Wow, Catcup, and you too, Uncle Hairy. You just connected alot of dots for me. :)--> I've always wondered why LCM and the other fornicators (abusers) at the top of TWI's food chain were not run out on a rail the first time the adultery issue came to light in the mid-80's.
And then, from what I understand, again in the mid-90's LCM was confronted. Didn't work then either. It wasn't made PUBLIC enough for people to believe that it could possibly be true. It took a lawsuit for that to happen. And that was too "public" for the usual lies and cover-ups to work.
Duh, ok, it seems so obvious now, but I guess nothing short of a very public, ugly, lawsuit could work. The word of many witnesses just wasn't good enough. There were too many "abusers" who were interested in covering their own rears as well. Geeeze, I know I should have figured this out sooner, but it just suddenly became very clear to me.
I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between fornication and adultery. For instance, two singles fornicating doesn't have to be abusive. Whereas, two committing adultery is definitely because of the betrayal of trust, bearing false witness, breaking of one of the commandments, etc.
My 3 cents - yes, I know you early guys spent lots of time with VP and I sometimes think he slept with every woman from corps 1-5.
But I remember the 2nd and 3rd corps who used to come visit and stay at our house when VP would send them on the field - they were wonderful people. I guess I have a soft spot for the early people I got to know.
You're right, some stayed nice and some changed. I guess it comes down to power corrupts and, in VP's case, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think most of the WC were way too young to have the status, power, adulation, rev. name tag, spiritual heavy status they acquired at that young an age. VP was their role model and he was a nasty guy when he wasn't wearing his public persona charm image in public.
As one adult once told VP - God gave you some of the finest young men in the world and you turned them into perverts. Kind of sums a lot up.
I knew my little statement about the 6th corps "teaching" on sex would get some responses. I never meant to imply that it was formally taught as doctrine. I was not in the 6th corps, I was in the 10th. During my 13 years in twi there always seemed to be this reoccuring theme that would pop up, no matter what part of the country I was in, in situations, where invariably, someone would refer to the "fact" that the 6th corps was taught that sexual promiscuity is ok if you "can handle it" spiritualy. I don't know where this originated from but in my twi experience, I heard it often enough to become curious about this "alleged secret teaching to only the highly initiated ones". That was usually the disclaimer that was attached to this "mythical doctrine" when people spoke of it in hushed tones. Am I the only one who recalls this?
Thanks to everyone for the amazingly insightful posts on this subject. Thanks to you too, Oldiesman...After reading your thoughts on this subject, I have a greater appreciation of my own diversity and open-mindedness. I'm flattered that you would take the time to disect my post and respond to each phrase with your calculated observations. I'm sure that it's a reassuring thing to be surrounded by people who agree with you and help you to "shore up" the foundations of your renewed mind. Even as some fish swim the open seas, others are content with the safety of their aquariums.
Know why they got in trouble only when the adultery went public?
Because if the adultery went public, then their doctrine on it was in danger of being publicized.
And they had to know, that if their dirty little doctrine on adultery and promiscuity were to actually be widely publicized, that a whole lot of people would up and leave.
They knew a good many of us would not put up with that, and the money would walk right out the door. That's why a good many of us never knew about the sexual promiscuity and adultery that was occuring right under our noses.
Many of us wrongly assumed that because we were in a Christian organization that such a doctrine would be obviously wrong, and adultery would not be tolerated.
That's why we would pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves everything was all right when VP et al thunderously publicly humiliated adulterous relationships that became public.
VP et al made sure to carefully dance around the details when publicizing the wrongdoing so as to throw those of us who couldn't stomach such a thing off the track.
It's the publicity they were opposing, but they did so in such a way to preserve their doctrine while pacifying those who would oppose it if they knew.
There are many of us that found out immediately upon leaving the Walls of Zion, that, well, geeezzzzzzz.............
People didn’t want to be friends with us or just hang with us...........
Seems walking in the Promised Land of the Perverts Word turned us into such hard-@$$’s we weren’t any fun anyway!!!!!!
Seriously, soon after leaving TWI many people I associated with noticed a difference with my attitude and came out and asked me what had changed. One boss I told I had quit the religious group I had been with, he looked puzzled and said I thought those kind of thing were supposed to help! Many others shared that soon after they left TWI other people would comment on how it appeared a burden had been lifted from them.
In TWI-1 it was we have no friends when it comes to the Word, TWI-2 was you’ll get contaminated by those unbelievers! Confront them with the Word and if they don’t sign for the class right then, move on............................ or they will drag you and the household down!
