the word "sin" was verboten. Nobody in TWI ever "sinned." We "broke fellowship."
Sheesh. I've never heard other Chrisitans skirt around the sin issue like we wayfers could. I think it's particularly sad because so many in my little exwayfer world still don't quite see how twisted TWI doctrine keeps them from "victory (over sin) in Jesus."
quote:Flame me all you want, but I was in that Corps and I know. I can't vouch for what was said in other Corps meetings, but to MY specific Corps that I was in residence with, adultery was NEVER PUBLICLY ENDORSED. However I'll say it again: I do know now that it was privately supported.
To insinuate that this was a doctrine everyone was aware of at the time is totally ridiculous.
I agree with Catcup. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that even now, most TWI folks on the field would say that adultery is wrong and that TWI doesn't teach that it's ok. Just look at Craig's departure and the ever-lingering contempt for his adulterous affairs, to examine if adultery is ok with TWI. One thing though, I wish they would make it a definitive, no-mistake-about-it teaching like the John S. paper. Are the upper echelons still saying it's "ok", privately? If they are, they need to clean up their act.
It's so funny - but since this thread started, my mind went back to the "broken fellowship" vs. "sin" teaching.
Broken fellowship was simply "missing the mark", remember that one? The illustration I remember being taught was that it was like an arrow falling short of a bullseye. It was no big deal. You just pulled the arrow out (by asking God's forgiveness) and shot at the target again. NO repentance. NO sin- consciousness, just go skipping along because God has forgiven you!
I once heard a great teaching on that chapter in 2nd Corinthians about "godly sorrow". I think it was Naomi T. or Sunny S. who taught it at some women's advance in NY in the early 70's. It really contradicted what was taught about that whole "missing the mark" bs. I don't recall ever hearing something like that being taught again in a large meeting. But it was something UH wrote that brought it back to my memory...
quote:.... repentance is a process that leads a person to "godly sorrow" first and then progresses into some real heart felt, teeth gnashing, fist pounding, type of experience that is soul cleansing and genuine. I've heard of people who enter into some kind of "crucible" in their minds and stay there until honest repentance occurs....
I think that a few people might have figured that out early on, but of course, it was probably stifled by those who were not willing to give up their "broken fellowship" and drive-by forgiveness.
quote: Oldies, I wonder why you are so adamant about defending fornication as less bad than adultery.
It's less bad, and less contemptable, all the way around. Looking at this candidly, I don't think it was the fornication that got TWI folks (and ex-TWI folks) all angry, upset and offended, out for blood. It was the adultery.
I certainly don't advocate that any religious group teach publically that fornication is ok; all I'm saying is, I think it's much easier to be intreated and tolerated than adultery by all but the most stringent and legalistic of our society.
I was in the Corps with her. No one at any kind of meeting, even the seperate womens/mens times, taught that adultery was okay. Sure, some of the guys used that Romans stuff to try to get (ahem) their needs met (tongue is in cheek). But that was all that I ever heard - and it wasn't a teaching! It was a line! (hey baby, wanna see my Corps notes? I've got them up on the roof of Kenyon Hall!).
I'm not saying it wasn't spread around, I'm not saying it wasn't practiced - but it was never a teaching! And it wasn't spread around as if it were doctrine either.
If any women got that kind of message, it was likely that it was for "recruiting" purposes. Throw that Romans 14 verse at them and see how they react. If it makes sense to them, you've probably got a hot prospect!
And for once I agree with oldies. I think the majority of the people on the field - the rank and file of TWI, thought adultary was never the right thing to do and that's what TWI believed and taught.
I was in TWI when LCM's sexual misconduct was brought to light. We had big ol' branch meetings about it. Our BC's and LC's ran them in order to fend off any rebellion and skirt the issues (IMO). In our area - most people were disgusted, angry, hurt, and stunned. I don't know anyone who thought what LCM did was okay or had any scripture to back it up.
It was inner circle stuff. And I'll bet money that the great majority of the Corps didn't know about what was going on. I didn't. Oh, I knew people were messing around - I wasn't that naive -- but it was single people, not married people. And most of them were engaged!
