Leaderboard

Almost thou persuadest me to be an atheist

WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating. I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible, its history and authorship caused him to all but lose his faith. He said so! What if he never regained it? Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power. How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete). But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started. The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified. Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING. Another topic for another time. Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant.

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

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

If anyone wants to read my first-hand account of being on staff at HQ and talking with John right after he was fired, it's in Undertow, Chapter 54: Clampdown. I got his permission to use his real name in my book.

I was born and raised as a Roman Catholic, and attended their schools. I bought into their belief’s and even thought of becoming a priest, in other words I was sold on their doctrine. UNTIL the Second Vatican Council in 1962. Prior to this no Catholic could eat meat on Friday, and if they did it was a mortal sin. A mortal sin would send you to hell if you did not confess the sin to a priest. So if a Catholic was to eat a bologna sandwich for lunch on any Friday, and on the way home they were killed in a motor vehicle accident, their soul would immediately be damned to hell for eternity. Pretty severe for sure and not very comforting for their surviving Catholic family. Then, the Second Vatican Council decreed that eating meat on Friday, except for Lent, was no longer a mortal sin. In other words, you can eat bacon and eggs for breakfast, a ham and cheese sandwich for lunch, and rib steak for dinner, and no longer commit a mortal sin. How in the name of fairness and common sense, could a loving God cast his children into everlasting hell for eating meat on Friday prior to the Second Vatican Council, and not post Second Vatican Council? That opened my eyes to the ridiculousness of this teaching and started me on a very long journey realizing that trying to explain a loving God was also ridiculous. There are several thousand Christian religions that all disagree on how to obtain eternal life. Plus all the other world religions all have their way of salvation. If you can’t prove one is tight then all must be wrong.

I have a first hand recollection of him teaching that masturbation was the original sin. That's not an event you casually forget.

This is getting obnoxious

That's really big brush you're painting with there.

When we were in our teens, WordWolf once had a bunch of notes from which I used to study, and one of them was "Things in Which Christians Are to Abound," or something close to that. The list was believing, the Word, knowledge, diligence, love and grace. It was drawn from II Corinthians 8:7. It took me years to realize what II Corinthians 8 was doing. To really grasp it, you HAVE to let go of the tithe. Only then does the section make sense. A group of Christians was exceedingly generous to Paul, and he was using that group as an example to the Corinthians for how to approach giving. Their gift was both generous and entirely voluntary. The percentage was not discussed. And then v. 7 makes total sense. As you abound in one thing, abound in the other. A standard is being set. As you about in A, abound in F. As you abound in B, abound in F. As you abound in C, abound in F. It's not just a list of things in which we are to abound. It is a standard that is supposed to underscore our motivation to give. You call yourself a Christian who believes? Give accordingly! You call yourself a speaker of the Word? Give accordingly! You call yourself knowledgeable of the Word? GIve accordingly. You call yourself committed to the spread of the Word? Give accordingly. You say you love? Give accordingly. Our giving, according to the Bible, is to be motivated by these attributes. Not a percentage. A reflection of your commitment, of your dedication, of your seriousness about this whole Christian thing. The tithe is not a minimum or a maximum. It's not even a reference point. Abraham tithed ONE TIME, best as we can tell from scripture. No one told him to do it. No one asked him to do it. He wasn't setting a pattern. If he was, the pattern was this: YOU choose when to give. YOU choose who receives it. YOU choose how much. There is no place in scripture where ALL believers are instructed to tithe. It is simply NOT the big deal churches make it out to be. I've long forgotten my deep dive into tithing. But I do remember this much: believers should give, and give generously. NO ONE defines "generously" but you. Just don't be a hypocrite about it. When something's important to you, you invest in it.

Another example of why literal, word-for-word translations are not helpful and lead to confusion.

Definitely a dog person…my pooch has never let me down and can always be counted on for her loyalty.