So when psychogeer had his great POOP, he probably didn't realize that part of the garbage that would come out would be the secret "it's ok to be promiscuis whether you're single or married" doctrine. I guess he didn't count on John S. writing a paper to address the issue. Hence, all the firings and the fallout from that incident. He had to shut up anybody who knew what the paper was really about, ie adultery is sin. Since he was VP's chief busdriver/pimp (allegedly) he couldn't incriminate himself.
So really the splintering of TWI was all about covering up the rampant promiscuity of its leaders. No wonder the craigmonster got spitting mad at all the cop-outs, and wanted us dead. We knew his dirty little secret. And he knew it would be the end of any kind of legitimacy for TWI. It would seal TWI's doom as a cult if it got out.
I've always thought that the adultery issue was just one among many that caused the splintering. But now I think that it was the MAIN ISSUE.
Shaz, a "top" leader related an incident when he first found about about VP and his adulterous affairs. This leader had not been involved and was shocked to find out. He had found out from an older believer who did construction in the midwest and had a thriving business. I guess something was going on in his area with VP and someone. First, the man wrote a letter to VP confronting him and got no reply so he told the leader about it. Finally, together, the leader got VP on the phone and this gentleman was able to talk to VP. VP defended his sexual actions and that's when the man, who had been a staunch supporter of TWI and given much money, got disgusted and said that to VP.
VICTIM AND VICTIMIZER...As for me I have had to prosess the duality of being both. I know there were many examples to follow and I did my best to walk in there wake. I lost my whole since of self and became the next higher ups clone.REMEMBER: "Imatation is the highest form of flattery".
I still come back to intent and motive to keep the shame at bay. I know my actions were because I did not know any better and expected the leadership to pave a pathway (example) of what was right and "HOW TO" walk the talk. The higher up the ladder I went the more uncomfortable things got..internally.
YES, we were all victims and yes in some cases... victimizers. Weither willingly and knowingly aware or just following, hoping it was the right thing to do,personal acountability is in store.
How much blame goes on the cult and how much you take ownership for is a privat matter and to be handled honestly with kind gloves.
I'm glad that you got to let the bile out and hope you feel better. Lots of people over the years have done so on Waydale and here on Greasespot. However, I caution you to not speak in such generalities unless you are absolutely sure you are right.
I was in the 6th corps and never was it taught that sex was ok if you could handle it. Now I must admit, I was an idealist and not a mover and shaker amongst my peers, but I never operated the way that you indicated. Perhaps there were some people who tried to promote that stuff for their own advantage. But I never moved in their circles and so I cannot offer any eye-witness account to whether it did in fact get promoted. If I was trying to share the Word and people did not receive it, I did not curse them or think disparagingly of them. That would have closed doors forever. There were many times that people who refused my first overture, later came back to hear more. I just tried to genuinely love people.
Maybe you just had an imature leader. Or you are importing in to the earlier years the abuse which most certainly occurred in the latter. Sure, some cute girls may have parlayed the illusion of sex with the Word to entice guys to come to fellowship. Well, if they did, it ultimately caught up with them, I'm sure. Good looking guys may have done the same. But it was those who were genuine who achieved long-lasting results. Yes vpw and lcm manipulated people, but a lot of what was taught was still from the Word. In fact today, twi's teachings are still making inroads into mainstream Christianity. I just heard 3 days and 3 nights taught this Easter Sunday on national TV by a respected evangelist. That's true, isn't it?
You see, nothing is as simple as we'd like it to be. I do think that in the final analysis vpw and lcm's sins simply caught up with them. If they would have just taught the truth and not fallen into the sexual trap, things would have been very different today. I believe most of the evil and corruption stemmed from that error. But for those of us who lived through it, it wasn't as simple as it now may seem to be. We simply did not see it for what it was. There was lots of good stuff and the bad was hidden. The evil stuff was never effectively confronted and ultimately it corruped everything.
I do agree that overly-ambitious and disingenuous leaders spearheaded the abuse which became a central part of twi2's culture during the lcm years. All I am saying is that we should endeavor to separate the wheat from the chaff and hold on to that which is good.
For all who extricate themselves from twi, there is a process that they all generally go through. At first all they do is look back at what happened to them. That is necessary in order to come to terms with it but the object then is ultimately to move on. One cannot live an effective life looking back. There comes a time when we are ready, to decide to look forward. I for one am encouraging those who were abused by twi2 to try to look forward again. There is a God. He has spoken His Word to His holy prophets. It is designed to enhance our lives, help and heal us. My plea to all is to not throw God out of your lives. Just throw out the lies. I know that is easier said than done. It is a process that takes time. But when all is done, hopefully you'll still have a vital relationship with your heavenly Father. It does not matter to me what organization of men that that real relationship with God functions within, just so it genuinely functions. (Note: believers are designed to function with respect to other believers in some form of unit, organization or body. So that is why the "organization of men" was mentioned.)