I'm not making excuses for what happened. I'm just saying that most of us didn't turn our backs on what was going on - we just simply didn't know what was going on.
quote:Because sin was so easily desposed of, and so superficially understood, people never developed a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord...
I question that people "never" developed...that seems off the wall.
But the other side of the coin can also be true. Can holier-than-thou, self-righteous, know it all, legalistic, love-to-lay-on-the-bondage, know-every scripture on sin, finger pointing brethren help you develop a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord?
quote:You were pretty specific about what you said. I happened to know of only two people who fit your description, know them both pesonally and wanted to know which one it was. How am I supposed to automatically know you had the Corps number wrong?
A simple apology would have sufficed, rather than a snide remard to defend your own error.
If I had really wanted to be specific, I would have named names, trust me.
Where did I attempt to "defend" my error? I thought I freely admitted it. It seems to me that you are trying to paint another false picture. I made and error and I promptly corrected it. I never "defended" it like you suggested. Why try to paint a false picture like that?
Apology? What for? People make corrections when they make mistakes - not apolgies. I made my correction.
Catcup, you could have simply stated that you thought I was mistaken instead of going on for paragraphs about "which one of these men were the seducer".
It seems to me that you went out of your way to make it look like I was accusing either your husband or Shoenhite in an attempt to make me look like a false accuser -- and I do not appreciate that at all. It was completely unnecessary and out of line IMO.
I found your method of reply to be very "Way Corpsish" and condescending if not a little bit pompous, thus my "snide remard".
--------------------------------------------
[Edit Begins Here]
Correction: It seems I was correct all along on the Corps number. The "reverend" in question was indeed in the 6th Corps (according to Believer Links) but possibly not officially on the "Research Team". But if not, then very, very close to it.
Goey: With respect, I just don't see the same things you're seeing in Catcup's reply. Yes, she's a friend of mine, but you are too, and you're both too intelligent to let a misunderstanding go too far.
I don't doubt what you said happened for a second, but look at it from her perspective--all she had to go on was what you had said earlier, and based on the Research Team, there were only two 6th Corps possibilities--John Schoenheit and her husband. I've never met Mr. Schoenheit, but I have met Research Geek, and if there's a more sincere person than he, I've never met him. It's perfectly understandable that Catcup would be emphatic in defense of her husband, but even what she did say wasn't all that accusatory towards you. The way I read it, it was more incredulity about the account than anger towards you.
I may be butting in uninvited, but the last thing this thread needs is two friends diverging over a minor and correctable misunderstanding. Surely there's room for a peaceful resolution?
Well, geeeze, I can't believe it but I just spent a half hour digging around in my garage for my corps night notes from Romans 14. (the 8th and 10th were in-rez during VP's teaching of Romans)
Eureka!! I found em, and hubby's too.
None of our notes say anything that could be remotely construed to justify free sex and/or adultery. The only thing they do say is that you can't judge one another, condemn one another, only God knows the heart, yada, yada, yada. Pretty generic stuff, and on topic, with a way spin of course.
I also checked our notes from JAL's teaching on Romans to the corps as well. Nada about justifying any kind of sin. Not even close.
Goey, I know you stated that it didn't matter if "the alternate version" of Romans 14 was taught formally or not. Well, it wasn't. And I think it does matter. :)--> I don't know where the "alternate version" came from exactly, but it wasn't the "official" Romans teaching to the corps.
And if it wasn't an "official" teaching, it's highly unlikely that any other leader taught it in public. And if it wasn't public, then it was not generally known to, well, the public. :)--> So there's no way to determine who heard it and who didn't, etc.
I hope I'm making sense, and if this is a total derail, oooops, sorry.
I asked a question trying to figure out which person you were talking about.
If no one had EVER asked the question, many people who read what you posted would have assumed it to be the honest to God Gospel truth. And would have repeated it to others.
God knows how many people who post on this site, but also those who lurk and never post, who would have assumed you were speaking of either my husband or my friend.
And a LOT of people could have then held damning and hurtful misconceptions about either one of them or both.
I stand by what I said. You should have apologized for your error.
However instead of doing so, you attacked the person who questioned it.
But I'm used to the tactic you used. It was used on me every time I questioned errors in TWI.
