Our loyalty was and always would be to God almighty and not any man.
I do not believe this to be the case. We can be loyal to people as well.
Here's an excerpt from Craig's companion letter of April 14, 1989: (I have added paragraphs to make it an easier read).
The concept of a leader's expecting loyalty from the people he is called to serve the Word to and work with as fellow laborers in moving God's Word is not a new one. Some of the people I have received responses from act as if they have never heard of such a concept as my asking for this kind of commitment to be made. They act incredulous that I would even bring it up; I am surprised at their response. Of course, many have used the word "carnal" to back up their logic; but, as I mentioned in the previous letter, this is not the situation in that category. It certainly could be a carnal action to dedicate oneself to serve with somebody, but that is determined by the mind-set and the attitude involved.
As you well know, God is always first; but there are also other commitments that have to be made in life if we are going to enjoy the benefits of working together. For instance, commitment in marriage is certainly required; yet that doesn't mean you put your spouse above God. Commitment in raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is required, but that doesn't mean you put them above God. There is a commitment in secular employment to be honest and do your best to serve your employer, but that doesn't mean your employer has to be put before God. Well, the same is true in commitment spiritually to moving the Word of God with leadership in the Church of the Body. This is very godly and very necessary, which is obvious when looking at God's Word. It certainly isn't anything new for a leader to request and expect that kind of loyalty to his life and decisions in the light of God's Word.
There are numerous examples in God's Word, like Moses when he drew the line with the children is Israel and challenged them to either stand with him or stand with the unbelievers who were dividing the camp. God challenged the children of Israel to stand with Joshua as they had stood with Moses, after Moses's death. Joshua had to challenge the people later on to stand with him on God's Word or go another route. Elijah requested the same when he challenged the prophets of Baal in front of all the people. Obviously, Jesus Christ demanded this loyalty time after time from his disciples and apostles and consistently confronted them. Of course, the great apostle Paul expected this, as is noted throughout the Church Epistles, when he would point out by name those who were fellow laborers with him and a comfort to him, and he at times pointed out those who were not. This really crescendoes in I and II Timothy when by name he points out those who have stood with him and those who stood against him.
It is not just a case of walking with God only and ignoring everyone else. In the Body of Christ, you have great sections of scripture like Romans 13 that show how the Church is to function with the ministries. Obviously again, this does not mean to elevate any leader above God; but within the commitment to God first, there are other commitments that are expected and need to be made if we are going to move the Word to the full extent that God expects us to.
Does expecting and requiring this kind of loyalty make Moses carnal? Elijah? Joshua? Paul? Jesus Christ? Absolutely not. The carnality is determined by the mind-set and the heart involved in those who are making the decision. I expect godly, loving, honest obedience and support according to God's Word and nothing beyond that.
You're right. It was a good reason to leave and my family and I did just that. I am glad that we had access to people who got tired of shoveling it under the rug and pointed us to people who were talking.
I am sorry you got blamed for asking legitimate questions of those who were to be guides, guards and shepards and an oasis in the desert.
That letter sounds pretty good on the surface, but LCM's actions belied his words.
LCM said:
I expect godly, loving, honest obedience and support according to God's Word and nothing beyond that.
Yet when folks replied with answers along that same line, they were summarily dismissed.
Can you say two-faced? One was the face of a humble man of God only interested only in moving God's word, and the other was the face of a sexually depraved, power hungry sociopath, willing to trample on anyone that got in his way.
Additionally, do you allow that maybe God can forgive past sins of people in their life who want to make a fresh start moving the Word and being in fellowship with God and people?
Often, it is not a "fresh" start.. often, it is the same old same old.. same error ridden doctrine, same abusive practice..
kinda like VP's "fresh start" outside of the watchful eye of his old denomination.
I wouldn't paint everybody with the same brush though.. there are quite a few exceptions to this..
But for the original topic of the thread:
The ONLY spin I heard (or was ALLOWED to hear) was loy's- that "we are their employer, and that they owe us some loyalty.." now I hear stories where people were unceremoniously "dumped" for expressing loyalty to God first.. what arrogance of a man, to think that that same loyalty implied absolute loyalty to himself..
Somehow, I thought der vey was supposed to be a fellowship, an association, even at a clergy level.. that the PRIMARY allegience ws supposed to be to God Almighty..
Interesting how loyalty was demanded by an organization, that demanded:
1. To acknowledge the infallibility of a MAN
2. to hold dearly to their "traditions"-
3. and the lowest priority on their agenda- "the Word".
As you well know, God is always first; but there are also other commitments that have to be made in life if we are going to enjoy the benefits of working together. For instance, commitment in marriage is certainly required; yet that doesn't mean you put your spouse above God.
Stop the tape -- look at the 6 words (in bold) just after *For instance*. Meebe one can re-neg on promises of committment in marriage (still putting god first - you understand), and then demand a loyalty unquestioned to himself??