https://web.archive.org/web/20030219041757/http://greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm Production of this document resulted in John being fired by T.W.I trustees in the late 1980's. Research Paper on Adultery by John Schoenheit (formerly TWI Research Dept.) (It is said that the circulation of this research paper led to John Schoenheit and several others who assisted him being fired from the staff of TWI in the late 80's. It is further said that anyone found reading this paper would never be allowed to rise in leadership in TWI beyond that of a "twig" fellowship coordinator.) Please make sure that you read the Question & Answer format Appendices at the end of this paper. Additional comments made by John Schoenheit on WayDale's Forums in May 2000. Forward: In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study. Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery. The reason for this paper is that I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong. This paper is an attempt to clearly set forth the Biblical perspective of adultery and fornication so that every believer has a chance to see the will of God on the subject. This paper is not an attempt to "legislate morality" or to make rules and regulations that will improve the old man. It is an attempt to help every believer come to "an accurate knowledge of the Truth" (I Timothy 2:4). When a person knows where God stands on the subject, he can decide for himself where he wants to stand--on God's Word or off it. ==================================================================== Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication. Some are not sure what the terms mean. Others think they know what the terms mean, but are not sure of God’s position on the subject. This paper is an attempt to clarify what the terms mean in modern English, what the terms meant as they were used in the Word of God, and God’s will concerning adultery and fornication. Adultery is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful husband or wife." Although that definition is not the biblical one, this paper will show that in the modern sense of the word, as well as the biblical sense, is a sin. The biblical definition of adultery is the breach of a marriage contract, and occurred when a man (married or unmarried) had sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married. This definition will be developed from the scriptures in the course of this paper. The word "adultery" was also used by God to show Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness to him. Thus there is both a physical side and a spiritual side to adultery. The thesis of this paper will basically deal with the physical side of adultery, i.e., actual sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. This paper will also deal with fornication. The definition of the word "fornication" as it is used in modern English has stayed very close to the biblical definition. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives the following definition for "fornication": "human sexual intercourse other than between a man and his wife: sexual intercourse between a spouse and an unmarried person: sexual intercourse between unmarried people." Thus the definitions of "fornication" and "adultery" do overlap to some extent. The definition of fornication will also be developed in this paper. This paper is in two parts with extensive appendixes. Part One deals with adultery and Part Two deals with fornication. In each part, the subject - adultery or fornication, has been developed in the order of biblical administrations. Thus adultery is considered first in the Patriarchal Administration, then in the Law Administration, followed by the Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. Fornication is dealt with in the same manner. Adultery Every time the issue of adultery comes up in the Patriarchal Administration it is considered wrong and a sin. In Genesis 35:22, Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, had intercourse with Jacob’s concubine. Genesis 35:22 And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve. There is nothing in the immediate context to indicate that Reuben was in any way punished for his adultery. But years later, on his deathbed, it was that event in Reuben’s life that Jacob remembered and spoke specifically about. Genesis 49:3-4 Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power: Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed; thou defiled thou it: he went up to my couch. Reuben’s adultery was wrong. Reuben’s action "defiled" his father’s bed. The word "because" in the phrase, "Thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed..." points to a cause and effect relationship. Reuben’s adultery somehow caused him not to excel. So Reuben defiled his father’s bed, and he would not excel because of his action. The incident of Reuben is thus similar to that of David. Nathan used the word "because" when he spoke to David: II Samuel 12:10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and has taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. The "because" in this verse again points to a cause-and-effect relationship. David’s treating God with contempt and "taking the wife of Uriah to be thy wife" was a cause, and the effect was "the sword shall never depart from thine house." The book of Job, which is another record during the Patriarchal Administration, also mentions adultery: Job 24:15 The eyes also of the adulterer waiteth for the twilight, saying, No eye shall see me: and disguiseth his face. The context of this verse is people who do evil, and includes "those that rebel against the light" (verse 13), "the murderer" (verse 14), and burglars (verse 16). Adultery is placed in the same context with murderers and burglars. And the verse itself says that the adulterer tries to hide his action, clearly showing the evil nature of adultery. Job mentions more about adultery in chapter 31. Job 31:9-12 If mine heart have been deceived by a woman, or if I have laid wait at my neighbor’s door; Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her. For this is an heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. For it is a fire that consumeth to destruction, and would root out all mine increase. Job’s attitude toward adultery is clearly stated. It is a "heinous crime" and an "iniquity to be punished by the judges." There are three other incidents in the Patriarchal Administration from which to learn about adultery. Abraham and Isaac both tried to pass off their wives as their sisters. Abraham did it twice, and Isaac once. In all three cases, the pagan kings who took their wives knew that adultery was wrong, and returned the wives untouched when they found out that the women were already married. These three accounts are covered in detail in Appendix B. There is one other record of adultery, actually an attempt at adultery, that must be considered. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob, and he was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt when he was still a teenager. Joseph was purchased by Potiphar, an "officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard" (Genesis 39:1). After a time Joseph had risen in position until he was the overseer of Potiphar’s house. At that time, Potiphar’s wife desired Joseph and wanted to have sexual intercourse with him. She was bold and up front with her desire, and said to Joseph, "Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7). Joseph refused. He called the intended adultery "great wickedness" and a "sin against God." Joseph, like Job, understood the nature of adultery. It is a great wickedness and a sin against God. The information on adultery that can be gleaned from the Patriarchal Administration is clear. Adultery was wrong. It defiled, it made one guilty (Appendix B), it was great wickedness, a heinous crime, an iniquity to be punished by the judges, and a sin against God. There is nothing in the Word of God to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable before God in the Patriarchal Administration. After the Patriarchal Administration came the Law Administration. As in the Patriarchal Administration, there is nothing in the Law Administration to indicate that adultery was in any way acceptable behavior. The Mosaic Law forbids adultery. The seventh commandment is: "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That the usage of "adultery" in the seventh commandment is physical, i.e., a man with a woman, was made clear by Jesus Christ when he quoted the seventh commandment as is recorded in Matthew: Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. It is obvious from Jesus Christ’s usage of the seventh commandment that he knew it referred to illicit sexual relations between men and women. A study of Old Testament scriptures shows that for a man, married or unmarried, to have sexual intercourse with a woman who was either betrothed or married was a capital crime, carrying the death penalty. Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Deuteronomy 22:22-27 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbor, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. There was one exception to the law as recorded above, and that was when a man had intercourse with a betrothed woman who was also a slave. However, even then, there were consequences for their having had intercourse, and the act is called a "sin." Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondsmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. In contrast to these clear verses, there is not one verse or record showing that adultery was acceptable to God in the Law Administration. A number of clear verses during the Christ Administration, which followed the Law Administration, show beyond a shadow of a doubt that adultery was a sin. Jesus Christ clearly addressed the issue on several occasions. He quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," on two different occasions. One was during his teaching from a mountain in Galilee during the summer of 27 A.D. (which has been quoted earlier). Matthew 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Jesus quoted the seventh commandment a second time while he was in Perea, just prior to his trip to Jerusalem when he was crucified and slain. At that time, a rich young ruler came to Jesus and asked him what he should do to have eternal life. Matthew 19:16-18 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. It is clear from these two separate records in Matthew that Jesus Christ knew and taught that adultery was wrong. John, chapter 8 is the record of the scribes and Pharisees who brought a woman to Christ "taken in adultery, in the very act." John 8:4-6 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. The scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?" (verse 5). They said this to Jesus so they would have something to use as an accusation against him (verse 6). Moses did say that a woman caught in adultery should be killed. Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Nevertheless, at that time, the Romans had made it illegal for the Judeans to put any person to death. This is why the Pharisees had to take Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities when they wanted him killed. John 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. The trap of the Pharisees who brought the adulterous woman to Jesus Christ was very clever. If Jesus had said to stone the woman, the Pharisees would have seen to it that he was arrested for breaking Roman law. If, on the other hand, Jesus had said, "Well, Moses said to stone her but we have to obey Roman law," the Pharisees would have accused him of placing Roman law above God’s justice and discredited him (Remember, they brought the woman to Jesus, not for justice but so they could find something of which to accuse Jesus.) When Jesus gave his answer about casting the first stone, all the accusers left the scene. Jesus then asked the woman, "Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?" According to Mosaic law, there was to be a trial and witnesses who would testify to a person’s guilt. If the person were found guilty, the witnesses were to cast the first stones at the guilty party (Deuteronomy 17:4-7). When Jesus stood up, there was no one there to be a witness and no one to fulfill the Mosaic law by casting the first stone. So Jesus said to the woman, "Go, and sin no more." By calling the woman’s adultery "sin", Jesus clearly stated what adultery is - a sin. Furthermore, Jesus told the woman not to commit adultery again. It is thus clear that adultery was a sin in the Christ Administration. Christ quoted the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in his teaching from a mountain in Galilee. He quoted it again to the rich young ruler who asked him what to do to receive eternal life. He called the adultery of the woman mentioned in John, chapter 8 a "sin" and he gave illicit sexual relations as the only valid reason for divorce. In contrast to these records, there is not a scripture in the gospels that indicates that adultery was not a sin or that it was to be taken lightly. This paper has dealt with adultery in the Patriarchal, Law and Christ Administrations, and it has shown that adultery was considered wrong and a sin in all of them. For adultery to be acceptable to God in the Grace Administration would be a change, and God would have to say it is acceptable. In fact, the opposite is the case. In the Grace Administration, God continues to call adultery a sin. From Acts to Revelation, the words "adultery," "adulterer," and "adulteress" are only used fourteen times in the King James Version: Romans 2:22 (twice); Romans 7:3 (twice); Romans 13:9; I Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Hebrews 13:4; James 2:11 (twice); James 4:4 (twice); II Peter 2:14; and Revelation 2:22. Only the first seven of these uses are in the church epistles. Each of the fourteen occurrences will be examined. 1 and 2 Romans 2:22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? The context of Romans 2:22 is Judeans who are "instructed out of the law" (verse 18). Thus the reference to them, saying, "A man should not commit adultery" comes right out of the ten commandments, i.e., "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The reference is simple and straightforward, and refers to the physical act of adultery. There is no reason to read spiritual adultery into this verse since the reference is obviously to the law and since idolatry (which would be spiritual adultery) is mentioned in the same verse. 3 and 4 Romans 7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. The context of Romans 7:3 is Judean law. This is clear from verse 1 "(for I speak to them that know the law)." Romans 7:3 is speaking about laws regarding divorce and remarriage and closely parallels what Jesus Christ said in Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11-12; and Luke 16:18, giving fornication as grounds for divorce. 