From what I've heard, there was a group of people in the corps who practiced these things secretly. It had to be secret, for everyone knows that adultery is sin, and if it got out that these rationalizations of adultery were being believed and promoted, the thing would have been exposed for what it was. That's why the Schoenheit paper (and Schoenheit) was shunned. What a mess.
Those things were aparantly taught in private a select few. The men were usually the "elite". The women were just about anyone that they could get to buy that line of crap - Even if only for long enough to get their jollies.
Shoenheit, was fired for writing his paper that spoke out againt adultery. He became somewhat of a martyr and legend for writing a paper that would have been just plain common sense to most of Christianity.
quote:"It had to be secret, for everyone knows that adultery is sin....."
Well, oldies, everyone also "knows" that the Trinity is true, that the dead are now alive in heaven, and that there were only 2 crucified with Jesus.
VPW/TWI was able to get folks to reject these accepted doctrines that "everybody knows" and believe otherwise.
Why is it then so difficult to believe that VPW could convince a few elite and a few trusting co-eds who thought he was the MOGFODAT and a spiritual giant, that the traditional teaching on adultery was also wrong?
He did it in secret because HE knew it was wrong and HE knew that "MOST" others would never accept it.
quote:Why is it then so difficult to believe that VPW could convince a few elite and a few trusting co-eds who thought he was the MOGFODAT and a spiritual giant, that the traditional teaching on adultery was also wrong?
It is difficult for me to believe, because it was kept so quiet. Had some of these folks been so "convinced" as one might say, it probably would have been more verbalized, more taught, more established. The fact that these elite kept it quiet, tells me something. Logically, they didn't want this information to get out, because they knew something was wrong with it.
quote:Why is it then so difficult to believe that VPW could convince a few elite and a few trusting co-eds who thought he was the MOGFODAT and a spiritual giant, that the traditional teaching on adultery was also wrong?
It is difficult for me to believe, because it was kept so quiet. Had some of these folks been so "convinced" as one might say, it probably would have been more verbalized, more taught, more established. The fact that these elite kept it quiet, tells me something. Logically, they didn't want this information to get out, because they knew something was wrong with it.
Actually, it tells me that they were certain
OTHER PEOPLE WOULD THINK IT WAS WRONG.
Then it becomes a matter of "well, people whom aren't spiritually-mature enough
should not hear about it, since they wouldn't understand, and it would damage
their believing. Let's not put a stumblingblock before them. Let them eat their
herbs, and we'll eat our meat."
I have a suspicion that's EXACTLY the "argument" that was used.
Refiner, if you want to read some more discussion on this subject, look up the "adultry" and "abuse" threads in the 'About the Way' section... they should be somewhere there in the first 10 pages... there's a lot of back and forth, first hand accounts, veepee idolizers denying, etc...
Altho John was the author of this, and got M&A -- and fired because of it -- He spoke the truth about adultry. Tho I have not heard it first hand, I have heard from those who have heard it first hand that it was said that "anyone who reads this will open themselves to devil spirits.
Come on -- reading a paper opens one up to daimon??????????? I don't think so. And I don't think you are quoting from the original paper that John S. wrote.
I have a copy of the original here that I got back in the mid-'80's, and I am willing to bet he made NO concession to adultry in any way whatsoever.
Pat posted the link he has on his site. I suggest you give it a look before you open your mouth and change feet.
I recall very well when the Schoenheit paper came out. I was told directly that if I read it, I would get possessed! I remember a certain rev. who received the paper in the mail, never read it...just received it...and was fired.
The irony of it all is that if twi would have just let John S alone...not fire him but take his research paper and just "bury it", the whole thing probably would have blown over. Instead, by firing John, they arroused everybody's attention and interest and in effect made him a martyr. It put the spotlight on the whole sordid affair and then their house of cards crumbled.
Outside of its original Way context, the "Schoenheit Paper" by itself is nothing especially spectacular or controversial.
It's rather kind of dull, actually.