This is what turns lots of people off about this site:
1) People aren't sure if what is posted here is the truth.
2) People don't like the spiteful bickering that goes on between posters.
The way I see it, people should double and triple check their sources before posting anything. Most folks on WD understood that. The standards were kept high and sharp. Why?
We wanted to take extra care that our facts were correct in order to avoid hurting innocent people.
You don't seem to understand that is what you were doing, Goey.
And on top of it, you became obstinate and rude in your subsequent post.
*yawn*
I have spent way too much time here in the last month trying to --in my own way--
1). Remind people to focus on exposing the truth about The Way International with accurate first hand accounts, and
2.) Stop attacking each other and focus on the real enemy.
Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water.....
With the semester coming to a close, I have much better things to do.
Maybe I'll be back later when you've learned to behave yourselves. I know, for the most part, you do. And I am grateful for those of you who keep high standards consistently.
But if you REALLY want to provide a trustworthy witness, you have to be accurate, focused, and more seriously consider the rules on the front of this site.
quote:Goey, I know you stated that it didn't matter if "the alternate version" of Romans 14 was taught formally or not. Well, it wasn't. And I think it does matter. I don't know where the "alternate version" came from exactly, but it wasn't the "official" Romans teaching to the corps.
And if it wasn't an "official" teaching, it's highly unlikely that any other leader taught it in public. And if it wasn't public, then it was not generally known to, well, the public. So there's no way to determine who heard it and who didn't, etc.
I heard it. And I heard it in public from a Way Corps lady. It wes taught in Twig and expounded upon even more afterwards. That would have been around 1977 or 1978. It was her year in the field as a WOW Family Coordinator.
I did say it didn't matter but I will qualify that. It matters if we want to try and understand exactly how this unwritten "doctrine" got spread around. But I would venture that it does not matter to folks that were victimized as a result of this errant "teaching". It still arose from TWI and was spread by some of it's leaders.
It seems that some of you former Corps folks are being rather overly defensive about whether this was a formal teaching or not to the Corps. I don't see anywhere on this thread where anyone said it was a formal teaching. No one is throwing rocks at you.
I saw this "happy is the man that condemeneth not" stuff lived by a few folks when I was involved in TWI and these folks were all Corps. So I dont think it is unreasonable to assume then that it was "taught" at some point at higher levels. I don't think any of you Corps folks here are lying about this stuff not being formally taught in class or even "fireside chats". But it was "learned" none the less and it made it's way down to us non-Corps folks and some folks were hurt by it.
It very well could've been just as HopeR described it... lines that guys used to get "lucky"... and I'd be willing to bet it didn't originate with that corps...
but that's what a lot of people assumed... it's what we assumed out on the field almost all of the time... that is: "the corps is sharing this, they must have learned it in residence"...
doesn't mean it was true, but that was the perception with a lot of what we saw the corps do... at least before I went in... that's how I felt...
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
Grizzy
OLM Socks!
When the LC jumped on it and took the time to call us’n lil tc’s I really thought some rather overly horny singles were looking for justification for what they had been doing any way. I hadn’t thought much about it until WayDale did some exposing. There was a tc meeting with in a few months and some of us joked about the *need* thing, this had to be in 80-81, any way it was suggested it was some one traveling with, turned out not to be *in* the band.
But, this slippery doctrine was always like this. It appeared to be none sanctioned, whenever it cropped up it was soon shot down. When the big public exposure hit just before the mass exodus, some of the finger pointers did have fingers pointing back at themselves.
It wasn’t that hard to write it off as bull, far removed from HQ out on the field......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
But Grizz, I hear what you're saying, but ya gotta remember the standard MO of the corporation has always been to duck and weave, lie, coverup, whatever the NEED is to preserve "the intergrity of the Word."
Sure some of the "finger pointers" were "involved." Which made their first-hand testimony all the more believable.
The whispering/gossip machine was powerful and vicious in TWI. My experience was that when I called the "whistleblowers" and asked them point blank questions, they spoke the truth, even when it got ugly. I heard them out, and made my own decision, based on my own experience. Lots of people did that.