I'm sad that people were hurt and still are. But I stand ready to help if they want help.
Read Romans 13:8 through 14:23. Those are the verses that were used to explain "if you can handle it, it's okay" philosophy.
Actually, the way I heard it was "it's okay as long as you don't condemn yourself!!!
When I first heard this, I had a funny feeling that it was wrong, that whoever was promoting it was “stretching the truth”. So I studied it. I came to the obvious conclusion that the chapters that were quoted weren’t referring to sex, drugs and rock and roll at all – the context is the Jewish Law.
Here’s my take on it – sorry if it’s long and boring –
In the first few verses, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians not to judge the newer converts to Christianity:
quote:Romans 14: 1 – 3
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Nothing about sex so far…
Next – Paul tells them not to freak out if there are people who still observe certain days and times:
quote:v. 5 & 6:One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
He that regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
So far, we’re talking about dietary laws and the law regarding what day to observe the Sabbath.
No sex yet – but here’s where the little inkling of idea starts. At the end of v.5 the sentence “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” got the ball rolling – see it’s YOUR OWN feelings, YOUR OWN thoughts in which you have to be convinced.
But he’s still not talking about sex…. or is he??????
Then he writes a few verses about how we don’t live for ourselves, but for the Lord.
He then continues the reproof in v. 10 - 13:
quote:But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.
Geez – there’s still no sex in this forumula! But let’s go on…
Here’s the first verse that can be used to support: “as long as you can handle it…”
quote:Romans 14:14 - I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Okay – so if nothing is unclean of itself, and you just think it’s unclean – then it becomes unclean to you. So we’ll just take the other side of the verse that isn’t stated – that if you think something is clean, even if it’s not to someone else – well too bad for them, but it’s okay for you because you can handle it!
Now we got the “lock-box” thrown in for good measure:
quote:14: 15 & 16 - But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
See now, if your brother knows what is going on, and he or she can’t handle it – it will just hurt their walk – you’d be doing him harm to tell him the kind of stuff you have done when he thinks it’s just awful. So don’t tell him! Don’t let him know anything! Keep it to yourself, in your “lock-box”. That way, no one will talk behind your back and you won’t get in trouble!
But wait! That’s not the context! That’s NOT what it’s saying! Remember – the topic is really meat, drink, observing days. Nothing else is on the list!
So Paul continues, and anyone with half a brain can see that he’s not talking about “if you can handle it – it’s okay”.
quote: vv 17-19: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
If you do THOSE things – you’re doing the things that will show that you love your fellow man!
But wait – what happened to the sex part – I’m sure it’s there somewhere – wait – I think I found it!
quote: vv 20 & 21: For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
[it is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
(Offence = proskomma a stumbling block. Something that is propelled by sin.)
ALL THINGS ARE INDEED PURE! But if you can’t handle it – it’s EVIL!
So don’t do anything that might be offensive in front of anyone because it’ll cause them to stumble and they’ll probably break their fellowship with God because of it!
And here it is folks! The verse to end all verses – the coup de gr? so to speak. This is the verse that was quoted to me to convince me that as long as a person doesn’t condemn themselves in whatever act they commit – it’s not sin!
quote:Romans 14:22 - Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
There it is in black and white. If you don’t condemn yourself for something you’ve allowed to occur in your life – then you will be HAPPY! It’s all good!
Oh – wait a sec. .. that means I can take a gun and blow your head off, and if I don’t condemn myself for it, if I’m feelin’ groovy – THEN IT’S OKAY! Well – if you follow that logic it is!
And then there’s the final verse in the chapter:
quote:And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
If you do something and you doubt yourself then you’re not believing – you’re condemning yourself and the CONDEMNATION IS THE SIN NOT THE ACT ITSELF!!! Dontcha see it peepul??? If you don't condemn yourself - then you're okay - you haven't sinned!
Unreal. The context is eating and drinking and observation of the Sabbath day. That’s it. We don’t condemn anyone who eats meat if we’re a vegetarian. We don’t look down on anyone who won’t have a glass of wine because they’re an alcoholic. We’re not to judge them. And we don’t have a roast beef sandwich and a beer in front of them because it might make them stop believing all together. We use discretion and common courtesy.