Let's continue ...
Commitment in raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord is required, but that doesn't mean you put them above God. There is a commitment in secular employment to be honest and do your best to serve your employer, but that doesn't mean your employer has to be put before God.
How can you raise children this way, if you are not setting the example?? Is raising children in the *nurture and admonition of the Lord* re-hashed in the old addage ---
"DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO"??
Well, the same is true in commitment spiritually to moving the Word of God with leadership in the Church of the Body. This is very godly and very necessary, which is obvious when looking at God's Word. It certainly isn't anything new for a leader to request and expect that kind of loyalty to his life and decisions in the light of God's Word.
No -- it is not new for a leader to ask for commitment, but what is new is for one who doesn't walk the talk to expect others to do the opposite.
Sorry Oldies -- like Goey said -- on the surface this looks good, but so did the whited sepulchers Jesus had something to say about.
And while I am at it -- Mr. H succinctly pointed out:
Interesting how loyalty was demanded by an organization, that demanded:
1. To acknowledge the infallibility of a MAN
2. to hold dearly to their "traditions"-
3. and the lowest priority on their agenda- "the Word".
Stop the tape -- look at the 6 words (in bold) just after *For instance*. Meebe one can re-neg on promises of committment in marriage (still putting god first - you understand), and then demand a loyalty unquestioned to himself??
Perhaps LCM's view of commitment in marriage was that the spouse would stay in the marriage and not raise a stink when the other was either 'blessing' a Man of God, or the husband was getting his 'needs' met with someone else.
When Martindale said something along the lines of "...and don't give me any of that 'standing with God' crap", he was not saying that "standing with God" was crap. He was saying that refusing to make a decision between standing with him and standing with Chris Geer "in the movement of the Word", by saying that you were standing with God, was crap. Splitting hairs, maybe, but they're not the same thing.
Martindale had been brought up by Wierwille to believe that one could not truly stand with God outside of TWI. Despite his hypocrisy, he was stating that one could not stand with God by following Geer, or by sitting on the fence.
You are still attempting to imply that lcm was a reasonable man, making a reasonable demand from people whom owed him NOTHING! We were not employees, we were not leaders, we were simple believers whom had selflessly served twi exclusively for decades with no recompense.
As long as he acted on behalf of God and in the best interest of the people placed in his care than he would have been worthey of our respect and loyalty......but he never WAS that.
He was a seriously unstable individual who went ballistic when he didn`t recieve the unquestioning obedience he viewed was his due..........and LIKE an over emotional two year old, he threw a temper tantrum.
In any other scenario he would have been viewed as a highly dangerous mentally ill individual, but because he was considered a mog....few realised this.
He was a man who thought NOTHING of vindictively destroying a person when thwarted. I am talking when refused sexually, when confronted on his adultery, when not obeyed implicitly. He treated people visciously making harsh judgements that he had never even met.....just based on wild assumptions....it was a lot easier to dismiss em from the ministry and declare them worthless than to ever make an inquery and find out if there had been a mistake
He was a world class bully throwing hos weight around, and when he declared a containeding contest, the fool lost.
If you didn't think LCM was standing on the Word, you left when you got that letter, because it was clear that he was using the ministry as a bully pulpit and had no intention of changing.
If you did think LCM was sincere in his efforts to change, you stayed, figuring the people who were leaving were not giving him a fair shake, and that the demands for "change" were too vague anyway, and there was work to do that was not getting done.
I think history proved the first group was correct, but I can't blame anyone in the second group for drawing that conclusion. It was reasonable, given the absence of information. However, I can't see how anyone could look back, knowing what we know now, and think staying was the right thing to do. That's just blissfull, in my opinion.
When Martindale said something along the lines of "...and don't give me any of that 'standing with God' crap", he was not saying that "standing with God" was crap. He was saying that refusing to make a decision between standing with him and standing with Chris Geer "in the movement of the Word", by saying that you were standing with God, was crap. Splitting hairs, maybe, but they're not the same thing.
Thanks for pointing that out Oakspear.
... Despite his hypocrisy, he was stating that one could not stand with God by following Geer, or by sitting on the fence.
Actually Oakspear, he did suggest in the letter that one may stand with God irrespective of what people one chooses to stand with. I thought that was a great statement he wrote.
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.
That includes walking with MUTUAL love and respect and like-mindedness and one accord.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.. lets see..
WE (well, at least a lot of us..) are REQUIRED and OWE HIM the respect due only to the Almighty..
and loy- well, he owes US- nothing. Nope. Stand with ME, or else..
Doesn't sound very "mutual" to me.
When people withheld ABS because of his lack of love, respect, and intelligence.. he went berserk- calling them every nasty word in the book..
"How DARE YOU!!!!!"
