All Activity

Success!

I get your point about JS conflating his two reasons for beginning the study for his paper. The first reason occurred during JS’s last year of residency (which being in the 6th corps would have been in 1976/77.) His words regarding this initial study were, “I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery.” It was around 5 years later, in 1982 or 1983, when RD and VF came to him. He then specifically says, “This paper is the result of those years of study." (In it, he includes his study of adultery in all the administrations [Patriarchal, Law, Christ and Grace]). If he was conflating these two reasons, “those years” would have included going back to 1976/77. In his Forward, he gives his reason for the paper as being, “I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong.” Everybody seems to mean Christians in general as he immediately writes after the Forward, "Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication." _________________________ Now, comparing the above with what JS wrote six or seven years later in his Additional Comments on WayDale's Forums in May 2000, new information is given. He exposes adultery within twi’s leadership, including weirwille, which he most likely was not aware of before 1986 when he wrote the paper. - I wrote in (sic) through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986. - As it is here in WayDale it is missing the preface and the footnotes. The preface gives some of the history of the paper and how it came to be. - Unfortunately, and history bears this out, some pretty high-powered churchmen throught (sic) the years have not really gotten the impact of what the Bible plainly says, and in this case the research seemed necessary. - My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. (This appears to be a third impetus to investigate adultery happening specifically in twi which finally motivated JS to actually write the paper months later (while leaving out the new information about said leadership being involved.) - I started asking around to girls...Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. - Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine (started by whom was not mentioned)--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. - On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years (since 1986), and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, So, in conclusion, JS either did not know about the drugging and raping by vp as of 2000, or he deliberately decided not to mention it in his update since according to him, “The thesis is pretty simple: adultery is a sin.” Overall, WordWolf, I think we seem to agree on most points.

Nathan, So, do you want to bring back your previous question? George

Well said WordWolf.

By saying "the rest of us," you seem to be excluding JS from those who knew about vpw's crimes. Unless you know this for sure, JS is the only one who can reveal all he knew then and all he knows now - but will he? Again, only one way to find out. In 2000, his perspective was what he wrote, "On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years, and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, it is just that it has not been that profitable to share them. People are still so angry and hurt over things that happened years ago. We all need to come to Christ, and let him teach us how to get healed and move on. There is a world out there that needs the Truth. " (Underlining is mine) Scriptures say the following (NASB): Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 2 Cor 4:2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in trickery nor distorting the word of God, but by the open proclamation of the truth commending ourselves to every person’s conscience in the sight of God. Paul did expose serious sexual immorality and also wasn't afraid to openly confront the apostle Peter (Gal 2:11-13) 1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. James 4:17 So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, for him it is sin. Having an invested interest in any organization so that one is not willing to expose the deep problems within that are (or were) hurting people happens all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but doing such a thing in a religious organization for the greater good of "moving God's word" is just as, if not more, egregious.

Raf I agree with what you're saying. To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality. We all have brains. It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

CORRECT! CNN was founded. Worldwide, it was the FIRST 24-hour, news ONLY network. It was the first US news only network, 24 hour or otherwise. Now there's a bunch of 24 hour, news only networks. Seems like every major network in the US has one somewhere. ( CNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, not to mention BBC and Euronews, or business news like Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg.) Now, there's all sorts of 24-hour news channels, whether available for national or international viewing. (Where I live, there's at least one LOCAL 24-hour news channel.)

In 1985, JS wrote his Adultery paper. In 1988, JAL wrote about how this ruined marriages and damaged people. A lot of things had come to light in 3 years. When JS wrote again in 2000 with ces/stfi, the rest of us all knew about vpw raping and drugging women since so many of them had come forth. The young, idealistic guy who JS had been 15 years before now had an organization to promote where he was a top dog, and a vested interest in not looking any closer any more, even if it was dishonest. Plenty of people who have been determined to maintain the fiction that vpw wasn't a plagiarizing rapist and have made it a point to avoid all of their accounts. It makes things easier when they pretend there were never women who came forward. I'll call them like I see them- I have no organization to promote. It's not like you're buying a book I wrote at a table in the back of the theater or anything.