It emphasizes, "Adultery is wrong, ma-kay?"
But to Wayshua's corrupted leadership engaged in fleshly avarice at the time, it was apparently a bombshell. It's too bad the world press missed out on the more scandalous, smaller but nastier breaking stories when concentrating only on Jim Bakker, swaggerin' Jim-what's-his-face and Oral Roberts.
quote: Pat posted the link he has on his site. I suggest you give it a look before you open your mouth and change feet.
Who are you addressing, dmiller, as needing to "open...mouth and change feet"? If you're addressing Refiner, every quote in his first post in this thread is verbatim from John's paper, from the appendixes showing the faulty reasons that were used to say that adultery/fornication are okay.
I think you might be misinterpreting his point in posting them here. :)-->
I was told that JS's paper named names and read like a tabloid. Not true; it's just a word study on adultery slanted that there is no time period or administration where it was /is OK with God to do this. Sounded reasonable to me.
You got it right. Adultery was for the "spiritually mature," which translated to the higher leadership and whoever they were bedding.
A friend of mine wrote headquarters back around 1978, asking about sex outside of marriage. She felt it was simply an extension of loving others, a need to be met in herself, and okay as long as it didn't hurt anybody. She cited many of the Bible references about eating meat/herbs and all things being lawful. She sent the letter to the Research department.
She was told that she was wrong, and taking the Bible verses out of context. She was told that fornication and adultery were wrong. I don't know who specifically answered her letter (but it was someone in Research, not Wierwille). But it does point out that there were two different camps on this issue -- those that wanted to know what the Bible said, and those that wanted what they wanted.
The Schoenheit paper was basically a word study showing that adultery was not a good thing according to the bible. John did uncover lots of examples of adultery with muckety-mucks. He mentioned them to people he felt comfortable talking to about it but that stuff was not in his paper.
On another note, to say that this stuff was "taught" gives a slightly different impression of what life was like in the way under vpw. I'm not exactly sure how to explain it to folks that weren't there, but I'll try.
There was not as much "from the pulpit teaching" about lifestyle stuff (other than witnessing and tithing) like there apparently was under craig's later days.
Most of the sex stuff was just a cultural thing. If a question was raised, a scriptural rationalization was given. But to say "it was taught" makes it sound more weighty than it was.
Also the culture was that vpw didn't give any evidence of applying scripture to his own life. He never gave examples of making a decision where he wanted to do X but read the bible and decided to do Y. More of the examples were he decided what to do and looked for verses to back it up. (This was apparently how the research was done too but that's another topic).
So there was an "understanding" that if you were spiritual enough you just lived and everything was cool.
It was obvious he didn't run or eat like he told the corps to do. He didn't moderate his drinking or smoking. He certainly didn't give up any of his money toward any cause. (I know he didn't own much in a legal sense - but it was obvious he CONTROLLED a lot of cash and it mostly went toward building his empire in a way that added to his own creature comforts.) I guess what I mean by that was there was no practical distinction made between money spent on things that were good for vpw personally and money spent to "move the word."
Again this wasn't "taught" though there were some scriptures thrown around to justify it if a question were ever raised. BUT if a person raised too many questions it was obvious that that person was not very spiritual and even ostracized (though not in any official way like the later M&A - they usually just were made uncomfortable enough to leave of their own accord which made it easy for us to say they were possesed.)
vpw didn't even appear to spend a lot of time reading the bible. One woman I know, who cleaned his house, said that he would often prep for a Sunday night teaching by spending only about 15 minutes pulling together a bunch of verses.
The sex stuff was not as obvious (at least to me - which may say a lot about my powers of observation or my sex drive at the time) but it sure fit in with the culture vpw propogated, of do what you want and as long as the word is moving it's all OK.
I left in 86 I think it was, and apparently craig got a lot more meddlesome after a while.
I think one reason the adultry thing was kept quiet among a lot of women was the "lockbox" doctrine.