5 Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Romans 13:9 is a very clear verse of scripture, especially in light of immediate context. The quotation, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" is from the ten commandments. It is noteworthy that the specific commandment was given in the ten commandments in the Law Administration, then quoted in the Christ Administration, and is now being quoted in the Grace Administration. The context of Romans 13:9 is easy to understand. God’s will for the believer is made clear in verse 8, i.e., "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." All the believer needs to do then is to find out from the scriptures how to love his neighbor as himself. The answer, at least in part, is in verses 9 and 10. And verse 9 makes it clear that "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" includes not committing adultery, not killing, not stealing, not bearing false witness, and not coveting. All those "Thou shalt not’s" are "briefly comprehended," i.e., "summed up," in the saying, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." It is clear from verses 8 and 9 that a person who loves someone will not steal from them, kill them, bear false witness about them, covet their belongings, or commit adultery with them. Furthermore verse 10 points out that "love is the fulfilling of the law" because it works no ill to his neighbor. The word "ill" is kakos in the Greek and is usually translated "evil." Love is the fulfilling of the law because the person who walks in the love of God will do what the Old Testament Law tried to do, i.e., get people to work no evil to their neighbors. Thus the person who walks in love will not steal, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. The person who walks in love will not commit adultery, which is something the law tried to get people not to do. Since the Old Testament law forbade adultery, in fact made it a capital crime, it cannot be "fulfilling the law" to commit adultery. So the person who walks in love, and thus fulfills the Old Testament law, must be a person who does not commit adultery. 6) I Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrightous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. The question that needs to be answered in this verse is whether or not the adultery is physical or spiritual. The context of the verse is both spiritual and physical sins. "Fornicators" will come up later in the paper. "Idolaters," of course, is definitely in the spiritual category. "Effeminate" is the word used for the man who plays the female part in a homosexual relationship. "Abusers of themselves with mankind" refers to homosexuals and pederasts. Since many of the other terms refer to physical, sexual acts, and since idolatry is plainly listed, the weight of evidence is that "adultery" in I Corinthians 6:9 refers to the physical act. 7) Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness. The word "adultery" has been erroneously inserted here. It is not in the majority of the Greek texts, nor in the Syriac Pedangta text. This ends the usages of "adultery" in the seven church epistles. The clear scripture is Romans 13:9 which leaves no doubt about God’s position on adultery - that it is not a loving thing to do, but is doing "evil" to ones neighbor. 8) Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. This verse is clear. Although marriage is honorable and the marriage bed "undefiled," i.e., unsoiled, unstained. Adulterers, who are breaking the marriage covenant, God will judge. Whoremongers, or fornicators, are covered in Part Two. 9 and 10) James 2:11 For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. This is another time the seventh commandment is quoted in the scriptures. The context clarifies this verse. James 2:10-12 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, "Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. The overall point that is being made in this section of James is that it is not good enough to keep most of the law. Sin in even one area of a person’s life is still sin and makes him guilty under the Law. James 2:12 says, "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." The believer is to walk for God and not ignore sin in his life, thinking, "Well, after all, most of my walk is okay, so a couple sins won’t hurt." The reason adultery is even mentioned in James 2:11 is that it was an acknowledged example of sinful behavior, just as killing was. Adultery would not have been used in the verse if it was not a sin. 11 and 12) James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. The words "adulterers and" should be omitted from this verse. They are not in the majority of the Greek texts or the Syriac Pedangta text. The word "adulteresses" has the spiritual meaning here, i.e., those who turn from God to serve worldly things. The context of this verse is those who serve worldly things rather than worshipping God. This is the first time that the word "adultery" has referred to idolatry or spiritual adultery. 13) II Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children The use of "adultery" in this verse is a good example of how closely tied physical adultery and spiritual adultery can be. The phrase "eyes full of adultery" forcefully reminds one of Christ’s words, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already..." Thus the phrase carries the imagery of literal physical adultery. While the context of the verse will allow that, the context also demands that the ones involved are spiritual adulterers, i.e., idolaters. They have "forsaken the right way" and have "gone astray" and are "following the way of Balaam" (verse 15). Thus, in this verse, there is no need to separate the spiritual sine from the physical sin. The men involved are guilty of both. 14) Revelation 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. This verse illustrates the use of the physical sin to communicate a spiritual truth. "Adultery" carries the image of the physical act: "cast her into a bed" and "those that commit adultery with her." Nevertheless, in the context, the verse seems to be speaking of judgment for sin, not saying that there actually was a woman whom God would cast into bed. God uses one sin, adultery, to communicate truths about another sin, idolatry. All fourteen uses of "adultery" in the New Testament have now been covered. Not one of them indicates, in any way, that adultery is acceptable to God. Quite the opposite is the case. Adultery is a sin. Furthermore, the sin of adultery is used to graphically portray the sin of idolatry. Adultery has now been studied in the Patriarchal, Law, Christ, Grace, and Appearing Administrations. In not one single instance has it been shown not to be a sin. In stark contrast, there were many verses showing that adultery was a grave sin. Adultery, in the Old Testament, involved a man, either married or unmarried and a woman who was either betrothed or married. The evidence from the Gospels (Cp. Matthew 5:32) and from the epistles (Cp. Romans 7:3) indicates that that definition holds true all the way through the Word of God. There are no examples of the term "adultery" that involve a man, married or unmarried, with a single woman. That means that, up to this point, all this paper has shown is that for a man to have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife is a sin. This next phase of the paper will deal with fornication and will show that in the Grace Administration it is a sin for a man to have sexual intercourse with any woman unless he is married to her.