You are correct that they didn't immediately connect all the dots. vpw had intentionally designed a tight, secretive cadre. He knew it was a crime and knew any sane person would say it was wrong, so he surrounded himself with a blackout of news on the subject, and maintained a cover story saying the opposite. So, by reputation on the field, people would think such a claim was ridiculous. That having been said, he did sometimes let a passing comment go that gave something away. Also, as you got closer to the cadre, you started to get exposed to sex stuff- like on-grounds people and pornography "so they could minister to people better after watching the pornography." So, these guys knew about "consensual" sex, but not outright rapes or drugging where she was unconscious and he molested her. I put "consensual" in quotes because, with a power imbalance, exactly how much "consent" is there is a matter for disagreement and discussion. Miles away from anywhere else, thousands of miles from family, friends and home, and surrounded by people as indoctrinated as you, you're told this man has a direct link with God and are indoctrinated that he can do no wrong, nor would he want to. Then he starts telling you lies, like God wants you to commit adultery or fornication, and rationalizes it. In an absolute sense, she can say "No", but vpw set his little "consensual sex" game up rather cleverly. And those women likely to say something were never invited, and those women likely to be better victims- those with histories of sexual assault- were invited, and they were still monitored in case they looked ready to spill the beans. So, no, JS and RD had heard about some "consensual" sex, but not about druggings and rapes. What they did manage to hear was bad enough, and was not easy to hear due to the cadre doing their best to cover vpw's tracks. However, I think you misunderstood me about the timeline of events with JS and the Adultery paper. He gave 2 different accounts as to why he did the research, and 2 different time-frames as to how long it took. 1) He did it for his own knowledge because he realized he didn't know any verses offhand to recite to counter thoughts of fornication 2) No, he researched it because RD and VF told him that vpw requested a paper on the subject. A) So, it took him 3 years to research the paper. B) No, it was done in a few months. I doubt JS was INTENTIONALLY lying to us. I think he CONFLATED two different events, and each thing he said happened, happened. The order I see them happening and not contradicting each other nor common sense is 1A, then 2B. So, here's how I think the sequence of events went. 1) JS had the incident he mentioned, where he said "no" and sent the woman on her way, and realized he didn't have any verses in his "retemories" to recite on this subject. On his own time, and only as he felt like it, he spent the next 3 years on and off doing the research. He finished it to his own satisfaction, and went on his way. 2) Some time later, RD and VF approach him. "We were told the Grand Poobah wants you to research this. Let us know when you're done." JS now has an actual paper to write, an actual request to do so, and a request from the Grand Poobah. So, on his own time and in between everything else, he revisits old ground (it's old ground to him because he's researched it before), and in a few months during his down time, he's got a full paper on the subject. While he was writing it, he may easily have talked to a few people, sounding them out, asking what they were taught, and so on. That would account for having all the relevant "Appendices" with the "arguments" that JS had to address to be thorough and address twi's issues. He was honest, so he did so. Even when he finished it, he still had no idea it was the tip of the iceberg- or that vpw was the biggest offender- after all, if vpw ordered it written, why would he do so if it would expose him? So, JS didn't see it coming- although I think RD and VF did. So, that's how I reconcile JS's accounts. He wasn't lying, he was mistaken and conflated 2 different things. Of course, I could easily be wrong and one of those was a lie. You'll have to decide what you think was more likely. I really don't know the man. I know it's more common for the average person to be honestly mistaken than to go around lying. (In that respect, vpw wasn't "an average person." As a liar, he was an EXCEPTIONAL liar.)