When I was called into VP's motorcoach out of the blue one sunday, about an hour before he was to teach the SNS, I was an innocent, young 1st year corps person. I had no idea what he wanted. But, since he was the MOG, most people were a little flattered that he'd want to see you.
Anyway, sitting there in only his bathrobe he asked a few casual questions, then he got serious. He told me that what he was going to tell me was lockbox, and that he had never told this to anyone else - I was never to tell. He was very emphatic about that. He stressed highly it would be a betrayal of him if I told and I could not betray him. So now I'm thinking, uh-oh, I don't know if I really want to hear this big secret.
He then proceeded to tell the physical reason why he could not have sex with his wife. Because he now can't have sex with his wife, he then went on to explain in graphic detail what he would like to do to me sexually. I was stunned - we're talking porno here. I just stared at him. In this situation, you really can't quite believe what you just heard. I'm thinking to myself, is this some kind of a joke? He really doesn't mean this, right? What is going on here? So, I changed the subject and started talking about something else.
Ten seconds later, he again, repeated what he had said before. Now I'm thinking, how the hell do I get out of here? Just then, another female, top leadership woman, burst through the door. It was strange - no knock, nothing. I've often wondered if I was being set up for something. But, I've digressed. Anyway, I saw my opening and took it. I got up, and said, I have to go get ready for the service and walked out the door.
So now, here I am, I can't tell anyone what just happened, I've been told I am the only woman he's ever told this to, so what do I do? Well, for sure I'm never going to repeat it or tell a soul, its lockbox don't you know.
I think the only reason I was not dismissed from the corps is because my family was involved and my brother-in-law was a top reverend and region leader.
A couple of years later, I ran into a woman who I had been good friends with from my hometown in a local restaurant. She had gone into an early corps and had been abruptly thrown out. Everyone had wondered why - she was a great person. So, we talked. She hated VP. I asked why. She told me he had made advances towards her and she would not put out so he had dismissed her from the corps and the word was put out she was possessed and her good name was slandered. That was true, because that is what I had heard. Then, the kicker was, she said, did he tell you his big secret? And she told me the exact lockbox line he had used on me. She said he told that to all of the women - don't think I was so special. So here are all these woman who are keeping this secret and not telling a soul. Well, she woke me up.
So, I never made it into VP's inner circle sex club (thank God) because I would not play ball. I also found out years later my friend Valerie in the corps was put through the same thing. She also refused his advances. But, lockbox.
Why did I refuse? Simply because I believed it was wrong to have sex with a married man. It was adultry, I would not betray his wife. I also refused LCM. He had a different techinque to wrangle a woman into bed. But in my heart I felt I could not betray a friend's trust. Silly me....
So, I guess I'm saying, there was a lot of coercion and pressure and the feeling of being spiritual enough to "handle" this big secret, and you would rather die than break the lockbox. I can't explain it, weird group think and peer pressure. So, that's one reason why most people didn't know about it.
I thought another possible reason why folks didn't speak up when they should have, knowing full well that adultery is wrong, was the fact that generally, folks don't want to upset the apple cart.
It's a difficult thing to go on a crusade to make a point, even if one is absolutely correct. Most folks just live and try to get by, ignoring what they know in their heart is right, but can't bear to make themselves a "pain in the butt". For most, it's human nature to want to take the easy way out, to want to take the path of least resistance.
I bet John Schoenheit felt super lousy when he was fired. But now, years later, I bet he feels so sweet and good and proud (in a good way) he took a stand back then, something he'll never forget.
And I can bet that there was never anything wrong with Mrs. W. It was just VP's m.o.
There is a shock kind of reaction (cognitive dissonance) that happens to a person when presented with unexpected, shocking information. But in hindsight, here's what I would have loved to say to him, had it been me...
1.) "Mrs. W can't have sex? Aww, I bet you're gonna miss that. But so good of you to stand by her. I really respect that in a man."
2.) "Have sex with YOU? Sure, let's go talk to Mrs. W about that."