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

That's where the reasons given in the Appendices come in. What should have been so obvious became overshadowed by deceit, lies and powerful positions in twi.

A bestiality fetish. Not a problem for the spiritually mature with a mind so renewed... Yet some are aghast when I say victor squatted over and defecated into the mouth of God. What? Scat play by the spiritually mature is off limits? Hey! I didn't REwrite the book. Victor did.

Back in the U.S.S.R. There is a town in North Ontario with dream comfort memory to spare.

"Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. " Now, now, "credit" where "credit" is due. (Or, possibly give "the devil" his due.) That sounded almost coincidental that vpw and some of his cadre likewise did those evil deeds. Let's be more specific, and more honest, about it. vpw was the originator. He set about to commit such sinful, criminal, and evil actions. Although it's possible that someone may have been interested in the cadre because of that, more likely they were all brought in the way lcm was brought in. vpw groomed lcm to commit those kinds of things. He told him all kinds of things, some of which we've heard. He told him- on the subject of fidelity in marriage- that the married lcm "was going to have to loosen up on those sorts of things if he wants to lead God's people." Since vpw had previously convinced lcm that vpw had an inside track on what God Almighty thought and wanted, that left lcm trying to accept that God Almighty wanted him to cheat on his own wife. And so on. vpw set up his network to target women, and when he set up that network, he groomed a number of people around him to accept or embrace that kind of thinking. That's why they were willing to help vpw rape and molest and drug the women that he did those things to. I mean, it wasn't a one-night, one conversation thing, he spent months carefully grooming and indoctrinating his inner circle so that there was a network of people close to him that would accept that and help him. Not everyone was indoctrinated this way. vpw worked hard at this, possibly harder than at anything else he did. He would find a moment to talk to only one person. He would make a small comment to them, and monitor their reaction. If they reacted in a godly fashion, he backed off and didn't bring it up again. We saw that with J1m D00p. When vpw spoke to him alone in a car, vpw tried to tell him that God Almighty was fine with orgies. J1m was resistant and revolted by the suggestion, and later convinced himself that, somehow, he misunderstood what happened, that he couldn't possibly have heard vpw say what he had heard vpw say. After that, vpw fine-tuned his approach. That was too heavy-handed and abrupt. So, he made smaller comments, less abrupt. He changed the "temperature" around him, so that discussions about sex weren't quite so out of place. Then he could make a single comment and dismiss it later as a misunderstanding if it went awry. AFAIK, Ralph D never recounted such an incident... and I doubt he was left out. I think he was approached like everyone else, but when vpw baited the hook, RD didn't take the bait- he wasn't immoral and wasn't going to be. So, vpw just dropped a passing comment and went about his business- but made a mental note to keep RD well away from the thick of things, and not to approach RD again. Over time, vpw had a list of people around him who were receptive and groomed- every time, a little further, a little further. He also had a list of people to keep clear of his sex maniac operation- people who could spoil things and ruin his well-organized sin machine after all the trouble he went through to set it up. But they had their uses also- mainly, their clean-cut natures were "evidence" that nothing untoward could be happening around vpw. After all, in public, he said nothing in favor of it, and there were moral, godly people around him, so they would have blown the whistle on him. So, yes, the comments in the appendices started with vpw. As with anything else in twi, some people just parroted his phrases without ever stopping to question whether or not they were correct, godly or right- or to think at all, for that matter. Whenever we saw multiple people parroting the same error-ridden sentences, it was as good as having vpw's initials or signature on the phrase, endorsing and recommending it all around.

Like their leader VP, men (and some women) used those reasons above to get what they wanted leaving behind darkness and brokenness. I saw the darkness, I saw the darkness No more safety, no more light Now I’m so shameful, no trusting in sight Thanks to him, I saw the darkness

How we communicate is a personal decision. I choose to (at least attempt to) communicate in a way that doesn't assume that the other person is a complete idiot. I'm also influenced by the way I communicated my faith while in TWI, and how I see many evangelicals/fundamentalists speak now -- it can be arrogant and condescending. I also figure that I'm not responsible for what other people believe as long as they're not trying to enshrine it in law, or are assuming that I'm an idiot for not believing what they believe. I think that Gervais, at least in that interview is pretty low-key about it. He presents why he thinks the way he does, but doesn't attack Colbert or imply that he is stupid. Regarding the second phrase you highlighted. My family members have built up an immunity to my opinions on religion stemming from my obnoxious "witnessing" during my TWI days and get very defensive when I express an opinion about religion. My point was not I wasn't trying to convince her that her god didn't exist, but that maybe her understanding about said god wasn't in line with reality...within the context of stipulating that God exists. By the way, I'm not an atheist, although I may sound like one sometimes. I allow for the existence of spiritual entities in a kind of agnostic way, but don't base any life decisions on their existence. If there is a God, then there are gods also, with their existence all being of similar probability. I recall a quote that was attributed to The Buddha (probably apocryphal) where he acknowledged that gods existed, but that they were rather silly! I have moved away from religion in multiple steps, starting with my rejection of TWO dogma, moving through skepticism about the Bible all the way to where I am now.