With the possible criticism that I am opening up a can of worms that may not matter anymore, here is a thread about John Lynn's letters where in one of them he mentions, in part, weirwille's leading women and others astray. Once again, no mention is made of any rapes or clergy sexual abuse. (Highlighting is mine) I think it still matters today because the coverup of the "darker side" is still ongoing in twi and possibly with other ex-leaders of the ministry. John Lynn's Letters Here's a quote: "Third, sex. Now this is perhaps more sensational than the other points, but keep in mind that again the root of the problem is doctrinal error, not human weakness. More than one woman has personally told me that Dr. Wierwille taught her, verbally and by example, that sex outside of marriage is not only permissible, but profitable. Ralph Dubofsky told me that in September 1986, after a woman had come to him, he confronted Craig Martindale about having sex with her. Craig admitted it, and told Ralph that Dr. Wierwille had told him that unless he "loosened up in this category of life, he would never be a great leader or lover of God’s people." I know this sounds unbelievable, but it is true. Dr. Wierwille told people that without broadening their sexual activities beyond marriage, they’d never be able to handle the things of God." A friend of mine told me Dr. Wierwille told her he thought that "a woman gets eternal rewards for blessing a man of God like this." Craig told Ralph that there have been "thousands of times it has been done in the love of God and ministered God’s healing wholeness and deliverance to people." And I have a copy of a phone conversation on this past November 24 between Craig and a Corps grad in which he told her that there is not a straight answer from the Word on adultery, and that sex is in the category of need, like food on the table, and God supplies our needs. Where did he learn this? Not in the Baptist Church, I dare say. This esoteric doctrine has permeated the leadership structure of The Way to the end that believers all over the country know about it. This is the real reason why John Schoenheit and the others were fired. Chris Geer and the Trustees are trying to cover up for Dr. Wierwille and themselves. Here’s a good question: If it is spiritually beneficial, why isn’t it being taught publicly? If you want to, you can look up the definitions of "allegation," "accusation," "rumor," and then "fact." These statements are facts and what I have just told you about this issue is "the tip of the iceberg." I have another 3 hour tape titled "Overview of Events: 4/85-10/87" in which I do my best to chronicle the key events from the time Dr. Wierwille stopped to see Ralph in Boston en route to Scotland, up until this past fall. In it I go into more detail about the adultery issue. I believe it is important because this wrong doctrine strikes at the very heart of the Mystery, and it has ruined countless Way marriages and wreaked havoc on hundreds of other men and women." At least this last sentence of Lynn's is more than what Schoenheit admits to in his paper.

Does it matter anymore? So your perspective was asking if my questions about the adultery paper mattered anymore which obviously implies that it did at one point. My questions were the result of the discussion WordWolf started when he began this thread about the adultery paper. You didn't ask him at that time "if it mattered anymore?" My perspective is that it is important that the truth, from beginning to end, around the doctrine and practice of what happened sexually within twi and the eventual exposure of it is fully made known by the leaders. Both John Schoenheit and John Lynn wrote about the adultery and "fornication" but didn't always (if at all) include the facts about vp's rapes and drugging of some of his victims as well as the abortions and the hurt that the clergy sexual abuse by leaders towards those they were responsible to oversee had caused. Why was that? John Lynn has passed away, but John Schoenheit continues to be active in his biblical ministry. Will he ever talk about what he knew or didn't know about the darker side of what was going on back then? One way to find out. I'll send his website an email asking about this and see if he replies back.

Thank you for your post. I find your speculation that RD and VF had been untruthful to JS about weirwille wanting them to study adultery more likely to be the case than weirwille actually having asked them to do so. It does seem unlikely, though, that JS (believing weirwille wanted to know more about the topic) never communicated directly with him concerning his study at some point during those 3 years. If he had, RD and VF’s dishonesty would most likely have been exposed. Who knows, but the story still doesn't seem to make complete sense. The other thing is that you mentioned RD hearing about “rapes.” The paper, however, was only about adultery apparently happening between consenting adults – not on rape or clergy sexual abuse. The Additional Comments told of a woman having had sexual intercourse with wierwille and of “many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.” The girls he had spoken to who he knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1 and get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, apparently never claimed their experiences were not consensual. JS wrote that what he learned during those months of interviewing women was that “many of the people involved thought it was okay with God.” Near the end, he does mention a female who had been hurt by the “sex stuff .” From the context of the article, this minimizing term would only have been about adultery – not rape or abuse. By 2000, Schoenheit, who knew plenty about the problem with adultery within the leadership, still seemed to have known nothing about the rape and abuse by vp since he wrote, “The Way International and Dr. Wierwille did a lot for me, and I will always be thankful for that. Yes, they caused me some pain and heartache, but the foundation of the Word that was built in my life in The Way has an inestimable value.” But then again, he was promoting in his Additional Comments the "really great stuff" he, Lynn and Graeser were doing with CES. Also, he did say that people who were angry and hurt over things that happened years ago needed to...move on. Again, would he have said this if he knew about the rapes and CSA?