I admit, if you didn't know some of the people involved, it would've been alot harder to go to the source. That's the unfortunate thing. Not everybody had access to the truth about what was going on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
All praise to the ASM's!
:)-->
Slippery's a good word Griz. I was thinking about this since I posted, trying to get back in to the head I was in then, my attitudes, what I really thought about stuff. Things like "there's no condemnation", "we're not under the law", not being legalistic or religious. (which of course we were, just in ways we accepted). In the interest of not going to that extreme I think we tended to round the edges off of the other. To find a "balance" and not go off the deep end in either direction. But looking back, I think overall the Way Ministry did, just in it's own defined ways.
I always hated someone slapping me on the back and saying "come on, have a beer, loosen up man!" like I needed to loosen up and needed someone to tell me that. But then if I wanted to drink when I did, I could easily talk myself in to allowing it. I could be so fetishy about certain little tiny things that didn't matter to a hill or beans, but then blow off something very important and not even see it till later.
If I can collect my thoughts, I've been thinking of starting a thread to get feedback on how others view the topic of "sin" in relation to the Way's teaching of all sin being sin, with no variance in God's eyes between "big" or "little" and only a difference in the "consequences". I have a feeling that there was the slightest of tendencies to belittle sinful actions as something we've been forgiven for and now that our ticket's punched we're going to heaven, all hell can't stop us and so what's a little sin? Confess it to God and move on. Does that lead to less awareness and self-examination, heart felt understanding of the moral and ethical difference and consequences of our actions? Responsibility, accountability? If we're cleaving to that which is good, there should be an effect when we choose wrong, however we're brought to that point-a point at which we're aware of our own failure and we face God and fellow man with both sorrow and the desire to make it right and pursue our better nature. Yes, with renewed strength and conviction, the kind that comes from real learning.
The O.T. - "for our learning" we were taught. If so, we can learn that for different transgressions there were different compensations expected. Lying one, murder another. The compensation is to make restitution, both to man and God. With Christ's sacrifice we can see the ultimate consequence of sin and it's restitution in an action that perfectly provided for it, not death and then dead, but death and resurrection. God's ultimate solution - a full rendering for the sin and the result - new life as He would give it. I'm of the mind now that how we view the unfolding of our own lives in relation to that sin is one of the ways that we truly know our salvation, as less an answer to a problem and more of an obligation to be now fulfilled. Christ died FOR us, a debt paid, but now a debt of a differend kind - how to be redeemed in life. Actually the Way's Teaching requires the same response from me to the seemingly "smallest" of wrongdoing as to the largest - if they're really all the same to God, that is they're ALL "bad". Nothing can be whitewashed to be of lesser consquence in that view, nothing allowed. Yet, it seemed to move in a different direction, I think. Maybe for some. Sorta.
Well, sorry to sort of side-track this train.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Socks...actually what you are saying fits right into this thread. It was mr wierwilles doctrine on "all sins are equal" that opened the door for a lot of the abuse that was dished out.
I believe that people's perspective on sin was totally distorted. Adultry was no worse than telling a lie or perhaps driving 59 mph in a 55 zone. Sin was minimilized into a "whoops, oh well" type of attitude. Just say the magic words ..."Fatherforgivemeinthenameofjesuschristamen"...and presto!...everything is cool once again.
Twi's teaching on repentance was a joke. wierwille loved to teach that repentance is what you get before you're born again and forgiveness is what you get after you're born again. That was about it...very simple to understand and also totally wrong. As I understand it now, repentance is a process that leads a person to "godly sorrow" first and then progresses into some real heart felt, teeth gnashing, fist pounding, type of experience that is soul cleansing and genuine. I've heard of people who enter into some kind of "crucible" in their minds and stay there until honest repentance occurs. I believe that true repentance is an intense experience and nothing at all like the drivel that veepee taught.
This all ties in with the arrogant and casual attitude that was rampant in twi. Because sin was so easily desposed of, and so superficially understood, people never developed a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord...oops, forgot, he was absent anyway. I think most twiers were more concerned with their "leadership" finding out than they were of God finding out. Of course that fits in with veepee (and later lcm) being the head of the body in a practical sense. The whole thing was a joke!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Catcup,
You posted:
Cut the stupid crap Catcup.