Thank you for acknowledging that the thread has veered away from its original topic so much that it is no longer even in the right forum.

I would like to request some caution here: the topic of this thread is questioning TWI doctrine, but if we start getting into arguments for and against the reality of claimed supernatural experience, I am concerned the discussion will no longer be "About the Way" and would instead fall rightly under "Matters of Faith." I'm trying to head this off now because I don't want people to come back later and say "why did you let so and so atheist say this and not let the Christian say that?"

I lived for years with the pain and fear than my unbelieving adult children and grandchildren, who being ineligible for a ticket for the rapture trip, would have to resist the mark of some dreaded beast all the while they were experiencing the great tribulation when God's wrath is poured out and life becomes worse than anything in the history of mankind. And if they were lucky able to survive all that, they would then have to face annihilation or the lake of fire or an eternity in hell or whatever God's judgment had planned for them. But, when I realized that there was no evidence that this bogeyman of a god even existed, that fear vanished.

Probably it would be freeing. By the time I started raising children I was already involved with TWI, so all my adopted and biological children grew up with TWI doctrine. However, despite being mostly Waybrained, I tried to encourage my children to think and come to logical conclusions. It took with some of them, but not with others! By the time I remarried and was raising a stepdaughter, my wife and I didn't attempt to indoctrinate her in anything. She still managed to catch the Christianity bug through friends, got baptized while she was in Air Force basic training, and still considers herself a nondenominational, generic Christian, although I doubt she cares about doctrinal specifics. Of my children with my first wife, none have stayed with TWI. One son is an atheist, another might be, but doesn't claim the label. My daughter considers herself Catholic, but doesn't really participate. The others never talk about it. My granddaughters are raised by parents who would probably not identify as atheists, but are not involved in any church and to my knowledge never talk about religion. One of the girls told my wife that she doesn't believe in any gods. They're probably the closest in my extended family who I would consider having been raised atheist -- more like raised doctrinally neutral

Mmmph I am reminded of that book on ectoplasm and other such phenomena that TWI used to “study.” Wasn’t it published by American Christian Press, but later victor distanced himself from it? Someone will know what I’m talking about. A mind is a terrible thing to lose - only so much room for bullshonta.

Galatians 5 (KJV) 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5 (NASB) 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20 idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Let's see. The works of the flesh are compared and contrasted with the fruit of the Spirit. Sexual immorality, indecent behavior, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, envy, drunkenness... hey sounds like vpw's "To Do" list. He covered these pretty thoroughly. As for the fruit of the Spirit, he evidenced NONE of these. Someone with a tortured enough definition could shoehorn "faith" in, but not the others. When the cameras were off, "joy" was far away, as was "agape." The rest really sound like he was aiming for their opposites.

It's pretty obvious that no Bible verses actually SAY any of that. It was what vpw called "private interpretation." If I were to go strictly by what's in the Bible, and refused to guess, I'd have to make the following conclusions. 1) The presence of the spirit would make fruit of the spirit possible. 2) Nothing is said to be required for them otherwise- no practice, doctrine, etc. So, the "you have to" anything thing is all personal opinion. 3) Strictly speaking, walking by the written revelation isn't required either. If you do right but don't know which verse says to do the specific behavior, it doesn't undo what you did. 4) As if it needs rephrasing and repeating, neither manifestations nor gifts of the spirit are required. 5) Nothing said that the ONLY way to demonstrate any of those is by fruit of the spirit. People can acquire those elsewhere, with varying degrees of success. There's non-Christians who are confident they've achieved "peace", and probably have. But having the spirit would sure make it a lot easier, by way of the fruit of the spirit.

Between the 88 and 89 ROA, lcm drew his line in the sand. vpw used to take people in isolation on grounds, and occasionally threaten to kick them out for incompetence unless they swore an oath of allegiance to him. He pulled this privately and in quiet because vpw knew it was wrong. vpw taught lcm. Among the things he taught him was that lcm was going to have to "loosen up" on the subject of sex and sex acts with women other than his wife if he wanted to lead God's people. He convinced lcm that vpw was the real thing. So, when lcm did things vpw did, lcm believed they were OK with God Almighty, so he didn't cover his tracks so much..which is why he got caught. So, 1985 was "Passing of the Patriarch." For a few years, lcm wandered the grounds in a fog (according to him.) After that (1988), lcm drew his line in the sand. He contacted ALL the twi leaders above twig level. He demanded an oath of allegiance to him PERSONALLY. We know this because one of our posters got this message, and phoned lcm directly. He said it sounded like lcm was saying they all had to follow him BLINDLY (his emphasis, not mine.) lcm claimed that was what he was already doing. "If that's what you really think, you can kiss my @$$$" *hangs up* lcm demanded that everyone choose between himself and Geer. Most leaders said they refused to choose among men, and/or said they chose to stand with God, period. So, lcm fired all of them. In one fell swoop, 80% of all the leaders in twi were fired, and letters were sent to everyone with the names of everyone in their state who was canned, and saying they were canned for following their lusts and so on. When that happened, the people- who knew the locals but didn't know lcm- stuck with their local leaders rather than lcm. Since lcm kicked them all out simultaneously, he made it convenient for them to associate with each other. In different places, at least for a time, the locals all split from twi as a group. At ROA 89, attendance was 20% what it had been at ROA 88. Immediately following ROA 89, some of the people who attended left. (Like me-I was there to buy out the bookstore, to observe things for myself to make informed decisions, and to be on-site if, somehow, lcm got sensible and started fixing things. As for the splits, 20% stayed with lcm, 80% left. I summarized the split around the time by saying that the love left, and the fire stayed. So, the compassionate people were out, and none were to be found in twi after that, when you returned. What was left was people who were willing to be loyal even if it was not sensible to do so. So, people running on lots of conviction- the fire. So, that's why twi seemed so different from ROA 90 onward (until lcm called off the ROAs.)