It’s sorta like asking someone you’re eating lunch with “do you mind if I smoke?” If they say no, you won’t light up in front of them, you’ll step outside!
In my own interpretive view – that’s really all that Romans 14 is about – Loving God and loving your neighbor enough not to do anything that would hurt them in any way.
Read the first few verses of Chapter 15 - it continues on and further defines the previous chapter. Apologies for the long-windedness of this post.
Hope R. -- great points you made there. As far as observing Jewish Law, have you read David Anderson's book "THE TWO WAYS OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH"?.
It gives a whole new spin on the book of Acts, which in turn puts a whole new spin on the rest of the New Testament writings.
I copied his book online from one of the links mentioned here at GS, but I don't remember which one. It really is excellent reading, and gives one much to think about.
Back in 1979 some of the "graduate" corps were invited back in residence. Why, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe they had started thinking for themselves a little too much or something.
Anyway, part of what they did while back there was to work on a research project of some sort. IIRC, the topic of the research was "Christian Ethics".
I had the opportunity to listen to some of the conclusions reached by this stellar group of researchers ("This is HEAVY stuff bro. You oughta be REALLY thankful that God allowed you to hear this, man!").
Among their more interesting points was the concept that Jesus probably had sex with Mary Magdalene ("Well, wouldn't that have been the loving thing to do?"), that Paul probably had sex with several of the unmarried women in his territory ("Don't you think that they needed it?") and that if someone you're ministering to today is horny, you should probably give 'em a good humpin' too, ("After all, God is in the business of meeting needs, isn't He?").
These pearls of wisdom were imparted to me by the former NW RCs. Now maybe they came up with this stuff all on their own, and "leadership" knew nothing about it. It strikes me as more than a little coincidental, though, that the teachings reflect precisely the type of thinking that must have motivated the MOGs (Major and mini) in their lives of debauchery.
The Vickster was one sick puppy. Why is it hard to believe that he promoted (very slyly) such a debased theology?
Thanks for sharing the "logic" used so people see exactly how they twisted the scriptures.
George
It's amazing how these little "private" conversations happened all over the ministry. Whenever I heard anyone talk like that, I thought they were, yes, stretching the truth to cover their own behavior. I never considered it was a doctrine promulgated and practiced by those at the very top-- until I left and found out the truth from people who had been there first hand.
Catcup, I thought the very same thing. That guys used that "logic" as sort of a pickup line. My response was always "Yeah, right. --> "
I never dreamed anybody really believed it totally, and was using it to "coerce" people. Until a couple of years before the POOP, when I happened to hear it from Don W himself. And then from Johnny T. And then it was "Ohmigosh! " But I still didn't realize how it had permeated the thinking of so many "leaders." It WAS a "heads up" for me, though. So when John S. sent us a copy of his paper, and then got fired, I KNEW what he was saying was true. And evidently, so did alot of other people, because it set off the first great purging of the way, Inc.
It sure puts loyboy's loyalty letter in a different light.
quote:I knew my little statement about the 6th corps "teaching" on sex would get some responses. I never meant to imply that it was formally taught as doctrine. I was not in the 6th corps, I was in the 10th.
Let me share a personal experience here. In about 1999 there was an independant offshoot fellowship being run here by a former 6th corps "reverend". He was on on the research team at some point in the 70's/80's.
Two friends of mine that had never been involved with TWI got involved through my acquaintance with this fellow. On of these was my then girlfriend who wanted to know more about Christianity. I was not invloved with the fellowship at all myself, but I truusted that this 6th Corps "reverend" might be of some help.
This "reverend" then proceeded to romance my then girlfriend behind my back. The other felllow that attended asked the good reverend about sex, fornication and adultery. And the reply was from Romans. - Happy is the man that condemns not ...... blah, blah, blah.
So don't you folks give me this crap that this stuff was not taught in TWI. It most certainly was. I heard it myself as early as the late 70's and It even seems to go directy back to TWI's research department.
You folks who are saying that it was not taught don't know what you are talking about. You are very naive or you are in denial. The fact that you did not hear it in a formal setting is irrelevant. The fact that some former leaders here did not see the abuse or hear the teachings when it was right under their noses is very telling of level of spiritual perception of leadership as a whole in TWI even the "good" ones.
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
ex10
Wow, Catcup, and you too, Uncle Hairy. You just connected alot of dots for me.
:)--> I've always wondered why LCM and the other fornicators (abusers) at the top of TWI's food chain were not run out on a rail the first time the adultery issue came to light in the mid-80's.