3.) "Do WHAT? With that? What is that -- it looks like a p****, only smaller!"
quote: I bet John Schoenheit felt super lousy when he was fired. But now, years later, I bet he feels so sweet and good and proud (in a good way) he took a stand back then, something he'll never forget.
I was at a CES function Sunday, and John S. was one of the teachers. He is doing great, and proud to still be standing for, and teaching about the Word, and it's Author. :)-->
quote: Who are you addressing, dmiller, as needing to "open...mouth and change feet"? If you're addressing Refiner, every quote in his first post in this thread is verbatim from John's paper, from the appendixes showing the faulty reasons that were used to say that adultery/fornication are okay.
I think you might be misinterpreting his point in posting them here. :)-->
Linda -- yes I did misinterpret. I got my copy out to read, and you are right. Your reprimand is duely noted, and accepted! ;)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
7
6
7
Popular Days
Jun 4
38
Jun 2
21
Jun 3
13
Jun 1
12
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 12 posts
Goey 7 posts
def59 6 posts
Refiner 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2004
38 posts
Jun 2 2004
21 posts
Jun 3 2004
13 posts
Jun 1 2004
12 posts
oldiesman
From what I've heard, there was a group of people in the corps who practiced these things secretly. It had to be secret, for everyone knows that adultery is sin, and if it got out that these rationalizations of adultery were being believed and promoted, the thing would have been exposed for what it was. That's why the Schoenheit paper (and Schoenheit) was shunned. What a mess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Refiner,
Those things were aparantly taught in private a select few. The men were usually the "elite". The women were just about anyone that they could get to buy that line of crap - Even if only for long enough to get their jollies.
Shoenheit, was fired for writing his paper that spoke out againt adultery. He became somewhat of a martyr and legend for writing a paper that would have been just plain common sense to most of Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Well, oldies, everyone also "knows" that the Trinity is true, that the dead are now alive in heaven, and that there were only 2 crucified with Jesus.
VPW/TWI was able to get folks to reject these accepted doctrines that "everybody knows" and believe otherwise.
Why is it then so difficult to believe that VPW could convince a few elite and a few trusting co-eds who thought he was the MOGFODAT and a spiritual giant, that the traditional teaching on adultery was also wrong?
He did it in secret because HE knew it was wrong and HE knew that "MOST" others would never accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well,
"officially,"
twi never publicly taught that fornication and adultery were permitted.
The Christian Family & Sex class officially said it was wrong, but did not
spend significant amounts of time on it. That class was too busy covering
things like slang terms for body parts, and showing stills from some
Swedish import film or something. Most of that class really wasn't about
anything but sex, but this name was stuck on it anyway. It was STILL the
only class I was embarassed to say the name of, even when I was in.
So, if you listened to tapes, or read books, you'd think twi was officially
against it. If you read and listened a lot closer, you'd have had some
questions about the peculiar phrasing of certain things.
For example, "sin" was redefined as "broken fellowship." As Raf points out,
"broken fellowship" is a CONSEQUENCE of sin, not the sin itself. However,
thus redefined, sin sounds a lot less important. Further, sin in general
is softened further with the "no condemnation" stuff, which was taken to mean
exactly what it was MEANT to mean-if you do something wrong, but don't
condemn yourself, hey, God's cool like that. Jesus paid the price for the
sin already, so, everything's jake.
So, yes, it was a "ministry" that only those "spiritually mature enough to
handle it" were allowed to partake of. According to a number of eyewitnesses,
willing participants, unwilling participants, victims, and drugged people,
this was most common directly at hq. The original ranks of people were drawn
from both coasts during the Jesus People movement, when "free love" was going
around. Some of us think that was INTENTIONAL-that Christians who had been
thinking sex was ok to pass around like a pack of cigarettes were the primary
target of the founders of twi (especially the Founder). Others think this was
a fringe benefit he discovered early on, and decided to take advantage of.
What did this mean in a practical sense?
The average Joe Believer had no idea this was happening.
