THE *LOY*-ALTY LETTER

[oldiesman]

In any case that is your perception of your own experience. Many others had much different experiences during that same period, yet you do not include their experiences in your assement of things. How objective is that?.

Well this works both ways.

While I can only be a witness to my own experience and that which I have personally witnessed, I'm always open to hearing and assessing others' experiences and try to factor that in.

But, I am not going to ignore or poo poo MY experience, which you consistently seem to do.

Versions of things other than yours might be something you might want to try to consider when making YOUR assessment of things.

[oldiesman]

Those who couldn't or wouldn't leave the past behind, were asked to leave.

No those who would not accept guesses and opinions rather than the biblical words that He and you for that matter were taught to use in decisions in spiritual matters - were asked to leave. Not the Same.......

I simply think those who didn't want to stand with Craig in the movement of the Word were asked to leave, it's really that simple.

Here is another way he put it in his April 14, 1989 letter, some biblical words:

Another aspect that occurred to me is what Jesus said in Matthew 12:30: "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." So men and women have to decide whether they stand with someone or do not stand with someone. Obviously, I believed it was time to make this distinction again.

I believe the distinction was all the more necessary, because of all the purported hard feelings and ill will against Craig at that time.

I have even heard some opinions (maybe you have too) that it even goes as far back as 1982, when Craig was installed as president. The ill will and resentment started with some leaders way back then. Some leaders of the way never accepted his installation, believing it should be someone else, believing Craig was an idiot jock or whatever, and all those years let the negative feelings brew, just waiting for an opportunity to rebel.

Profit followed? Are you stoned?

No, I don't believe so.

Because their very respect for Almighty God was inextricably intertwined with their respect for LCM. Eliminate the second, and the first evaporates. That's worship right there, buddy.

I think that is a slight extremist position.

He was running those things into the ground!

If you are talking, say, after 1993, I'd tend to agree. Edited October 21, 2005 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

The problem arises when LCM states that

1) he is the ONLY available choice.

2) and bolsters his claim with outright falsehoods, macho chest thumping and Poor me's rather than Showing specifics of how he has changed and how he has applied the Word. Instead he again dodges the accusations leveled at him with less than full disclosure

At that point he did believe he was God's choice to lead the ministry as he was commissioned to do, and he had not quit and was still moving.

And he believed his was God's choice from the installation.

Here's an excerpt from his letter:

I believe I am on God's Word and doing what I was commissioned and ordained to do by our wonderful father in the Word. I am doing my utmost to move that Word. I am teaching Sunday Night Services, coordinating the Way Corps, endeavoring to oversee the WOW program, and teaching the Book of Acts to many of our Twig coordinators, as well as the other details of the ministry. I have not quit.

Genuine spiritual suspicion- a guess maybe right maybe wrong another words we have no clue why because we are so far from God we can't hear His Voice. By the Way what happened to their training from VP to know that you know that you know........

If memory serves, I think the "genuine spiritual suspicion" false doctrine started sometime in 1994.

[Goey]

Oldies Posted:

Well this works both ways.

While I can only be a witness to my own experience and that which I have personally witnessed, I'm always open to hearing and assessing others' experiences and try to factor that in.

But, I am not going to ignore or poo poo MY experience, which you consistently seem to do.

Versions of things other than yours might be something you might want to try to consider when making YOUR assessment of things.

Of course it works both ways Oldies. No one is asking you to completely discount your own experience, only that you take into account what others experienced at the same time in different places.

My personal version of things ended in about late 82. But as early as 79 folks were being raked over the coals for not ABSing enough. I was personally singled out in one meeting of twig coordinators and literally screamed at in front of everyone there by the WC branch leader for not ABSing the minimum for the previous month.

When I make my assesment of things after '83, I consider my own experiences and the combined experiences of those who remained in TWI past that, yours included. Also I have two brothers that remained in until the loyalty letter to draw from.

However, your experience, as your relate it, is only one of very many, and it sticks out like a sore thumb in the whole scope of things. In considering it, I like to apply one of VPWs keys . When lots of clear verses say one thing, and one sits there like a sore thumb and seems to say another, the witness of the many verses wins out. The contrdictory verse , could be a mistranslation, added by the translators, or even a forgery.