The GSC is not a "Christians only" or a "Christian=specific" forum. Everyone is welcome to post, regardless of position, beliefs, and where they are in their life. That having been said, not everything is welcome to be posted. It's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're Christians, and it's not acceptable to dump insults on posters just because they're NOT Christians. So, no slams just because people are atheists or agnostics (which doesn't mean everyone else is free game for insults.) You have choices. Either refrain from posts like that, or just admit you can't control yourself and go elsewhere to post. You can always make your own message board and post whatever you'd like on it. The other possibility is to disregard the GSC rules and common manners and lay into people without restriction. Of course, that means that the Moderators are going to have to take action. Those who can't control themselves will require others adding control to them. That's true just about everywhere. Naturally, you can ignore my post or make fun of it, but a word to the wise is sufficient.

Just be glad you didn't see it in the original.

Well, there you have it. One of the most private of private interpretations.

This opens up a whole lot of other questions for me like, does God work with unbelievers as well. Maybe the whole rap of "the fruit of the spirit comes from the manifestations" is bogus. QUESTION for the group: did VPW make that up or did he copy it from elsewhere... Stiles, Leonard, or somebody else?

You should care DEEPLY about the plagiarism. Not only is it illegal, unethical and slothful, large portions of what he plagiarized have been shown to be inaccurate.

Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

Do you know enough atheists to come to a statistically valid conclusion that they are without joy? But extremely without joy...

Does this post have any meaning at all?????

I'm an atheist. I have lots of joy. I also exhibit the fruit of the spirit in much of my life and have been commended many times for doing "God's Work" (to which I respond: "I have to; He won't). "Atheists are extremely without joy" is a statement of staggering ignorance and bigotry. I trust that is outside your character. Might be best to stick with a subject about which you actually know something

Well, remember he taught us to disregard the ten commandments, saying they were "the law" and the law didn't apply any more. The law? The ten commandments are rules for living together socially. Decent behaviour. Respect for God, and respect for fellow human beings. The Ten Commandments are a set of biblical principles that guide ethical behavior and worship. They are as follows: You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Honor your father and your mother. You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall not covet. These commandments were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and can be found in the Bible in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 You'll have to look hard before you find one that he didn't break. His God was money. His carved image was TWI. He mocked God. He respected no time of rest (quite the opposite, he pushed people to breaking point). He disregarded his parents. (Interestingly, this is "the first commandment of promise" - “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you." And we know he died earlier than might be expected for a man in his circumstances) He didn't physically kill anyone, but he killed their reputations, their confidence, their lives. He killed their genuine Godly ministries, too. Adultery - how many women did he rape and otherwise assault? (some have posted their stories here) Steal? He obtained money and other assets by fraud. He even stole his famous PFAL class and the follow-on classes! Bear false witness? The lies and slander he spread, about anyone he disliked and especially about departing Corps, are legendary. Covet? He sought the fame that genuine ministers had. As the Bible tells us: “Even a child is known by his deeds” (Proverbs 20:11) conveys the timeless lesson that a person’s actions-from childhood onward-reflect character. The verse serves as a reminder that moral responsibility begins early. Wordwolf has clearly set out the deeds of the child, teenager, young adult that was VPW. No surprise what the older adult VPW turned out to be.

Love Wins All

Yes, Vatican 2 made some changes to RC doctrine, and one change in particular, drove me away from the church. Prior to Vatican 2, a Catholic had to abstain from eating meat on Fridays under penalty of hell if they did not find a priest to absolve them of their mortal sin. After they die, just imagine all the folks suffering in hell over eating a bologna sandwich, if they didn’t confess to a priest. Then Vatican 2 decrees it is no longer a mortal sin to chomp down on a ham and cheese grilled sandwich. A Catholic can now eat their rare steak Friday evening for supper and not go to hell. But what about those terrible meat eating sinners who weren’t fortunate enough to live in the post Vatican 2 era? Apparently they get to watch from hell with envy, as their family and friends enjoy a hamburger and hot dog bbq on a sunny Friday afternoon. And unless their family or friends commit any number of other mortal sins that will result in them being cast into the fires of hell, they will never see each other again. This decree made by a man just hasn’t set right with me and got me thinking that religion is man made. Thank goodness I finally realized there is no god and all these religious beliefs have been lifted from me.