I got the Corps number wrong for this "reverend" ...that's all.
So instead of asking if I maybe got the Corps number wrong (Didn't think of that possibility, did you?), you want to go on with this stupid logical deduction of yours suggesting that I am speaking about your husband or JS?. Freaking amazing.... It's folks like you that keep me away from the offshoots.
You know good and damned well I am not accusing your husband of this (or JS for that matter).
In fact my intention was not to name names at all but rather to show that indeed this stuff was taught and was in use by TWI "leaders" early on and that it has even carried over past TWI to offshoots. If I had wanted to name names, I would have.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by UncleHairy
Very well said..
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Not meant to derail this, but....
Am I the only regular poster here in regular contact with teenagers
who are Christians who are NOT ex-twi or splinter connected?
In case I am, I'd just like to point out what I keep hearing from them,
VOLUNTEERED by them, to be specific....
they mention they don't have any plans of fooling around outside of
marriage. Perhaps they are naive and don't know what they'll really do
when they get there, perhaps they are fully aware.
I just think it's so peculiar that people in twi, especially certain
leaders *cough* lcm *cough* would think this is such an impossible task,
when these kids think it's VERY possible, and plan and act accordingly.
Some of them are already past 20 and in college, BTW.
twi has/had a very atypical view towards sin compared to other Christian
groups. Perhaps sometimes that was healthier, but it also became a
license to sin all too often, and for the mog, it was carte blanche.
(Or possibly 'cart blanche', as in "Find Blanche and cart her over here-
I'm in the mood for a quickie.")
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Cut the crap, Goey?
You were pretty specific about what you said. I happened to know of only two people who fit your description, know them both pesonally and wanted to know which one it was. How am I supposed to automatically know you had the Corps number wrong?
I do my best to double-check my material before I post, so I get my facts straight and don't hurt innocent people.
A simple apology would have sufficed, rather than a snide remard to defend your own error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Catcup's right, Goey. That was uncharacteristically snide for you. In order for her to know you had made a numbering mistake, she would have had to know exactly which person you were talking about in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Wordwolf
I have teens that were never in TWI. (thank goodness) I thought the same thing. Loyboy's attitude is pretty pathetic, spoken like the true sex addict he was. Sad.
Socks and Unc, I think the whole "in fellowship/out of fellowship" thing was also a factor in the minimizing of sin. Heck, the word "sin" was verboten. Nobody in TWI ever "sinned." We "broke fellowship."
Sheesh. I've never heard other Chrisitans skirt around the sin issue like we wayfers could. I think it's particularly sad because so many in my little exwayfer world still don't quite see how twisted TWI doctrine keeps them from "victory (over sin) in Jesus."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I agree with Catcup. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that even now, most TWI folks on the field would say that adultery is wrong and that TWI doesn't teach that it's ok. Just look at Craig's departure and the ever-lingering contempt for his adulterous affairs, to examine if adultery is ok with TWI. One thing though, I wish they would make it a definitive, no-mistake-about-it teaching like the John S. paper. Are the upper echelons still saying it's "ok", privately? If they are, they need to clean up their act.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
UH, great post. You too Socks!
It's so funny - but since this thread started, my mind went back to the "broken fellowship" vs. "sin" teaching.
Broken fellowship was simply "missing the mark", remember that one? The illustration I remember being taught was that it was like an arrow falling short of a bullseye. It was no big deal. You just pulled the arrow out (by asking God's forgiveness) and shot at the target again. NO repentance. NO sin- consciousness, just go skipping along because God has forgiven you!
I once heard a great teaching on that chapter in 2nd Corinthians about "godly sorrow". I think it was Naomi T. or Sunny S. who taught it at some women's advance in NY in the early 70's. It really contradicted what was taught about that whole "missing the mark" bs. I don't recall ever hearing something like that being taught again in a large meeting. But it was something UH wrote that brought it back to my memory...
I think that a few people might have figured that out early on, but of course, it was probably stifled by those who were not willing to give up their "broken fellowship" and drive-by forgiveness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It's less bad, and less contemptable, all the way around. Looking at this candidly, I don't think it was the fornication that got TWI folks (and ex-TWI folks) all angry, upset and offended, out for blood. It was the adultery.