Well, some dared.. :D
For instance, commitment in marriage is certainly required; yet that doesn't mean you put your spouse above God.
I would like clarification. How in the world would you put your spouse above God? Perhaps it would entail: not accepting your new corps assignment to Timbuctu, and instead listening to their loving pleas for stability for the family..
Perhaps instead of spending so much time, money and resources on a stinking ministry, you take said person out on a nice quiet vacation somewhere..
don't "need" a vacation, when you have "twig", I guess.
Naw, we wanna serve God, do we not..
I really think this kind of example is what loy had in mind..
Yup, he was. But in the context of what he and all the rest of us were taught by Wierwille, it was consistant.
"You are still attempting to imply that lcm was a reasonable man, making a reasonable demand from people whom owed him NOTHING!"
No, you are incorrect. I think that subsequent events indicate quite strongly that Martindale was, if not a raving lunatic, then a manipulative, hypocritical, abusing S.O.B., who squandered what he inherited from his "Father in the Word", Wierwille. VP at least had the ability to make us believe that we were getting blessed, whether we were or not.
"We were not employees, we were not leaders, we were simple believers whom had selflessly served twi exclusively for decades with no recompense."
Okay, but as I've been saying, TWI NEVER was a place where it was "available" to stand against the MOG.
"As long as he acted on behalf of God and in the best interest of the people placed in his care than he would have been worthey of our respect and loyalty......but he never WAS that."
Whoa! I thought that we were supposed to stand with and give our loyalty to God, not man? Even if Martindale was Christ-on-a-stick, according to the logic I've seen posted here, he would still not have had the right to ask for, nor expect, loyalty.
"He was a seriously unstable individual who went ballistic when he didn`t recieve the unquestioning obedience he viewed was his due..........and LIKE an over emotional two year old, he threw a temper tantrum.
In any other scenario he would have been viewed as a highly dangerous mentally ill individual, but because he was considered a mog....few realised this."
Yup, and it got worse
At no point on this thread have I suggested that Martindale was a godly man, that he was worthy of respect or loyalty, or that folks who left were wrong to do so. But I don't believe that suggesting that Martindale thought or said that "standing on the Word" was crap helps to make the case for "the other side of the story".
Reasonable people can disagree on some of the details. Raf summarizes things nicely, IMHO
The fact that Martindale demanded a signed loyalty oath speaks volumes...how insecure can a guy be?
Panic? Delusions of grandeur? Maybe he was wearing his leotards too tight. In any case, Martindale made it easy for folks to walk away from the precipice...I mean, asking people to sign a loyalty oath was Martindale's public proclamation that his "cheese had slipped off the cracker". With due respect to Raf's point...I contend that anybody worth their salt walked out the door at that point.
I think it was more like a pathetic attempt to exercise authority that he thought that he had, but obviously didn't.
Wierwille never needed to have the loyalty of us mind numbed waybots put into writing. He hid his shortcomings from the vast majority of us quite well. What's scary is that Martindale could have had all of that too, if he had been a better con artist.
What's sad (for Martindale, not for us) is that despite his whining about not getting the "benefit of the doubt", most people did give him the benefit of the doubt after his elevation to MOGdom. Many people thought others, such as Cummins, Lynn, Dubofsky, were better qualified to take Wierwille's place, but were willing to accept Martindale as Wierwille's annointed successor. Martindale blew all of that. He just didn't realize that authority cannot simply be conferred. For it to be effective, authority must be coupled with respect; it must be earned. He looked at the respect, and yes, loyalty, that Wierwille received, and assumed that it was his divine-right due, without making the slightest atempt to earn it.
Wierwille never needed to have the loyalty of us mind numbed waybots put into writing.
Not so Oakspear.
Part of Craig's rationale was that this had been done several times before by VP, when VP perceived that folks needed to recommitment themselves to stand with VP and Corps leadership in the movement of the Word. Therefore Craig wonders why should folks now act so incredulous that he, Craig, make the same request.
The focus is on making a commitment to stand with Craig to move the Word.
Here's an excerpt from Craig's April 14, 1989 Loyalty Companion Letter:
I expect godly, loving, honest obedience and support according to God's Word and nothing beyond that. This is not pushing anyone to carnality, but indeed doing something that Dr. Wierwille himself did on a number of occasions. I remember several times in which he challenged the Corps to say whether they were going to follow and stand with us in Corps leadership, or else just to leave. I was involved with him several times when he did it with 3 x 5 cards. Was that carnal? Certainly not. It was very necessary. How can anyone be flabbergasted that I would have the audacity to ask them to make these statements? It's beyond me.
And so part of Craig's rationale was that folks were leaving *just because* of this request for loyalty which was widely considered by those leaving, to be "carnal". They were saying he was carnal, and "look at how off he is." Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.
Craig also invited folks to be specific with reproof and where he was off.