People who had made committments to join the way corpse or work on grounds as
staff, making the ministry their lives, were sorted into 3 categories:
A) those not spiritual enough to handle it
B) those spiritual enough to be let in on it
C) those spiritual enough to be on the receiving end
So, years after some incidents, there have been many Christians who love God
who put together the odd behaviour of some of the higher-ups and some young
women on staff who had mysterious nervous breakdowns, or left the grounds
suddenly. Some Christians at the time were told by the victims and had a
hard time accepting that supposed leaders of God's people could treat their
flock like disposable goods, and some refused to believe the victims on that
basis. Some STILL don't believe all the people who've come forth. The
concept of "cognitive dissonance" can be seen here. It can be monstrously
difficult to go from respecting someone as God's rep on earth to believing
he'd rape a Christian woman, and some can't do it.
On grounds, that was the work of a small cabal. Some have pointed out that
the "From Birth to the Corps" autobiographies required for all way corpse
applicants were most likely used to help sort the corps.
"Oh, you were raped as a teenager, and now have trouble trusting men?
Honey, all you need is the right man to show you how beautiful sex can be.."
The "right men" in these cases were married men, usually, and had no
compunctions about orchestrating an elaborate scenario where the woman had no
idea what was planned, and had no idea she was about to be drugged.
There are other incidents that involve women sleeping and receiving (lambano)
an unpleasant surprise as a guy decided to help himself. Some of these
occurred at hq, and some of them occurred on the road. What made it work so
well was that this cabal covered for each other. There were WOMEN in this
cabal, also-helping procure other women and facilitate their little surprises.
Thus, a woman might tell another that a certain leader (vpw, lcm whoever)
wanted to meet with her to discuss, oh, let's say, movement of The Word in
her hometown. Then she'd lead her off to an RV or other comfortably
appointed, yet isolated location, where the mog or moglet was waiting.
Then comes a few minutes of chat about the movement of The Word in her
hometown. "Here, have some wine-I hate to drink alone." Then things proceed
from there. I am personally baffled as to how some women could knowingly
help orchestrate this, but perhaps it's better my brain can't wrap itself
around that one.
BTW, it is certainly possible that some of the women were consenting to this-
that they either enthusiastically endorsed their own seduction (making it a
seduction rather than a molestation/rape scenario). Some women were so loyal
that they trusted every word out of vpw or lcm's mouth, and if he just said
this wasn't really a sin, then, by golly, it must not be. You've already
read some of the words used to convince women this was acceptable to God.
Some of us question just how "consentual" that can be, given the position of
trust these men were in.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/not-an-affair.htm
Women who weren't quite so enthusiastic to endorse their own molestation or
rape often were quietly sent out of the corpse and off grounds, and
effectively disappeared from twi, while stories of them being possessed or
whatever covered the tracks of the cabal. A few seem to have committed
suicide, which REALLY dropped them from sight. This worked until the internet
came along....
Who was in on it?
Well, MANY people have come forth about vpw.
MANY people have come forth about lcm, who was fired for the multiple lawsuits.
(He wasted money on lawyers, and committed the sin of getting caught.)
At least one woman said that Uncle Harry's first action on meeting her IN
PUBLIC AND STANDING NEXT TO VPW was to cop a feel off her. It's possible she
was lying-I'm not prepared to accept that, especially since it fits the whole
scenario too well. Men in power though that power entitled them to help
themselves to the women.
If you had sat thru pfal, you would have seen vpw mention the incident of
Nathan the prophet confronting David about the incident with Bathsheba.
(Had sex with her, then had her husband killed to cover his tracks.)
vpw's explanation was..original, to say the least.
He said that, "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king."
This was a VERY peculiar statement.
First off all, you will note it does NOT appear in Scripture. No Bible verse
was cited for this, for there IS no verse for this. The Old Testament laws
are very clear on adultery being a sin. There is NO verse saying the king is
exempt from being charged for any sin he committed, nor excused from having
sin imputed when he committed it. The concept was extra-Biblical. It's known
as the "droit de seigneur" and has been used by pagan tyrants in many places
in the world as a prerogative of their office. The Bible does NOT endorse it,
nor does it endorse the treating of women as merchandise or without respect.