And then, from what I understand, again in the mid-90's LCM was confronted. Didn't work then either. It wasn't made PUBLIC enough for people to believe that it could possibly be true. It took a lawsuit for that to happen. And that was too "public" for the usual lies and cover-ups to work.
Duh, ok, it seems so obvious now, but I guess nothing short of a very public, ugly, lawsuit could work. The word of many witnesses just wasn't good enough. There were too many "abusers" who were interested in covering their own rears as well. Geeeze, I know I should have figured this out sooner, but it just suddenly became very clear to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between fornication and adultery. For instance, two singles fornicating doesn't have to be abusive. Whereas, two committing adultery is definitely because of the betrayal of trust, bearing false witness, breaking of one of the commandments, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
My 3 cents - yes, I know you early guys spent lots of time with VP and I sometimes think he slept with every woman from corps 1-5.
But I remember the 2nd and 3rd corps who used to come visit and stay at our house when VP would send them on the field - they were wonderful people. I guess I have a soft spot for the early people I got to know.
You're right, some stayed nice and some changed. I guess it comes down to power corrupts and, in VP's case, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think most of the WC were way too young to have the status, power, adulation, rev. name tag, spiritual heavy status they acquired at that young an age. VP was their role model and he was a nasty guy when he wasn't wearing his public persona charm image in public.
As one adult once told VP - God gave you some of the finest young men in the world and you turned them into perverts. Kind of sums a lot up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I knew my little statement about the 6th corps "teaching" on sex would get some responses. I never meant to imply that it was formally taught as doctrine. I was not in the 6th corps, I was in the 10th. During my 13 years in twi there always seemed to be this reoccuring theme that would pop up, no matter what part of the country I was in, in situations, where invariably, someone would refer to the "fact" that the 6th corps was taught that sexual promiscuity is ok if you "can handle it" spiritualy. I don't know where this originated from but in my twi experience, I heard it often enough to become curious about this "alleged secret teaching to only the highly initiated ones". That was usually the disclaimer that was attached to this "mythical doctrine" when people spoke of it in hushed tones. Am I the only one who recalls this?
Thanks to everyone for the amazingly insightful posts on this subject. Thanks to you too, Oldiesman...After reading your thoughts on this subject, I have a greater appreciation of my own diversity and open-mindedness. I'm flattered that you would take the time to disect my post and respond to each phrase with your calculated observations. I'm sure that it's a reassuring thing to be surrounded by people who agree with you and help you to "shore up" the foundations of your renewed mind. Even as some fish swim the open seas, others are content with the safety of their aquariums.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Lemme connect a few more dots for you.
Know why they got in trouble only when the adultery went public?
Because if the adultery went public, then their doctrine on it was in danger of being publicized.
And they had to know, that if their dirty little doctrine on adultery and promiscuity were to actually be widely publicized, that a whole lot of people would up and leave.
They knew a good many of us would not put up with that, and the money would walk right out the door. That's why a good many of us never knew about the sexual promiscuity and adultery that was occuring right under our noses.
Many of us wrongly assumed that because we were in a Christian organization that such a doctrine would be obviously wrong, and adultery would not be tolerated.
That's why we would pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves everything was all right when VP et al thunderously publicly humiliated adulterous relationships that became public.
VP et al made sure to carefully dance around the details when publicizing the wrongdoing so as to throw those of us who couldn't stomach such a thing off the track.
It's the publicity they were opposing, but they did so in such a way to preserve their doctrine while pacifying those who would oppose it if they knew.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
Ummmm............
There are many of us that found out immediately upon leaving the Walls of Zion, that, well, geeezzzzzzz.............
People didn’t want to be friends with us or just hang with us...........
Seems walking in the Promised Land of the Perverts Word turned us into such hard-@$$’s we weren’t any fun anyway!!!!!!
Seriously, soon after leaving TWI many people I associated with noticed a difference with my attitude and came out and asked me what had changed. One boss I told I had quit the religious group I had been with, he looked puzzled and said I thought those kind of thing were supposed to help! Many others shared that soon after they left TWI other people would comment on how it appeared a burden had been lifted from them.
In TWI-1 it was we have no friends when it comes to the Word, TWI-2 was you’ll get contaminated by those unbelievers! Confront them with the Word and if they don’t sign for the class right then, move on............................ or they will drag you and the household down!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Sunesis,
You said...