“Dr.”

How sure are you that he did NOT teach that HIS teachings were the Word of God? Whether he ever used those words or not is irrelevant. His actions, his exercise of excommunication ALL consistently DID mean that Victor's words were the Word of God.

It's interesting to note how fast pfal does a 180 when it comes to tithing. Christians are not under The Law, we are under Grace. All our rules come from Pentecost and afterwards...... except for tithing. The rules quoted are all from The Law, like in Malachi. One example is quoted that Abraham gave a donation- with nothing saying it was required or even expected. He chose to give it, and he gave it. That's not proof nor an argument for tithing. The only reference in the New Testament? II Corinthians 9:7. In the KJV, it reads: 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. (For the curious, the NASB reads "7 Each one must do just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." ) vpw used this verse to say that we were required to give 10%- or more! to "God"- and both he and twi push for twi to be the sole source to receive all that money. He made no effort to distinguish it from the previous requirement- he called it "tithe"- same as before- which means "tenth." But even the verse he quotes says we don't have to tithe! If we are REQUIRED to give, the giving is "OF NECESSITY". ("Under compulsion.") twi keeps track of their members/"followers" and their tithes/money given under compulsion. Try giving less than 10% and see how long you go before someone starts giving you static. So, after Pentecost, no donations are REQUIRED. In Acts, there were donations requested at specific times for specific needs at that time. In twi, that's not the final word on the subject. Suppose you even give 10%. That's not enough. Now you have to "abundantly share." Those are donations above the MANDATORY 10%. The verses for this....no verses. "Well, under The Law, they gave 10%, we should do more!" Wait! In twi, that's STILL not the final word on the subject. Outside of vpw, twi, and possibly another group that got this from them, nobody has the sheer nerve to pull this one. "Plurality giving." In twi, that's a thing. It means you sit down, figure out how much you make, calculate how much you need to get by, and subtract that amount from the amount you made. Then you take EVERYTHING ELSE AND HAND IT OVER TO TWI! Everywhere else, you can take anything left and invest it, put it towards retirement, save it for emergencies, use it to buy something nice, etc. That's not recommended anywhere in the Bible. People wondering what difference it makes should learn some of the practical differences it makes. People in twi are NOT SUPPOSED to save for retirement, invest, etc. They're supposed to hand twi over all that money. So, when the person gets an emergency, does twi ever donate back a little of that money to compensate! No way! They'll pray for you, but the money is in their hands and not going back. In twi, you're supposed to distance yourself from family members who are not in twi..... UNTIL YOU NEED SOMETHING FROM THEM. THEN you go to them for help to cover for the absence of the money you handed over to twi! If you're in twi, you may HEAR that you're "under Grace", but in many ways, you are NOT treated that way, and that starts with handing over your money. Lots of people remember that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (vpw's book that argues you're supposed to hand over 10%) was required with pfal. Most of us were given a homework assignment right at the beginning of the class, to read it. As soon as we got the book, we were required to read it. All the pfal material to cover- but the "give us your money" stuff jumped to the front of the queue.

TWI's attitude to giving is so against what the Bible teaches and the way God operates that it is unrecognisable. And what they teach about tithing isn't recognisable either. To whom were the tithes given, tithes of what, where to be presented, and when. And why (that's a big one, and not one that TWI has ever touched on) (it's not what you might think). You can research it for yourself. It is absolutely wrong to be checking up on people's incomes to make sure they tithed/donated any money. It's between individuals and God. Here are the words of Jesus (yes, I know in the gospels, and only for our learning, hahahaha, as not part of the NT according to TWI) as recorded in Mt 6: when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Now just how private, how secret, is your giving supposed to be, if (hyperbolically) your left hand doesn't know what your right hand is doing? Your left hand can't know, but your twig leader can? Huh??? We were badly taught. But I do believe that God respects those who did give (even if from dishonest teaching).

OK, got it. And WordWolf, I fully agree with your assessment above relating to both TWI and RC.

If you've read Undertow, you know I was involved with TWI from 1970-1987 and knew those folks back then. Yes, they were good hearted. I worked with Bernita Jess, who was kind to me, for many years. I agree they were enablers, maybe some more than others, depending on how close they were to VWP. Intersting that Donna Rand*ll is not on this list! She was VPW's personal research secretary from the early days, helped when they filmed PFAL, and worked at HQ when I was in the Corps 1971-1973, and at PFAL '77 for the filming of that class, I was assigned to be her assistant, although I didn't do very much. So she was loyal from the beginning of the organization. She and her husband, Gene, lived in a trailer on HQ grounds for years. One of her daughters married VPW's nephew. She broke away from TWI around the time I did, in 1987 ish. She had been very close to VPW and I'll bet she knew a lot of dirt.

Whoops-that is correct, sir! To be specific, he also said Leonard was good with experiences (and vpw derided experience often) but not with The Word. And H1ggins supposedly gave him his Bullinger stuff: "he writes like you teach."