So my assesment is that your experience was kind of an exception/anomoly and not representative of TWI as a whole, especially considering the testimony of others that were in a better position to know what was really going than you were.

Someone once told me: If you are in a room with 100 of your peers and 99 say the light is blue but you say the light is red. The light is probably blue.

Edited October 21, 2005 by Goey

[Raf]

No, Oldies, my comment was not an exaggeration in the slightest. Your celebrated ignorance on these matters is astonishing.

[oldiesman]

Despite what I've said about Wierwille being no different than Martindale in this regard, Wierwille convinced us that it was a ministry of God, and that it was our ministry, and that he, above all wanted us to stand for God and not for him...I don't believe that was what Wierwille really stood for though.

I still believe that Oakspear. You explained it well even though you don't believe it anymore.

[Goey]

Oldies,

I think you missed Oaks point.

I don't think he was saying that TWI was a ministry of God and that it was ours, only that Wierwille convinced, [ (mis)led ] us to believe us that it was. Martindale had a hard time convincing lots of folks of much of anything.

[oldiesman]

However, your experience, as your relate it, is only one of very many, and it sticks out like a sore thumb in the whole scope of things. In considering it, I like to apply one of VPWs keys . When lots of clear verses say one thing, and one sits there like a sore thumb and seems to say another, the witness of the many verses wins out. The contrdictory verse , could be a mistranslation, added by the translators, or even a forgery.

So my assesment is that your experience was kind of an exception/anomoly and not representative of TWI as a whole, especially considering the testimony of others that were in a better position to know what was really going than you were.

Someone once told me: If you are in a room with 100 of your peers and 99 say the light is blue but you say the light is red. The light is probably blue.

Goey, I submit that my belief in and agreement with Craig's 1989 letters are most likely minority beliefs. But I think my reasoning is still sound, nonetheless.

However, as far as my overall experience and witness that twi was at one time "moving the Word" and a "ministry of God", I believe that may be the majority opinion of ex-wayers too. It depends on who you talk to I suppose, but I hold to that opinion not only because of my own personal experiences, and those of others that I know, some of who were in better position than me to know, but also those that are STILL THERE somehow hanging in and being loyal even today, plus all the plethora of folks in the offshoots, who have "eaten the fish and spit out the bones".

[Morgan]

However, as far as my overall experience and witness that twi was at one time "moving the Word" and a "ministry of God", I believe that may be the majority opinion of ex-wayers too. It depends on who you talk to I suppose, but I hold to that opinion not only because of my own personal experiences, and those of others that I know, some of who were in better position than me to know, but also those that are STILL THERE somehow hanging in and being loyal even today, plus all the plethora of folks in the offshoots, who have "eaten the fish and spit out the bones".

Well no doubt there were some truths taught by TWI - afterall, every lie must have some truth to it to be believable. However, don't be so sure that all of those who are still hanging in are doing so out of loyalty, though how much of that loyalty is to the true God and how much of that loyalty is to people, money, power, etc is certainly open to debate. OH, I'm sure there are some - no doubt. There are also those who "hang in" out of fear. Fear of the loss of their families, fear that there is "no where else to go", etc. But I wouldn't confuse fear with loyalty. Likewise, I wouldn't confuse loyalty to idols with loyalty to God.

[oldiesman]

Fear not.

And have a great weekend...

[Raf]

Wow. You do appear to be as blissful as anyone I've ever known. :)

[templelady]

those who didn't want to stand with Craig in the movement of the Word

Oldies,

Don't you see ???

it was LCM's contention that you had to have HIM (LCM) in order to move the word.!!

And that, my friend, is so limiting as to the power of GOD as to be offensive in the enth degree,

[lilbit]

When I read the letter the other morning... the last few days have been rather rough. It triggered alot of emotion. It reminded me of my days in the corps and the ranting and raving that incured. The tone was abusive at times but the words, down right injurous. The letter for me spoke the same language. What I felt has been anger, shame, confusion, betrayal and guilt. Shame and Guilt for not "standing" with LCM and anger that I still feel these feelings. Betrayal because I trusted this ministy with my whole being to teach me about God and they abused that trust.

I've come along was since I left. My beliefs are my own and I have very strong boundries to protect me and what I believe. But once in a while there is a topic that puts me back in the moments of abuse and this letter is one of those moments. Shame and guilt was the M.O used to keep folks in their place.