Whoa, who said that? And what did he see that prompted the remark? Enquiring minds want to knowRegards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
So when psychogeer had his great POOP, he probably didn't realize that part of the garbage that would come out would be the secret "it's ok to be promiscuis whether you're single or married" doctrine. I guess he didn't count on John S. writing a paper to address the issue. Hence, all the firings and the fallout from that incident. He had to shut up anybody who knew what the paper was really about, ie adultery is sin. Since he was VP's chief busdriver/pimp (allegedly) he couldn't incriminate himself.
So really the splintering of TWI was all about covering up the rampant promiscuity of its leaders. No wonder the craigmonster got spitting mad at all the cop-outs, and wanted us dead. We knew his dirty little secret. And he knew it would be the end of any kind of legitimacy for TWI. It would seal TWI's doom as a cult if it got out.
I've always thought that the adultery issue was just one among many that caused the splintering. But now I think that it was the MAIN ISSUE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Shaz, a "top" leader related an incident when he first found about about VP and his adulterous affairs. This leader had not been involved and was shocked to find out. He had found out from an older believer who did construction in the midwest and had a thriving business. I guess something was going on in his area with VP and someone. First, the man wrote a letter to VP confronting him and got no reply so he told the leader about it. Finally, together, the leader got VP on the phone and this gentleman was able to talk to VP. VP defended his sexual actions and that's when the man, who had been a staunch supporter of TWI and given much money, got disgusted and said that to VP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
VICTIM AND VICTIMIZER...As for me I have had to prosess the duality of being both. I know there were many examples to follow and I did my best to walk in there wake. I lost my whole since of self and became the next higher ups clone.REMEMBER: "Imatation is the highest form of flattery".
I still come back to intent and motive to keep the shame at bay. I know my actions were because I did not know any better and expected the leadership to pave a pathway (example) of what was right and "HOW TO" walk the talk. The higher up the ladder I went the more uncomfortable things got..internally.
YES, we were all victims and yes in some cases... victimizers. Weither willingly and knowingly aware or just following, hoping it was the right thing to do,personal acountability is in store.
How much blame goes on the cult and how much you take ownership for is a privat matter and to be handled honestly with kind gloves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Grizz...good point! There was a great burden lifted from folks as they left and it WAS noticed by others.
Good to see ya again Grizz...Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
imbus thank you dearest heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i just decided "thank you" isn't enough
if you haven't lived it or been there, you can only give your "intellectual" or "spiritual" deal on what it was really like
sorry but that's how i feel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Research Geek
Dear UncleHairy,
I'm glad that you got to let the bile out and hope you feel better. Lots of people over the years have done so on Waydale and here on Greasespot. However, I caution you to not speak in such generalities unless you are absolutely sure you are right.
I was in the 6th corps and never was it taught that sex was ok if you could handle it. Now I must admit, I was an idealist and not a mover and shaker amongst my peers, but I never operated the way that you indicated. Perhaps there were some people who tried to promote that stuff for their own advantage. But I never moved in their circles and so I cannot offer any eye-witness account to whether it did in fact get promoted. If I was trying to share the Word and people did not receive it, I did not curse them or think disparagingly of them. That would have closed doors forever. There were many times that people who refused my first overture, later came back to hear more. I just tried to genuinely love people.
Maybe you just had an imature leader. Or you are importing in to the earlier years the abuse which most certainly occurred in the latter. Sure, some cute girls may have parlayed the illusion of sex with the Word to entice guys to come to fellowship. Well, if they did, it ultimately caught up with them, I'm sure. Good looking guys may have done the same. But it was those who were genuine who achieved long-lasting results. Yes vpw and lcm manipulated people, but a lot of what was taught was still from the Word. In fact today, twi's teachings are still making inroads into mainstream Christianity. I just heard 3 days and 3 nights taught this Easter Sunday on national TV by a respected evangelist. That's true, isn't it?
You see, nothing is as simple as we'd like it to be. I do think that in the final analysis vpw and lcm's sins simply caught up with them. If they would have just taught the truth and not fallen into the sexual trap, things would have been very different today. I believe most of the evil and corruption stemmed from that error. But for those of us who lived through it, it wasn't as simple as it now may seem to be. We simply did not see it for what it was. There was lots of good stuff and the bad was hidden. The evil stuff was never effectively confronted and ultimately it corruped everything.
I do agree that overly-ambitious and disingenuous leaders spearheaded the abuse which became a central part of twi2's culture during the lcm years. All I am saying is that we should endeavor to separate the wheat from the chaff and hold on to that which is good.
