Ham

Even the Beatles lamented..

assuming they got it right.. If every man were a prophet, and every woman a prophet's wife.. that would explain the twi mindset towards women.. Oh yes. In the 1970's, I saw women raked over the coals even when they "asked their husbands at home". "Woman, shut the *f* up.."

Well, for me.. I was involved for twenty two years. You could say that I had quite a bit "invested" in the organization. My exit was not under the best of circumstances.. I was eyeball to eyeball with a madman. Come to think of it, that's how I got involved to begin with. "They" just had better table manners back then. I felt like part of me died. At least I am "enabled" to put the pieces together, know why and how a LUNATIC could be and was set in charge of a whole state. I think some people would rather swallow the blue pill, and wake back up the next morning in twi la-la land.. can't really go back "home".. :)

like, what? Could you give a few examples of this "poisonous" information? " "dr" wierwille died of cancer.." it's only negative if a person chooses to make it negative. Of course, cancer=devil spirt would make it quite negative, if the doctrine were true. Poison is only poisonous by considering the context, or relationship to a given organism. Penicillin is poisinous to certain bacteria.. but to people, it is a medicine.

I dunno.. looking at the record now, it looks pretty vague and general to me.. "she saw, she desired, she ate.." I think a person has to make quite a few assumptions to say that "THIS is how the adversary works today".

That's the whole point, isn't it? I would not have been involved had I seen it, either. So, yeah.. look who's in charge. rosie the "enabler". She sacrificed her "own kind" (women), or allowed it. She was well aware of loy's "preclivities", for years, by her own admission. I think she was just waiting for loy to hang himself. Equals? Hmm. Maybe in a Hemingway kinda fashion.. if they could fish, hunt, roll with the punches..

I would add: consider the smallness of the content of der vey's website. Every bit of "good" they can possibly wring out of the organization is there, and they have what.. a few piecemeal "teachings.." a few pictures of middle and older aged people with a well rehearsed smile on their faces.. very likely older archive photos of the auditorium and grounds when they were a lot better kept up.. and no names. Why? You'd think they'd want to hang the credit (or blame) on somebody for those few abreviated inane "teachings".. like it's owner, the website is rather "small". If not small minded. If they were really honest.. They'd have a page about their history.. with at least a FACTUAL treatment of the life and death of it's founder. Perhaps biographical info about who runs the place now. Perhaps a description of the content of their classes and seminars. Perhaps even the rules and expectations of participants in their various programs.. And you don't get this information, from der vey. I think John Juedes really fills in a vacuum here.. not in a manner der vey may like.. I'm glad he chose to interact with us. I don't fault him for a few factual errors.. it's like learning another language..

except when they had to sleep their way up the ladder.. and it did happen.Happened in a "Christian" "ministry". A corporate structure that allows such practices is corrupt. I didn't think you were. It just kind of made sense to me with some things I saw.. I saw some men get worse and worse. No "results", more abuse. Less "results", even more abuse and blame..

Real life now, isn't that how it really is? Or do people have a corner on truth that allows them to walk in perfect submission?

That makes some sense. In der vey I think it was the beginning of a long downwrd spiral for some. A lot of times, it was the woman who was attacked as being the cause of lack of results for the most trivial reasons. Really bad things happen.. she was often targeted with blame for causing embarassment or shame. Well, that didn't last long I guess, pretty soon everybody was under the microscope.

or refused to believe what we (I) saw.. Bluegrass without a Banjo? I thought that was bluegrass blasphemy or somehting..

It's amazing how much of his true character he revealed.. and a lot of us didn't really see it..

What I really love about some of the modern "mystics".. The best I've heard of the message.. and sometimes it is rather eloquent: "I would really like a following, but I don't have a friggin clue of what is really going on" :

Yep.. I'm glad my God isn't that small.. I have quite a few doubts.. fears.. even a few worries. At least they belong to me.. but everything isn't me, or is it? :)

Hey, don't lay it on too thick, there's only so much you can do with a rusty sword..

Follow the footsteps of da donna bird, they will surely lead you...

What kind of "woman" indeed.. Friend.. comrade.. confidante.. none of the above..

Probably what loy is asking himself every night..

vic did model himself as a mog like unto Luther.. maybe that's what gave you the idea. Taped his "theses" on the church door.. was it in New Bremen?

I dunno. I would say that it depends on the particular statements. If I said "little green men live inside of the moon" you could be pretty safe saying that this statement had nothing to do with der vey, barring the effect it may or may not have had on me. But if a significant number of followers assert that the U.S. is being taken over in 1976, that the trininty is wrong, that followers are supposed to implicitly obey their leadership, that wives are to be in subjection, that abortion is notsa bad.. you might REASONABLY make an inference that these statements have something to do with der vey..

Oldies, you may be talking to Mo, but how would I explain it.. hmm. If this is the justification for abuse, I would rather throw it away. People are more important than words on a page, especially if we do not understand them correctly, or if they simply don't reflect reality. "see? It's da WORD of GAWD, in black and white.." I've seen people counselled to stay in abusive marriages based upon this black and white definition of marriage. if these really are Paul's words, they don't ring true, at least to me. I think it is far too much power for an individual, to exercise over another. If a person lets go of the concept that it is a perfect word, accurate from Genesis to Revelation.. the problem seems to solve itself.. on the other hand, what about the historical context? The husband WAS the head of the wife in that culture. He OWNED her.. Perhaps it is a little bit of sarcasm. "yeah, you're head, like Christ is head".. Luke 10:44- "he who is chiefest among you, let him be servant of ALL". He didn't exactly boss his way, or pull the strings of his position to become savior. maybe they couldn't change culture. but they could love as the head.. I'm not sure which, or either I believe at this point. If the true interpretation justifies "putting the little woman in her place" by bullying, endlessly quoting and harping on, even with scripture, regarding her as more spiritually suceptible to devils merely because she is female, I would throw it away. Somebody would have to convince me on a practical level otherwise.

hmm. Last person I did this with lost an ear, but don't worry, hold perfectly still. *ham wields rusty sword* "Out There, I knight thee co-ruler of the relm, to smite with chuckles and laughs, as oftenth as thou wishedeth, as long as you both shall live. Say, "I do"." *thud*

Honest to God.. they may not force the women to wear berkas and veils, but these sonsabitches still regard them as chattel.. even justify it with the bible. I wonder how more primitive we can be.

I saw them sit there and just take it.. merely because they had nowhere else to go. it was one of those "surreal" moments in der vey. One guy accused his wife of conversing with devils, simply because I asked HER to pray for me, and not HIM.. bastards just as soon would have given the wife a lobotomy if they could have..

The two or three "men" that I personally knew, that vic directly trained in early corps, more than reflected this. They really thought that a "loose" woman (not morals, but in thought and deed) was practically an invitation to possession, to be ruled over with a rod of iron. I saw a group of women punished in public because one or two offered REASONABLE, CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Talk about free will, consent and participation all you want.. these women did not sign on for that kind of abuse. It wasn't part of the "agreement". Mostly, the "agreements" with anybody in der vey, that I knew of, were that all agreements were off. Subject to the wind as it blows, or to whatever the particular color of "truth" was in stock that particular month.