I certainly don't advocate that any religious group teach publically that fornication is ok; all I'm saying is, I think it's much easier to be intreated and tolerated than adultery by all but the most stringent and legalistic of our society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Goey - I'm with Catcup, too.
I was in the Corps with her. No one at any kind of meeting, even the seperate womens/mens times, taught that adultery was okay. Sure, some of the guys used that Romans stuff to try to get (ahem) their needs met (tongue is in cheek). But that was all that I ever heard - and it wasn't a teaching! It was a line! (hey baby, wanna see my Corps notes? I've got them up on the roof of Kenyon Hall!).
I'm not saying it wasn't spread around, I'm not saying it wasn't practiced - but it was never a teaching! And it wasn't spread around as if it were doctrine either.
If any women got that kind of message, it was likely that it was for "recruiting" purposes. Throw that Romans 14 verse at them and see how they react. If it makes sense to them, you've probably got a hot prospect!
And for once I agree with oldies. I think the majority of the people on the field - the rank and file of TWI, thought adultary was never the right thing to do and that's what TWI believed and taught.
I was in TWI when LCM's sexual misconduct was brought to light. We had big ol' branch meetings about it. Our BC's and LC's ran them in order to fend off any rebellion and skirt the issues (IMO). In our area - most people were disgusted, angry, hurt, and stunned. I don't know anyone who thought what LCM did was okay or had any scripture to back it up.
It was inner circle stuff. And I'll bet money that the great majority of the Corps didn't know about what was going on. I didn't. Oh, I knew people were messing around - I wasn't that naive -- but it was single people, not married people. And most of them were engaged!
I'm not making excuses for what happened. I'm just saying that most of us didn't turn our backs on what was going on - we just simply didn't know what was going on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i still think the use of spiritual authority, or whatever the hell it is, is worse than adultery and fornication
but don't bother asking me why
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I question that people "never" developed...that seems off the wall.
But the other side of the coin can also be true. Can holier-than-thou, self-righteous, know it all, legalistic, love-to-lay-on-the-bondage, know-every scripture on sin, finger pointing brethren help you develop a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by Catcup:
If I had really wanted to be specific, I would have named names, trust me.
Where did I attempt to "defend" my error? I thought I freely admitted it. It seems to me that you are trying to paint another false picture. I made and error and I promptly corrected it. I never "defended" it like you suggested. Why try to paint a false picture like that?
Apology? What for? People make corrections when they make mistakes - not apolgies. I made my correction.
Catcup, you could have simply stated that you thought I was mistaken instead of going on for paragraphs about "which one of these men were the seducer".
It seems to me that you went out of your way to make it look like I was accusing either your husband or Shoenhite in an attempt to make me look like a false accuser -- and I do not appreciate that at all. It was completely unnecessary and out of line IMO.
I found your method of reply to be very "Way Corpsish" and condescending if not a little bit pompous, thus my "snide remard".
--------------------------------------------
[Edit Begins Here]
Correction: It seems I was correct all along on the Corps number. The "reverend" in question was indeed in the 6th Corps (according to Believer Links) but possibly not officially on the "Research Team". But if not, then very, very close to it.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Goey: With respect, I just don't see the same things you're seeing in Catcup's reply. Yes, she's a friend of mine, but you are too, and you're both too intelligent to let a misunderstanding go too far.
I don't doubt what you said happened for a second, but look at it from her perspective--all she had to go on was what you had said earlier, and based on the Research Team, there were only two 6th Corps possibilities--John Schoenheit and her husband. I've never met Mr. Schoenheit, but I have met Research Geek, and if there's a more sincere person than he, I've never met him. It's perfectly understandable that Catcup would be emphatic in defense of her husband, but even what she did say wasn't all that accusatory towards you. The way I read it, it was more incredulity about the account than anger towards you.
I may be butting in uninvited, but the last thing this thread needs is two friends diverging over a minor and correctable misunderstanding. Surely there's room for a peaceful resolution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Zix,
I guess we see it differently then, but I do appreciate your input.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Well, geeeze, I can't believe it but I just spent a half hour digging around in my garage for my corps night notes from Romans 14. (the 8th and 10th were in-rez during VP's teaching of Romans)
Eureka!! I found em, and hubby's too.