He wrote:
If you can read to me from the Word of God in clearness (not just vague, general scriptures and boring cliches), then I am willing to heed and listen, as I have continued to over these past years.
This indicates that instead of receiving specific godly scriptural reproof, he said he received vagueness, and much suspicion.
He also wrote:
This whole mind-set of suspicion has been fostered and built to the end that a man is not esteemed highly in love for his work's sake, but is condemned and considered guilty before he even has the opportunity to prove anything.
And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.
Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.
VPW was indeed carnal when he made similar demands of loyalty and obedience. That's why quite a few of his early associates dissapeared.
However, from a strictly corporate (business) point of view both VPW and LCM were justified in their demands of loyalty and obedience. The Way International Incorporated as an employer had the right to expect loyalty and obedience from it's paid employees as a condition of employment, just like IBM or any other employer..
The problem with this is that TWI was presented as a ministry of God, not the corporation that is really was and still is.
The focus is on making a commitment to stand with Craig to move the Word.
[The focus was on making a commitment to stand with Craig-
moving the Word was incidental. ]
And so part of Craig's rationale was that folks were leaving *just because* of this request for loyalty which was widely considered by those leaving, to be "carnal". They were saying he was carnal, and "look at how off he is." Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.
[ It was carnal, but vpw got away with it.]
Craig also invited folks to be specific with reproof and where he was off.
[ But if you HAD showed up with specific reproof, you would have been screamed at
and escorted off-grounds. That happened to staff and corps. lcm made those claims as
a display of machismo, since if NOBODY came forward, he said "See, I'm right! There were
no objections!" and if SOMEBODY came forward, he got to burn off testosterone,
scream at them, and have them dragged off grounds. If LOTS of people came forward,
it was a CONSPIRACY and he could open fire with a gun. ]
This indicates that instead of receiving specific godly scriptural reproof, he said he received vagueness, and much suspicion.
[ Hm. Sure explains why he himself confessed he "helped kill" vpw. He had a guilty conscience
at SOME level.
Again, however, lcm generally was immune to specific godly scriptural reproof-
unless vpw's name was attached to it.
ANY kind of reproof from vpw-like "keep your hands off my stuff"
was "specific godly scriptural reproof"
and anything from anyone else was NOT. ]
And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.
[ "Most" had SOME degree of information that they based a decision on.
Nowhere in ANY letter was any version of the phrase "let me prove myself" or
"I can do better than you've ever seen me do" or
"I can get the job done in an excellent fashion".
So, where is this "asking for an opportunity to prove himself" coming from,
except projection?
It is understandable to have made such a mistake back then,
to think that when lcm wrote something, that he was truthful and not a liar.
(He learned that from an expert.)
To be aware of what was going on, and to claim in HINDSIGHT
that this letter was truthful is,
well, it's not mentally healthy. ]
============
==================
"Out There" PHONED him and spoke to him PERSONALLY on this.
======
"Out There":
"When I received the Loyalty letter in the mail I immediately called LCM and by some miracle
after leaving a message he actually called me back.
When I asked if this letter
was a call to blindly follow him
he said I had been doing this all along.
I then told him thats what he thinks he could 'kiss my foot'.
I think I was dropped from the rolls of the Way Corps that next morning."
=====
Therefore,
lcm was WELL AWARE he was calling for blind, unquestioning loyalty to
HIM,
and thought that blind, unquestioning loyalty was his DUE.
People of integrety and honor left at that point...knowing full well that when we left...that many of the folks who would take our places were legalistic hard nosed bullies....those are the ones who were being rewarded.....the nastier you were the higher up the tree you were assigned..
When we were removed for not complying with his dishonest request....think about it....anyone who had the integrety and courage to stand up and say *no this is not right or reasonable* we knew full well that this was mostly an excuse to get people out of the way that had been attempting to stand with decency and honor against the tide of cruelty and legalism.
Just imagine how in one fell swoop lcm managed to rid the ministry of any who would interfere with his lunacy....
When we were removed....we knew that most of the genuinely kind upper leadership...the ones who had protected their people from the worst antics at hq were forced into leaving as well....
We didn`t WANT to go....we had every intention of supporting twi as ardently as ever....but lcm didn`t want that.......we were lifers....never considered not being in twi and supportinmg it with every fiber of our being....
I remember being grieved for what was going to happen to people without the folks of integrety and loyalty to God rather than a man left.....the folks who had been standing in the gap so to speak.....attempting to stem the tide of harsh legalism....... I could see how bleak participation in twi was going to be with only the hard nosed bullies being recognised and given authority.....
I think time showed exactly what happened when lcm got everyone out of thw way who would attempt to stem his cruelty and perversion....all HELL broke loose....there were to few left to stop it.....not because we didn`t WANT to be there to fight for what we thought was God`s miniostry, but because we were denied access.
He didn`t want anyone that had the courage to stand for God.