Those who insist on vpw's innocence are unable to explain, using the Bible,
WHY this claim was made, why this statement appears in his signature work.
So, what happens when a paper-which SHOULD have been a "no duh" issue-comes
up saying "the Bible says adultery is wrong?"
Well, the highers-up who were "in the know" tried to hush it up. That's VERY
peculiar behaviour for a Christian to have.
It's also been said later, by some, that if they weren't an eyewitness to
the alleged rapes/molestations/whatever, that they don't believe them, or they
don't believe they were non-consentual, or that it was done intentionally,
with the intent of "toughening the women up spiritually" or other things.
Mind you, that's just from posts I've read HERE.
So, there is some room for disagreement here.
Almost all agree the Bible says adultery is wrong.
A few think the incidents were almost all consentual.
A few think they didn't happen.
A few think that ALL leaders abuse their office, so this should be expected.
Feel free to make up your own mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
John's adultery paper:
http://www.waychrist.com/adultery_paper.htm
Interview with Rev.Patricia Liberty, author of "Why it's not an affair"
http://www.excultworld.com/interviews/Patr...20Interview.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Goey
It is difficult for me to believe, because it was kept so quiet. Had some of these folks been so "convinced" as one might say, it probably would have been more verbalized, more taught, more established. The fact that these elite kept it quiet, tells me something. Logically, they didn't want this information to get out, because they knew something was wrong with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, it tells me that they were certain
OTHER PEOPLE WOULD THINK IT WAS WRONG.
Then it becomes a matter of "well, people whom aren't spiritually-mature enough
should not hear about it, since they wouldn't understand, and it would damage
their believing. Let's not put a stumblingblock before them. Let them eat their
herbs, and we'll eat our meat."
I have a suspicion that's EXACTLY the "argument" that was used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Refiner, if you want to read some more discussion on this subject, look up the "adultry" and "abuse" threads in the 'About the Way' section... they should be somewhere there in the first 10 pages... there's a lot of back and forth, first hand accounts, veepee idolizers denying, etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
imbus
Wordwolf,
Thank you. You stated things factually , logically and in a manner that at the end supplied room for opposing opinion. Thank you!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Altho John was the author of this, and got M&A -- and fired because of it -- He spoke the truth about adultry. Tho I have not heard it first hand, I have heard from those who have heard it first hand that it was said that "anyone who reads this will open themselves to devil spirits.
Come on -- reading a paper opens one up to daimon??????????? I don't think so. And I don't think you are quoting from the original paper that John S. wrote.
I have a copy of the original here that I got back in the mid-'80's, and I am willing to bet he made NO concession to adultry in any way whatsoever.
Pat posted the link he has on his site. I suggest you give it a look before you open your mouth and change feet.
Oh -- God bless, and have fun.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I recall very well when the Schoenheit paper came out. I was told directly that if I read it, I would get possessed! I remember a certain rev. who received the paper in the mail, never read it...just received it...and was fired.
The irony of it all is that if twi would have just let John S alone...not fire him but take his research paper and just "bury it", the whole thing probably would have blown over. Instead, by firing John, they arroused everybody's attention and interest and in effect made him a martyr. It put the spotlight on the whole sordid affair and then their house of cards crumbled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Outside of its original Way context, the "Schoenheit Paper" by itself is nothing especially spectacular or controversial.
It's rather kind of dull, actually.
It emphasizes, "Adultery is wrong, ma-kay?"
But to Wayshua's corrupted leadership engaged in fleshly avarice at the time, it was apparently a bombshell. It's too bad the world press missed out on the more scandalous, smaller but nastier breaking stories when concentrating only on Jim Bakker, swaggerin' Jim-what's-his-face and Oral Roberts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Who are you addressing, dmiller, as needing to "open...mouth and change feet"? If you're addressing Refiner, every quote in his first post in this thread is verbatim from John's paper, from the appendixes showing the faulty reasons that were used to say that adultery/fornication are okay.