For all who extricate themselves from twi, there is a process that they all generally go through. At first all they do is look back at what happened to them. That is necessary in order to come to terms with it but the object then is ultimately to move on. One cannot live an effective life looking back. There comes a time when we are ready, to decide to look forward. I for one am encouraging those who were abused by twi2 to try to look forward again. There is a God. He has spoken His Word to His holy prophets. It is designed to enhance our lives, help and heal us. My plea to all is to not throw God out of your lives. Just throw out the lies. I know that is easier said than done. It is a process that takes time. But when all is done, hopefully you'll still have a vital relationship with your heavenly Father. It does not matter to me what organization of men that that real relationship with God functions within, just so it genuinely functions. (Note: believers are designed to function with respect to other believers in some form of unit, organization or body. So that is why the "organization of men" was mentioned.)
I'm sad that people were hurt and still are. But I stand ready to help if they want help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well said Mr. Research Geek. And as to your last line.
Ouote;
I'm sad that people were hurt and still are. But I stand ready to help if they want help.
________________________________________________
I can attest to this and I have seen it in the lives of others here. It is the truth! and he's pretty fun at parties too by the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Read Romans 13:8 through 14:23. Those are the verses that were used to explain "if you can handle it, it's okay" philosophy.
Actually, the way I heard it was "it's okay as long as you don't condemn yourself!!!
When I first heard this, I had a funny feeling that it was wrong, that whoever was promoting it was “stretching the truth”. So I studied it. I came to the obvious conclusion that the chapters that were quoted weren’t referring to sex, drugs and rock and roll at all – the context is the Jewish Law.
Here’s my take on it – sorry if it’s long and boring –
In the first few verses, Paul exhorts the Roman Christians not to judge the newer converts to Christianity:
Nothing about sex so far…
Next – Paul tells them not to freak out if there are people who still observe certain days and times:
So far, we’re talking about dietary laws and the law regarding what day to observe the Sabbath.
No sex yet – but here’s where the little inkling of idea starts. At the end of v.5 the sentence “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind” got the ball rolling – see it’s YOUR OWN feelings, YOUR OWN thoughts in which you have to be convinced.
But he’s still not talking about sex…. or is he??????
Then he writes a few verses about how we don’t live for ourselves, but for the Lord.
He then continues the reproof in v. 10 - 13:
Geez – there’s still no sex in this forumula! But let’s go on…
Here’s the first verse that can be used to support: “as long as you can handle it…”
Okay – so if nothing is unclean of itself, and you just think it’s unclean – then it becomes unclean to you. So we’ll just take the other side of the verse that isn’t stated – that if you think something is clean, even if it’s not to someone else – well too bad for them, but it’s okay for you because you can handle it!
Now we got the “lock-box” thrown in for good measure:
See now, if your brother knows what is going on, and he or she can’t handle it – it will just hurt their walk – you’d be doing him harm to tell him the kind of stuff you have done when he thinks it’s just awful. So don’t tell him! Don’t let him know anything! Keep it to yourself, in your “lock-box”. That way, no one will talk behind your back and you won’t get in trouble!
But wait! That’s not the context! That’s NOT what it’s saying! Remember – the topic is really meat, drink, observing days. Nothing else is on the list!
So Paul continues, and anyone with half a brain can see that he’s not talking about “if you can handle it – it’s okay”.
If you do THOSE things – you’re doing the things that will show that you love your fellow man!
But wait – what happened to the sex part – I’m sure it’s there somewhere – wait – I think I found it!
(Offence = proskomma a stumbling block. Something that is propelled by sin.)
ALL THINGS ARE INDEED PURE! But if you can’t handle it – it’s EVIL!
So don’t do anything that might be offensive in front of anyone because it’ll cause them to stumble and they’ll probably break their fellowship with God because of it!
And here it is folks! The verse to end all verses – the coup de gr? so to speak. This is the verse that was quoted to me to convince me that as long as a person doesn’t condemn themselves in whatever act they commit – it’s not sin!
There it is in black and white. If you don’t condemn yourself for something you’ve allowed to occur in your life – then you will be HAPPY! It’s all good!
Oh – wait a sec. .. that means I can take a gun and blow your head off, and if I don’t condemn myself for it, if I’m feelin’ groovy – THEN IT’S OKAY! Well – if you follow that logic it is!
And then there’s the final verse in the chapter:
If you do something and you doubt yourself then you’re not believing – you’re condemning yourself and the CONDEMNATION IS THE SIN NOT THE ACT ITSELF!!! Dontcha see it peepul??? If you don't condemn yourself - then you're okay - you haven't sinned!