This whole mind-set of suspicion has been fostered and built to the end that a man is not esteemed highly in love for his work's sake, but is condemned and considered guilty before he even has the opportunity to prove anything.
And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.
And yet, that is exactly what he and his minions did to countless people. Disagree with leadership over anything and suspicion was not just raised, it was deemed fact/truth and you were out. Hell you didn't even have to disagree with anything taught - if leadership, from LCM on down through the ranks, didn't like you for some reason - there was no "suspicion" of being possessed/homo/off the word - you were guilty, period! The rank and file "believers" rarely got an opportunity to "prove anything" when they were accused.
However, from a strictly corporate (business) point of view both VPW and LCM were justified in their demands of loyalty and obedience. The Way International Incorporated as an employer had the right to expect loyalty and obedience from it's paid employees as a condition of employment, just like IBM or any other employer..
I totally agree, and this was part of Craig's rationale.
Craig wrote:
I am thankful for anything godly any of you have done in the past or will do in the future. I am sorry that things have come to this point, but I need to have men and women working with me who truly want to do so. I do not choose to handle any more of the backbiting, hypocrisy, and fatalism (such as: "There are no solutions"; "It's over") disguised as spiritual understanding by those who continue to draw a salary from us, yet do not stand with or support us.
Wordwolf wrote:
The focus was on making a commitment to stand with Craig-
moving the Word was incidental.
Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else.
In contrast, the focus Craig was after, was this, when he wrote:
A line has to be drawn; so make up your mind whether you are going to stand with us as Staff moving God's Word or go the route that has been set in the last couple of years, which I believe has gone very sour.
"Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else."
You believe that, but the words out of lcm's own mouth when he wasn't
composing a pious-sounding letter were different.
When he WASN'T writing his "I'm so holy" letter,
lcm seems to have DISAGREED with you on this one, Oldiesman.
You SUPPOSED that's what he was thinking.
"Out There" PHONED him and spoke to him PERSONALLY on this.
======
"Out There":
"When I received the Loyalty letter in the mail I immediately called LCM and by some miracle
after leaving a message he actually called me back.
When I asked if this letter
was a call to blindly follow him
he said I had been doing this all along."
====
lcm said the membership had been BLINDLY FOLLOWING HIM ALL ALONG.
See,
when they STOPPED BLINDLY FOLLOWING,
he flipped out.
He wanted BLIND FOLLOWERS
and would settle for NOTHING LESS.
AT THE TIME,
it's reasonable to suppose some people were totally unaware of this.
(Me, I did an independent investigation of my OWN,
and think it's a little sloppy to have NOT done so,
but that's MY standard.)
LOOKING BACK,
it's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that lcm wanted blind,
unquestioning obedience.
He phrased it in pious, holy terms,
used a veneer of religious display,
but he honoured God with his keyboard,
while his heart was far away.
AT THE TIME,
people didnt know that.
KNOWING WHAT WE NOW KNOW, it's incredibly obvious.
But if you HAD showed up with specific reproof, you would have been screamed at
and escorted off-grounds. That happened to staff and corps.
I would be happy to listen/read about any stories about specific reproof given, and the consequences thereof.
I know of at least one instance I believe is true, from "The Cult That Snapped", where Ralph D. confronted both VP and Craig about the fornication problem. But that was before this letter and isn't applicable to folks we are discussing. Again, am willing to hear specifics.
Even the limb coordinator of NY couldn't/wouldn't give me specifics, when I asked. Yet most of the whole limb followed him anyway, which shows me that they weren't interested in specifics themselves. I was allowed to read a couple of VF's followup letters as well, that he sent to my twig coordinator. No specifics. Lots of suspicion, backbiting, hard heartedness. Complaining about him getting the boot...etc.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
18
54
14
Popular Days
Oct 20
37
Oct 28
35
Oct 19
28
Oct 21
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 14 posts
Raf 18 posts
oldiesman 54 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 20 2005
37 posts
Oct 28 2005
35 posts
Oct 19 2005
28 posts
Oct 21 2005
23 posts
oldiesman
I do not believe this to be the case. We can be loyal to people as well.
Here's an excerpt from Craig's companion letter of April 14, 1989: (I have added paragraphs to make it an easier read).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Samurai
Oldies,
You're right. It was a good reason to leave and my family and I did just that. I am glad that we had access to people who got tired of shoveling it under the rug and pointed us to people who were talking.
I am sorry you got blamed for asking legitimate questions of those who were to be guides, guards and shepards and an oasis in the desert.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oldies,
That letter sounds pretty good on the surface, but LCM's actions belied his words.
LCM said:
Yet when folks replied with answers along that same line, they were summarily dismissed.