I think you might be misinterpreting his point in posting them here.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
wowzer wordwolf
not sure if i'm the one who told about uncle harry but, if it was me, i wasn't lying
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I was told that JS's paper named names and read like a tabloid. Not true; it's just a word study on adultery slanted that there is no time period or administration where it was /is OK with God to do this. Sounded reasonable to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Refiner,
You got it right. Adultery was for the "spiritually mature," which translated to the higher leadership and whoever they were bedding.
A friend of mine wrote headquarters back around 1978, asking about sex outside of marriage. She felt it was simply an extension of loving others, a need to be met in herself, and okay as long as it didn't hurt anybody. She cited many of the Bible references about eating meat/herbs and all things being lawful. She sent the letter to the Research department.
She was told that she was wrong, and taking the Bible verses out of context. She was told that fornication and adultery were wrong. I don't know who specifically answered her letter (but it was someone in Research, not Wierwille). But it does point out that there were two different camps on this issue -- those that wanted to know what the Bible said, and those that wanted what they wanted.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
My3Cents
Just my 2 cents (and one for inflation)
The Schoenheit paper was basically a word study showing that adultery was not a good thing according to the bible. John did uncover lots of examples of adultery with muckety-mucks. He mentioned them to people he felt comfortable talking to about it but that stuff was not in his paper.
On another note, to say that this stuff was "taught" gives a slightly different impression of what life was like in the way under vpw. I'm not exactly sure how to explain it to folks that weren't there, but I'll try.
There was not as much "from the pulpit teaching" about lifestyle stuff (other than witnessing and tithing) like there apparently was under craig's later days.
Most of the sex stuff was just a cultural thing. If a question was raised, a scriptural rationalization was given. But to say "it was taught" makes it sound more weighty than it was.
Also the culture was that vpw didn't give any evidence of applying scripture to his own life. He never gave examples of making a decision where he wanted to do X but read the bible and decided to do Y. More of the examples were he decided what to do and looked for verses to back it up. (This was apparently how the research was done too but that's another topic).
So there was an "understanding" that if you were spiritual enough you just lived and everything was cool.
It was obvious he didn't run or eat like he told the corps to do. He didn't moderate his drinking or smoking. He certainly didn't give up any of his money toward any cause. (I know he didn't own much in a legal sense - but it was obvious he CONTROLLED a lot of cash and it mostly went toward building his empire in a way that added to his own creature comforts.) I guess what I mean by that was there was no practical distinction made between money spent on things that were good for vpw personally and money spent to "move the word."
Again this wasn't "taught" though there were some scriptures thrown around to justify it if a question were ever raised. BUT if a person raised too many questions it was obvious that that person was not very spiritual and even ostracized (though not in any official way like the later M&A - they usually just were made uncomfortable enough to leave of their own accord which made it easy for us to say they were possesed.)
vpw didn't even appear to spend a lot of time reading the bible. One woman I know, who cleaned his house, said that he would often prep for a Sunday night teaching by spending only about 15 minutes pulling together a bunch of verses.
The sex stuff was not as obvious (at least to me - which may say a lot about my powers of observation or my sex drive at the time) but it sure fit in with the culture vpw propogated, of do what you want and as long as the word is moving it's all OK.
I left in 86 I think it was, and apparently craig got a lot more meddlesome after a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think one reason the adultry thing was kept quiet among a lot of women was the "lockbox" doctrine.
When I was called into VP's motorcoach out of the blue one sunday, about an hour before he was to teach the SNS, I was an innocent, young 1st year corps person. I had no idea what he wanted. But, since he was the MOG, most people were a little flattered that he'd want to see you.
Anyway, sitting there in only his bathrobe he asked a few casual questions, then he got serious. He told me that what he was going to tell me was lockbox, and that he had never told this to anyone else - I was never to tell. He was very emphatic about that. He stressed highly it would be a betrayal of him if I told and I could not betray him. So now I'm thinking, uh-oh, I don't know if I really want to hear this big secret.