Unreal. The context is eating and drinking and observation of the Sabbath day. That’s it. We don’t condemn anyone who eats meat if we’re a vegetarian. We don’t look down on anyone who won’t have a glass of wine because they’re an alcoholic. We’re not to judge them. And we don’t have a roast beef sandwich and a beer in front of them because it might make them stop believing all together. We use discretion and common courtesy.
It’s sorta like asking someone you’re eating lunch with “do you mind if I smoke?” If they say no, you won’t light up in front of them, you’ll step outside!
In my own interpretive view – that’s really all that Romans 14 is about – Loving God and loving your neighbor enough not to do anything that would hurt them in any way.
Read the first few verses of Chapter 15 - it continues on and further defines the previous chapter. Apologies for the long-windedness of this post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hope R. -- great points you made there. As far as observing Jewish Law, have you read David Anderson's book "THE TWO WAYS OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH"?.
It gives a whole new spin on the book of Acts, which in turn puts a whole new spin on the rest of the New Testament writings.
I copied his book online from one of the links mentioned here at GS, but I don't remember which one. It really is excellent reading, and gives one much to think about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
This thread has jogged my memory a bit.
Back in 1979 some of the "graduate" corps were invited back in residence. Why, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe they had started thinking for themselves a little too much or something.
Anyway, part of what they did while back there was to work on a research project of some sort. IIRC, the topic of the research was "Christian Ethics".
I had the opportunity to listen to some of the conclusions reached by this stellar group of researchers ("This is HEAVY stuff bro. You oughta be REALLY thankful that God allowed you to hear this, man!").
Among their more interesting points was the concept that Jesus probably had sex with Mary Magdalene ("Well, wouldn't that have been the loving thing to do?"), that Paul probably had sex with several of the unmarried women in his territory ("Don't you think that they needed it?") and that if someone you're ministering to today is horny, you should probably give 'em a good humpin' too, ("After all, God is in the business of meeting needs, isn't He?").
These pearls of wisdom were imparted to me by the former NW RCs. Now maybe they came up with this stuff all on their own, and "leadership" knew nothing about it. It strikes me as more than a little coincidental, though, that the teachings reflect precisely the type of thinking that must have motivated the MOGs (Major and mini) in their lives of debauchery.
The Vickster was one sick puppy. Why is it hard to believe that he promoted (very slyly) such a debased theology?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
OK Hairy Uncle.........wtfau??????
or more nicely put. do I know you????
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Hope
Thanks for sharing the "logic" used so people see exactly how they twisted the scriptures.
George
It's amazing how these little "private" conversations happened all over the ministry. Whenever I heard anyone talk like that, I thought they were, yes, stretching the truth to cover their own behavior. I never considered it was a doctrine promulgated and practiced by those at the very top-- until I left and found out the truth from people who had been there first hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Juan Cruz
deleted
Edited by Juan CruzLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Hope, Excellent post!
Catcup, I thought the very same thing. That guys used that "logic" as sort of a pickup line. My response was always "Yeah, right.
--> "
I never dreamed anybody really believed it totally, and was using it to "coerce" people. Until a couple of years before the POOP, when I happened to hear it from Don W himself. And then from Johnny T. And then it was "Ohmigosh!
" But I still didn't realize how it had permeated the thinking of so many "leaders." It WAS a "heads up" for me, though. So when John S. sent us a copy of his paper, and then got fired, I KNEW what he was saying was true. And evidently, so did alot of other people, because it set off the first great purging of the way, Inc.
It sure puts loyboy's loyalty letter in a different light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
UncleHairy posted:
Let me share a personal experience here. In about 1999 there was an independant offshoot fellowship being run here by a former 6th corps "reverend". He was on on the research team at some point in the 70's/80's.
Two friends of mine that had never been involved with TWI got involved through my acquaintance with this fellow. On of these was my then girlfriend who wanted to know more about Christianity. I was not invloved with the fellowship at all myself, but I truusted that this 6th Corps "reverend" might be of some help.
This "reverend" then proceeded to romance my then girlfriend behind my back. The other felllow that attended asked the good reverend about sex, fornication and adultery. And the reply was from Romans. - Happy is the man that condemns not ...... blah, blah, blah.
So don't you folks give me this crap that this stuff was not taught in TWI. It most certainly was. I heard it myself as early as the late 70's and It even seems to go directy back to TWI's research department.
You folks who are saying that it was not taught don't know what you are talking about. You are very naive or you are in denial. The fact that you did not hear it in a formal setting is irrelevant. The fact that some former leaders here did not see the abuse or hear the teachings when it was right under their noses is very telling of level of spiritual perception of leadership as a whole in TWI even the "good" ones.
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.