Can you say two-faced? One was the face of a humble man of God only interested only in moving God's word, and the other was the face of a sexually depraved, power hungry sociopath, willing to trample on anyone that got in his way.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Often, it is not a "fresh" start.. often, it is the same old same old.. same error ridden doctrine, same abusive practice..
kinda like VP's "fresh start" outside of the watchful eye of his old denomination.
I wouldn't paint everybody with the same brush though.. there are quite a few exceptions to this..
But for the original topic of the thread:
The ONLY spin I heard (or was ALLOWED to hear) was loy's- that "we are their employer, and that they owe us some loyalty.." now I hear stories where people were unceremoniously "dumped" for expressing loyalty to God first.. what arrogance of a man, to think that that same loyalty implied absolute loyalty to himself..
Somehow, I thought der vey was supposed to be a fellowship, an association, even at a clergy level.. that the PRIMARY allegience ws supposed to be to God Almighty..
Interesting how loyalty was demanded by an organization, that demanded:
1. To acknowledge the infallibility of a MAN
2. to hold dearly to their "traditions"-
3. and the lowest priority on their agenda- "the Word".
Sound familiar?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Stop the tape -- look at the 6 words (in bold) just after *For instance*. Meebe one can re-neg on promises of committment in marriage (still putting god first - you understand), and then demand a loyalty unquestioned to himself??
Let's continue ...
How can you raise children this way, if you are not setting the example?? Is raising children in the *nurture and admonition of the Lord* re-hashed in the old addage ---"DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO"??
No -- it is not new for a leader to ask for commitment, but what is new is for one who doesn't walk the talk to expect others to do the opposite.
Sorry Oldies -- like Goey said -- on the surface this looks good, but so did the whited sepulchers Jesus had something to say about.
And while I am at it -- Mr. H succinctly pointed out:
The priorities in twi seem to be pretty evident.
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
When Martindale said something along the lines of "...and don't give me any of that 'standing with God' crap", he was not saying that "standing with God" was crap. He was saying that refusing to make a decision between standing with him and standing with Chris Geer "in the movement of the Word", by saying that you were standing with God, was crap. Splitting hairs, maybe, but they're not the same thing.
Martindale had been brought up by Wierwille to believe that one could not truly stand with God outside of TWI. Despite his hypocrisy, he was stating that one could not stand with God by following Geer, or by sitting on the fence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
....and he was dead wrong wasn`t he?
You are still attempting to imply that lcm was a reasonable man, making a reasonable demand from people whom owed him NOTHING! We were not employees, we were not leaders, we were simple believers whom had selflessly served twi exclusively for decades with no recompense.
As long as he acted on behalf of God and in the best interest of the people placed in his care than he would have been worthey of our respect and loyalty......but he never WAS that.
He was a seriously unstable individual who went ballistic when he didn`t recieve the unquestioning obedience he viewed was his due..........and LIKE an over emotional two year old, he threw a temper tantrum.
In any other scenario he would have been viewed as a highly dangerous mentally ill individual, but because he was considered a mog....few realised this.
He was a man who thought NOTHING of vindictively destroying a person when thwarted. I am talking when refused sexually, when confronted on his adultery, when not obeyed implicitly. He treated people visciously making harsh judgements that he had never even met.....just based on wild assumptions....it was a lot easier to dismiss em from the ministry and declare them worthless than to ever make an inquery and find out if there had been a mistake
He was a world class bully throwing hos weight around, and when he declared a containeding contest, the fool lost.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let's bottom line this:
If you didn't think LCM was standing on the Word, you left when you got that letter, because it was clear that he was using the ministry as a bully pulpit and had no intention of changing.
If you did think LCM was sincere in his efforts to change, you stayed, figuring the people who were leaving were not giving him a fair shake, and that the demands for "change" were too vague anyway, and there was work to do that was not getting done.
I think history proved the first group was correct, but I can't blame anyone in the second group for drawing that conclusion. It was reasonable, given the absence of information. However, I can't see how anyone could look back, knowing what we know now, and think staying was the right thing to do. That's just blissfull, in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Craig wrote:
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
WE (well, at least a lot of us..) are REQUIRED and OWE HIM the respect due only to the Almighty..
and loy- well, he owes US- nothing. Nope. Stand with ME, or else..
Doesn't sound very "mutual" to me.
When people withheld ABS because of his lack of love, respect, and intelligence.. he went berserk- calling them every nasty word in the book..
"How DARE YOU!!!!!"
Well, some dared.. :D
I would like clarification. How in the world would you put your spouse above God? Perhaps it would entail: not accepting your new corps assignment to Timbuctu, and instead listening to their loving pleas for stability for the family..
Perhaps instead of spending so much time, money and resources on a stinking ministry, you take said person out on a nice quiet vacation somewhere..
don't "need" a vacation, when you have "twig", I guess.
Naw, we wanna serve God, do we not..
I really think this kind of example is what loy had in mind..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"....and he was dead wrong wasn`t he?"