There is actually no appreciable difference between the harm-benefit analysis I'm articulating and basic morality driven by human empathy. In other words, Nathan, I see no areas of disagreement between your comments and mine, save yours are more succinct. Mine are more geared toward addressing the presumption that god is a prerequisite for "objective moral values." That is, yours is an argument. Mine is a counterargument. Counterarguments take longer

Humans have a natural, built-in sense of morality. It's thought that this innate sense of morality may have been responsible for mankind's continued ability to survive as a whole. (Greater good vs individual needs) Source: Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review - PMC

A nondualist might say morality is an illusion. The subject is the object, the observer is the observed. Action is motivated by the compassion arising from the awareness that what I do to another I do to myself. Which brings us back to a standard that may be the only universal one: does this action promote well being or suffering? Before learning religion, philosophy or social constructs, what was the basis for right action?

Using harm-benefit as an objective standard against which we can measure an action and determine whether that action is "good" or "evil" does NOT result in universal results, because we are human and each of us will value different things as part of our overall calculation. On the after life thread, the question was raised about euthanasia and abortion. Euthanasia causes a very serious harm: death. It also causes a very serious benefit: it prevents later suffering. So is it right or wrong? Well, who's making the decision? I would contend, and I'm sure many would agree, that the person doing the dying gets the determining vote. But you want that vote to be based on fact, not just speculation. I'm 55. My best years are behind me. So, what, I kill myself now? If I were to think that way in the absence of a medical diagnosis foreshadowing pain and suffering, you would probably want me to reconsider. I have a family to care for. Hm, the insurance money would come in handy, TBH. But my presence would be much more valuable than money. Lots to weigh. If I decided to take my life anyway, you would probably judge me to have been morally wrong to do so. But if my sister, whose final months of ALS were painful to watch, decided to ask for a medically assisted suicide, how could anyone deny her that right? Abortion. I can think of a million reasons abortion would be morally acceptable. All involve terminating the life of a baby. In some cases the baby would have died anyway, or lived a short and painful life. I can't imagine interfering. But where do I draw the line? And why do I get to draw it? A pro-lifer draws the line elsewhere. And one need not be religious to be a pro-lifer. If you value the life of the fetus/unborn child over the mother carrying it, you will say abortion is always wrong. If you say the mother has the right to decide whether she is willing to puther body through pregnancy, you will be pro-choice. Honest people will disagree. And we will spend the rest of humanity struggling with this question. Because I cannot be forced to surrender my bodily autonomy to save someone else's life. Is it different if that someone is a baby in your uterus? I'm not raising this to invite a political discussion but to demonstrate that there are limits to our capacity to reach agreement.

CNN?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can not know that Biblically, adultery is wrong. Lots of OT stuff about this. And plenty in the NT also. In God's eyes, he clearly states many times: one man, one wife (at a time). The twain, the married couple, are to be ONE FLESH - not one flesh with multiple segments (other women). There were some special provisions (eg, a man was required to marry his childless brother's widow and to raise a son in his brother's name); it's unclear what happened if the surviving brother was already married. All it takes is simple reading of one's Bible, folks. Amazed that JS had to do a whole study paper- which is good, but could be better, by the way.

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Thanks

When I was in TWI and prayed for someone to be healed, it never happened. I never saw a miracle result from anyone praying for healing.

g

One more word and you'd have had it, George.