He then proceeded to tell the physical reason why he could not have sex with his wife. Because he now can't have sex with his wife, he then went on to explain in graphic detail what he would like to do to me sexually. I was stunned - we're talking porno here. I just stared at him. In this situation, you really can't quite believe what you just heard. I'm thinking to myself, is this some kind of a joke? He really doesn't mean this, right? What is going on here? So, I changed the subject and started talking about something else.
Ten seconds later, he again, repeated what he had said before. Now I'm thinking, how the hell do I get out of here? Just then, another female, top leadership woman, burst through the door. It was strange - no knock, nothing. I've often wondered if I was being set up for something. But, I've digressed. Anyway, I saw my opening and took it. I got up, and said, I have to go get ready for the service and walked out the door.
So now, here I am, I can't tell anyone what just happened, I've been told I am the only woman he's ever told this to, so what do I do? Well, for sure I'm never going to repeat it or tell a soul, its lockbox don't you know.
I think the only reason I was not dismissed from the corps is because my family was involved and my brother-in-law was a top reverend and region leader.
A couple of years later, I ran into a woman who I had been good friends with from my hometown in a local restaurant. She had gone into an early corps and had been abruptly thrown out. Everyone had wondered why - she was a great person. So, we talked. She hated VP. I asked why. She told me he had made advances towards her and she would not put out so he had dismissed her from the corps and the word was put out she was possessed and her good name was slandered. That was true, because that is what I had heard. Then, the kicker was, she said, did he tell you his big secret? And she told me the exact lockbox line he had used on me. She said he told that to all of the women - don't think I was so special. So here are all these woman who are keeping this secret and not telling a soul. Well, she woke me up.
So, I never made it into VP's inner circle sex club (thank God) because I would not play ball. I also found out years later my friend Valerie in the corps was put through the same thing. She also refused his advances. But, lockbox.
Why did I refuse? Simply because I believed it was wrong to have sex with a married man. It was adultry, I would not betray his wife. I also refused LCM. He had a different techinque to wrangle a woman into bed. But in my heart I felt I could not betray a friend's trust. Silly me....
So, I guess I'm saying, there was a lot of coercion and pressure and the feeling of being spiritual enough to "handle" this big secret, and you would rather die than break the lockbox. I can't explain it, weird group think and peer pressure. So, that's one reason why most people didn't know about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I thought another possible reason why folks didn't speak up when they should have, knowing full well that adultery is wrong, was the fact that generally, folks don't want to upset the apple cart.
It's a difficult thing to go on a crusade to make a point, even if one is absolutely correct. Most folks just live and try to get by, ignoring what they know in their heart is right, but can't bear to make themselves a "pain in the butt". For most, it's human nature to want to take the easy way out, to want to take the path of least resistance.
I bet John Schoenheit felt super lousy when he was fired. But now, years later, I bet he feels so sweet and good and proud (in a good way) he took a stand back then, something he'll never forget.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Sun
Your account is very similar to mine. Except Mrs. W was the woman who entered the coach and, I too, saw it as a means to escape.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
And I can bet that there was never anything wrong with Mrs. W. It was just VP's m.o.
There is a shock kind of reaction (cognitive dissonance) that happens to a person when presented with unexpected, shocking information. But in hindsight, here's what I would have loved to say to him, had it been me...
1.) "Mrs. W can't have sex? Aww, I bet you're gonna miss that. But so good of you to stand by her. I really respect that in a man."
2.) "Have sex with YOU? Sure, let's go talk to Mrs. W about that."
3.) "Do WHAT? With that? What is that -- it looks like a p****, only smaller!"
'Scuse me,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I was at a CES function Sunday, and John S. was one of the teachers. He is doing great, and proud to still be standing for, and teaching about the Word, and it's Author.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Linda -- yes I did misinterpret. I got my copy out to read, and you are right. Your reprimand is duely noted, and accepted!
;)-->
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.