None of our notes say anything that could be remotely construed to justify free sex and/or adultery. The only thing they do say is that you can't judge one another, condemn one another, only God knows the heart, yada, yada, yada. Pretty generic stuff, and on topic, with a way spin of course.
I also checked our notes from JAL's teaching on Romans to the corps as well. Nada about justifying any kind of sin. Not even close.
Goey, I know you stated that it didn't matter if "the alternate version" of Romans 14 was taught formally or not. Well, it wasn't. And I think it does matter.
:)--> I don't know where the "alternate version" came from exactly, but it wasn't the "official" Romans teaching to the corps.
And if it wasn't an "official" teaching, it's highly unlikely that any other leader taught it in public. And if it wasn't public, then it was not generally known to, well, the public.
:)--> So there's no way to determine who heard it and who didn't, etc.
I hope I'm making sense, and if this is a total derail, oooops, sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
PS excath
I agree with you. The adultery and fornicating were just symptons of a greater evil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Goey
I asked a question trying to figure out which person you were talking about.
If no one had EVER asked the question, many people who read what you posted would have assumed it to be the honest to God Gospel truth. And would have repeated it to others.
God knows how many people who post on this site, but also those who lurk and never post, who would have assumed you were speaking of either my husband or my friend.
And a LOT of people could have then held damning and hurtful misconceptions about either one of them or both.
I stand by what I said. You should have apologized for your error.
However instead of doing so, you attacked the person who questioned it.
But I'm used to the tactic you used. It was used on me every time I questioned errors in TWI.
This is what turns lots of people off about this site:
1) People aren't sure if what is posted here is the truth.
2) People don't like the spiteful bickering that goes on between posters.
The way I see it, people should double and triple check their sources before posting anything. Most folks on WD understood that. The standards were kept high and sharp. Why?
We wanted to take extra care that our facts were correct in order to avoid hurting innocent people.
You don't seem to understand that is what you were doing, Goey.
And on top of it, you became obstinate and rude in your subsequent post.
*yawn*
I have spent way too much time here in the last month trying to --in my own way--
1). Remind people to focus on exposing the truth about The Way International with accurate first hand accounts, and
2.) Stop attacking each other and focus on the real enemy.
Oh, well. You can lead a horse to water.....
With the semester coming to a close, I have much better things to do.
Maybe I'll be back later when you've learned to behave yourselves. I know, for the most part, you do. And I am grateful for those of you who keep high standards consistently.
But if you REALLY want to provide a trustworthy witness, you have to be accurate, focused, and more seriously consider the rules on the front of this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Ex10,
I heard it. And I heard it in public from a Way Corps lady. It wes taught in Twig and expounded upon even more afterwards. That would have been around 1977 or 1978. It was her year in the field as a WOW Family Coordinator.
I did say it didn't matter but I will qualify that. It matters if we want to try and understand exactly how this unwritten "doctrine" got spread around. But I would venture that it does not matter to folks that were victimized as a result of this errant "teaching". It still arose from TWI and was spread by some of it's leaders.
It seems that some of you former Corps folks are being rather overly defensive about whether this was a formal teaching or not to the Corps. I don't see anywhere on this thread where anyone said it was a formal teaching. No one is throwing rocks at you.
I saw this "happy is the man that condemeneth not" stuff lived by a few folks when I was involved in TWI and these folks were all Corps. So I dont think it is unreasonable to assume then that it was "taught" at some point at higher levels. I don't think any of you Corps folks here are lying about this stuff not being formally taught in class or even "fireside chats". But it was "learned" none the less and it made it's way down to us non-Corps folks and some folks were hurt by it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
It very well could've been just as HopeR described it... lines that guys used to get "lucky"... and I'd be willing to bet it didn't originate with that corps...
but that's what a lot of people assumed... it's what we assumed out on the field almost all of the time... that is: "the corps is sharing this, they must have learned it in residence"...
doesn't mean it was true, but that was the perception with a lot of what we saw the corps do... at least before I went in... that's how I felt...
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.