Yup, he was. But in the context of what he and all the rest of us were taught by Wierwille, it was consistant.
"You are still attempting to imply that lcm was a reasonable man, making a reasonable demand from people whom owed him NOTHING!"
No, you are incorrect. I think that subsequent events indicate quite strongly that Martindale was, if not a raving lunatic, then a manipulative, hypocritical, abusing S.O.B., who squandered what he inherited from his "Father in the Word", Wierwille. VP at least had the ability to make us believe that we were getting blessed, whether we were or not.
"We were not employees, we were not leaders, we were simple believers whom had selflessly served twi exclusively for decades with no recompense."
Okay, but as I've been saying, TWI NEVER was a place where it was "available" to stand against the MOG.
"As long as he acted on behalf of God and in the best interest of the people placed in his care than he would have been worthey of our respect and loyalty......but he never WAS that."
Whoa! I thought that we were supposed to stand with and give our loyalty to God, not man? Even if Martindale was Christ-on-a-stick, according to the logic I've seen posted here, he would still not have had the right to ask for, nor expect, loyalty.
"He was a seriously unstable individual who went ballistic when he didn`t recieve the unquestioning obedience he viewed was his due..........and LIKE an over emotional two year old, he threw a temper tantrum.
In any other scenario he would have been viewed as a highly dangerous mentally ill individual, but because he was considered a mog....few realised this."
Yup, and it got worse
At no point on this thread have I suggested that Martindale was a godly man, that he was worthy of respect or loyalty, or that folks who left were wrong to do so. But I don't believe that suggesting that Martindale thought or said that "standing on the Word" was crap helps to make the case for "the other side of the story".
Reasonable people can disagree on some of the details. Raf summarizes things nicely, IMHO
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
The fact that Martindale demanded a signed loyalty oath speaks volumes...how insecure can a guy be?
Panic? Delusions of grandeur? Maybe he was wearing his leotards too tight. In any case, Martindale made it easy for folks to walk away from the precipice...I mean, asking people to sign a loyalty oath was Martindale's public proclamation that his "cheese had slipped off the cracker". With due respect to Raf's point...I contend that anybody worth their salt walked out the door at that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think it was more like a pathetic attempt to exercise authority that he thought that he had, but obviously didn't.
Wierwille never needed to have the loyalty of us mind numbed waybots put into writing. He hid his shortcomings from the vast majority of us quite well. What's scary is that Martindale could have had all of that too, if he had been a better con artist.
What's sad (for Martindale, not for us) is that despite his whining about not getting the "benefit of the doubt", most people did give him the benefit of the doubt after his elevation to MOGdom. Many people thought others, such as Cummins, Lynn, Dubofsky, were better qualified to take Wierwille's place, but were willing to accept Martindale as Wierwille's annointed successor. Martindale blew all of that. He just didn't realize that authority cannot simply be conferred. For it to be effective, authority must be coupled with respect; it must be earned. He looked at the respect, and yes, loyalty, that Wierwille received, and assumed that it was his divine-right due, without making the slightest atempt to earn it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Part of Craig's rationale was that this had been done several times before by VP, when VP perceived that folks needed to recommitment themselves to stand with VP and Corps leadership in the movement of the Word. Therefore Craig wonders why should folks now act so incredulous that he, Craig, make the same request.
The focus is on making a commitment to stand with Craig to move the Word.
Here's an excerpt from Craig's April 14, 1989 Loyalty Companion Letter:
And so part of Craig's rationale was that folks were leaving *just because* of this request for loyalty which was widely considered by those leaving, to be "carnal". They were saying he was carnal, and "look at how off he is." Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.Craig also invited folks to be specific with reproof and where he was off.
He wrote:
This indicates that instead of receiving specific godly scriptural reproof, he said he received vagueness, and much suspicion.
He also wrote:
And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno.. I didn't really see it like he ASKED for another chance to "prove" himself.. more like.. he DEMANDED it.
"In the name of the love of God, you MUST stand with me.."
My opinion.. true love can't demand or expect respect, or reciprocation.. even from your own family.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps you could label that as a carnal request.. I would label it more as an immature one.. spiritually and emotionally, immature..
and in this, I have not been entirely faultless in my life, either.
Religion sure sucks.. I know what it did to me.. can't imagine what it did to loy.. if he ever wakes up, I hope he lives through it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted By Oldies:
VPW was indeed carnal when he made similar demands of loyalty and obedience. That's why quite a few of his early associates dissapeared.
However, from a strictly corporate (business) point of view both VPW and LCM were justified in their demands of loyalty and obedience. The Way International Incorporated as an employer had the right to expect loyalty and obedience from it's paid employees as a condition of employment, just like IBM or any other employer..
The problem with this is that TWI was presented as a ministry of God, not the corporation that is really was and still is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
==================
"Out There" PHONED him and spoke to him PERSONALLY on this.