Although I feel what I feel, I will not die and this too shall pass.

[WordWolf]

I'll simplify this discussion slightly.

"I am Agedsperson!

When 80% of the ministry left in 1989, I stayed.

I stayed thru the slow death spiral of the early 1990s,

and left when the 2nd half of the 1990s introduced even WORSE policies.

I never SAW any wrongdoing, and I never DID any wrongdoing!

Therefore, everything I did was correct.

Those whose actions were different, by definition, did NOT do the correct thing.

Since I left in the late 1990s, that was the correct time to leave.

Those who left later stayed too late, those who left before stayed too early.

Those who stayed when I left were blind, those who left sooner were contentious.

I stayed in 1989, therefore anyone who left in 1989 was wrong to do so.

Period."

========

Clear enough for almost everyone?

All right-

now let's have coffee and cake in the music room!

[Brother Speed]

Nope

The best or the most perfect time to leave twi was the first day before you started. The second best time to leave twi is any day after you started.

[Oakspear]

Oldies,

I think you missed Oaks point.

I don't think he was saying that TWI was a ministry of God and that it was ours, only that Wierwille convinced, [ (mis)led ] us to believe us that it was. Martindale had a hard time convincing lots of folks of much of anything.

Goey, you are correct

[Samurai]

The more I read that letter the more I agree with it.

The 'mindset of total suspicion' was so true of that day and time, among other things he wrote.

Right on.

That's why the whole penchant accusatory mindset was based on suspicion. Nothing much concrete.

I was there during the whole loyal letter thing and watched my branch/area coordinators get fired and had their furniture that was purchased with a loan from the Way Credit Union be confiscated by another leader in the area who responded favorably to the loyality letter and kept his job.

Anywho, allegations of sexual misconduct were being told. Repeatedly. If anyone has listened to the tapes or gone to the meetings conducted by John Lynn or Ralph D and others, you would have heard of Ralph D confront LCM about the sexual misconduct and how LCM was justifying it as sexual healings and stuff like that.

Nothing that is being dealt with today is new or just pulled out of someone's sleeve as a trick. These reports have been told since way back when. For almost twenty years now.

Looking back...

It is interesting that during this time period that allagations of sexual misconduct or any other type of did not surface (or surface to the point that I heard of such things).

either:

1. No misconduct conduct was happening

2. No body knew of any misconduct

3. All parties were involved in misconduct.

I draw the comparison to the relationship between lcm and cg to the United States and the Soviet Union.

Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R had high power weapons and were set in a position to use them, therefore they/we didn't...

I wonder if lcm and cg have enough information/documentation that was "set in the ready" on each other that there were some areas that they were both reluctant to bring "to light"?

We may never know all the details of everything that happened...

I believe that there are still many secrets that have yet to be revealed.

This is the original quote I meant to use for my post and the quote I used was the one oldiesman responded with to this post.

All that information about sexual misconduct WAS being shared with whomever would listen.

And yes, it was one big power trip. CG was doing tapes out of Scotland at that time about how the apostles tried to set Paul up when he came to Jerusalem to get him murdered and how they all deserted Paul when he was arrested there.

Many believers took the correlations and believed what CG was telling them and thought that LCM was trying to set up CG for a fall; everyone was claiming to be the one true man of god and using the bible to prove it. Pitiful. A corporate takeover using the bible.

[Oakspear]

I'll simplify this discussion slightly...

Since I left in the late 1990s, that was the correct time to leave.

Those who left later stayed too late, those who left before stayed too early.

Those who stayed when I left were blind, those who left sooner were contentious...

Yeah WW, you've summed it up nicely as usual. Unfortunately, OM isn't the only one to have the "I left at the exact right time" syndrome.

-_-

[Bramble]

I sometimes wish we had left in the big purge, but we really didn't have the type of info many of you did, plus our 'nicest' corps leadership was determined to stay.

It seems that many that did leave in the '89 time frame had lots of support, fellowships, continued friendships etc.

[oldiesman]

Anywho, allegations of sexual misconduct were being told. Repeatedly. If anyone has listened to the tapes or gone to the meetings conducted by John Lynn or Ralph D and others, you would have heard of Ralph D confront LCM about the sexual misconduct and how LCM was justifying it as sexual healings and stuff like that.