======
"Out There":
"When I received the Loyalty letter in the mail I immediately called LCM and by some miracle
after leaving a message he actually called me back.
When I asked if this letter
was a call to blindly follow him
he said I had been doing this all along.
I then told him thats what he thinks he could 'kiss my foot'.
I think I was dropped from the rolls of the Way Corps that next morning."
=====
Therefore,
lcm was WELL AWARE he was calling for blind, unquestioning loyalty to
HIM,
and thought that blind, unquestioning loyalty was his DUE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
People of integrety and honor left at that point...knowing full well that when we left...that many of the folks who would take our places were legalistic hard nosed bullies....those are the ones who were being rewarded.....the nastier you were the higher up the tree you were assigned..
When we were removed for not complying with his dishonest request....think about it....anyone who had the integrety and courage to stand up and say *no this is not right or reasonable* we knew full well that this was mostly an excuse to get people out of the way that had been attempting to stand with decency and honor against the tide of cruelty and legalism.
Just imagine how in one fell swoop lcm managed to rid the ministry of any who would interfere with his lunacy....
When we were removed....we knew that most of the genuinely kind upper leadership...the ones who had protected their people from the worst antics at hq were forced into leaving as well....
We didn`t WANT to go....we had every intention of supporting twi as ardently as ever....but lcm didn`t want that.......we were lifers....never considered not being in twi and supportinmg it with every fiber of our being....
I remember being grieved for what was going to happen to people without the folks of integrety and loyalty to God rather than a man left.....the folks who had been standing in the gap so to speak.....attempting to stem the tide of harsh legalism....... I could see how bleak participation in twi was going to be with only the hard nosed bullies being recognised and given authority.....
I think time showed exactly what happened when lcm got everyone out of thw way who would attempt to stem his cruelty and perversion....all HELL broke loose....there were to few left to stop it.....not because we didn`t WANT to be there to fight for what we thought was God`s miniostry, but because we were denied access.
He didn`t want anyone that had the courage to stand for God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan
This whole mind-set of suspicion has been fostered and built to the end that a man is not esteemed highly in love for his work's sake, but is condemned and considered guilty before he even has the opportunity to prove anything.
And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.
And yet, that is exactly what he and his minions did to countless people. Disagree with leadership over anything and suspicion was not just raised, it was deemed fact/truth and you were out. Hell you didn't even have to disagree with anything taught - if leadership, from LCM on down through the ranks, didn't like you for some reason - there was no "suspicion" of being possessed/homo/off the word - you were guilty, period! The rank and file "believers" rarely got an opportunity to "prove anything" when they were accused.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Craig wrote:
Wordwolf wrote:Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else.
In contrast, the focus Craig was after, was this, when he wrote:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
oldiesman:
"Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else."
You believe that, but the words out of lcm's own mouth when he wasn't
composing a pious-sounding letter were different.
When he WASN'T writing his "I'm so holy" letter,
lcm seems to have DISAGREED with you on this one, Oldiesman.
You SUPPOSED that's what he was thinking.
"Out There" PHONED him and spoke to him PERSONALLY on this.
======
"Out There":
"When I received the Loyalty letter in the mail I immediately called LCM and by some miracle
after leaving a message he actually called me back.
When I asked if this letter
was a call to blindly follow him
he said I had been doing this all along."
====
lcm said the membership had been BLINDLY FOLLOWING HIM ALL ALONG.
See,
when they STOPPED BLINDLY FOLLOWING,
he flipped out.
He wanted BLIND FOLLOWERS
and would settle for NOTHING LESS.
AT THE TIME,
it's reasonable to suppose some people were totally unaware of this.
(Me, I did an independent investigation of my OWN,
and think it's a little sloppy to have NOT done so,
but that's MY standard.)
LOOKING BACK,
it's beyond any REASONABLE doubt that lcm wanted blind,
unquestioning obedience.
He phrased it in pious, holy terms,
used a veneer of religious display,
but he honoured God with his keyboard,
while his heart was far away.
AT THE TIME,
people didnt know that.
KNOWING WHAT WE NOW KNOW, it's incredibly obvious.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Wordwolf said:
I would be happy to listen/read about any stories about specific reproof given, and the consequences thereof.I know of at least one instance I believe is true, from "The Cult That Snapped", where Ralph D. confronted both VP and Craig about the fornication problem. But that was before this letter and isn't applicable to folks we are discussing. Again, am willing to hear specifics.
Even the limb coordinator of NY couldn't/wouldn't give me specifics, when I asked. Yet most of the whole limb followed him anyway, which shows me that they weren't interested in specifics themselves. I was allowed to read a couple of VF's followup letters as well, that he sent to my twig coordinator. No specifics. Lots of suspicion, backbiting, hard heartedness. Complaining about him getting the boot...etc.
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.