Then you would have had justification to leave, even BEFORE the loyalty letter; but that was not the reason from what I saw.

I spoke with my twig coordinator, branch coordinator, area coordinator, limb coordinator about them leaving, and not one of these folks said anything about sexual misconduct of LCM. Nor did the many twiggies I spoke with about that.

I personally spoke with the limb coordinator, June of that year (1989), asking him to stand with Craig. Had he responded something like this, "well Phil, the reason why I am not standing with Craig is, among others, cause he has committed adultery in the past, and doesn't want to change".

Had he responded like that, I would have respected his decision!

Instead of that, he said that I was carnal, my family was carnal, that the BOT is carnal and worshipping other gods, with no specifics.

Gee, what a spiritual guy.

Therefore I concluded that sexual misconduct of LCM had little to do with folks leaving, and I still hold to that opinion and haven't heard a whole lot of evidence otherwise.

Oldies,

Don't you see ???

it was LCM's contention that you had to have HIM (LCM) in order to move the word.!!

What I saw was he was asking for support from his staff and if at that point the staff and corps couldn't or wouldn't give it to him, for whatever reason, he was asking them to be honest about it and resign.

Craig wrote

To stand with God means to do His Word and will. That includes walking with mutual love and respect and like-mindedness and one accord. Each of us must decide with whom we want to do that.

Here he implies that one CAN stand with God in a situation other than standing with him, and he asked folks to be honest with themselves and if they couldn't support him, go elsewhere where you can stand with God with someone else.

[Goey]

Posted By Oldiesman:

Quote:

"I personally spoke with the limb coordinator, June of that year (1989), asking him to stand with Craig. Had he responded something like this, "well Phil, the reason why I am not standing with Craig is, among others, cause he has committed adultery in the past, and doesn't want to change".

Had he responded like that, I would have respected his decision!

Instead of that, he said that I was carnal, my family was carnal, that the BOT is carnal and worshipping other gods,

with no specifics.

Gee, what a spiritual guy.

Therefore I concluded that sexual misconduct of LCM had little to do with folks leaving, and I still hold to that opinion and haven't heard a whole lot of evidence otherwise."

=====================================================

Oldies, how could you have possibly made that conclusion, when according to your previous posts, you had never heard of any sexual misconduct at that time?

[oldiesman]

At that time I didn't know anything about sexual misconduct.

But you are correct, it couldn't have been a "conclusion", since it wasn't relevant to begin with.

[Goey]

At that time I didn't know anything about sexual misconduct.

But you are correct, it couldn't have been a "conclusion", since it wasn't relevant to begin with.

Let's get your story straight. You said it was a conclusion, and the language you used implied that you made that conclusion at that time, and that you "still" hold to that conclusion.

You previously said, "Therefore I concluded ......" in regards to the conversation with you limb coordinator back in '89.

So then are you retracting/revising this previous statement?

Edited October 24, 2005 by Goey

[rascal]

Lets get this straight.....we had a man who had proven himself to be unstable ..... he had demonstrated his lack of spiritual discernment by repeatedly acting out on false information and making assumptions about peoples character and motives whom he had never met.

When proven wrong, he never apologised or

You had this man DEMANDING a sworn oath of loyalty.....stating uncatagoprically *and don`t give me any of that standing with God crap* ......standing with God was called CRAP by this man demanding our unswerving loyalty and allegiance....... he required this from people who were not even twig coordinators....being people of integrety....we knew that to swear that oath to him....to pledge our loyalty to him....rather than God or the ministry....we were setting ourselves up to be honor bound to support this man in whatever crazy direction that he chose to go.

We had two choices swear an oath of allegiance to a mad man or accept the consequences of angering him further.

Sure it would have been easy to write the damned letter and feel safe a little while longer....but it wouldn`t have been honest.....EVEN had craig been in the right....he required from us that which he had no right to.

Our loyalty was and always would be to God almighty and not any man.

[oldiesman]

Let's get your story straight. You said it was a conclusion, and the language you used implied that you made that conclusion at that time, and that you "still" hold to that conclusion. ...

I misspoke. I couldn't have made that conclusion back then, because at that time, I hadn't known anyone who was complaining about LCM's sexual misconduct, or that his sexual misconduct was a reason they gave for not standing with him.