Jeaniam

As for the husband being the "tie breaker" when he and his wife disagree, as another poster commented: How does that work?? She has one vote. He has one vote. He has another vote to "break ties".

BY my math that means: She has one vote. He has two votes. That's not a vote that's a dictatorship

In our marriage there have been some occasions in which John (in his role of 'tiebreaker') has decided the issue to stick with his original position, and I have lost the argument, and other occasions in which after reflection he has seen the logic of my argument and decided the issue to agree with my position. I don't consider that a dictatorship; in both cases, my point of view is given a full and fair hearing. Sorry you don't get it, Bolshevik, but it works for us.

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.

True. I wasn't trying to allocate blame there, just trying to make the point that husbands and wives were equals (heirs together of the grace of life).

Whatever led to his conclusion, he was being a hypocrite...Mr. Wierwille taught repeatedly from the bible that "all men are liars"...in other words, why did he believe the woman's husband?...

Wierwille came from an era of male chauvinism and a background that kept women "in their place"...his entire life was saturated with this belief system. He used the bible to justify his position...it made it much easier for him to sexually abuse women when, in his own mind, they were "inferior" and deserved to be treated as objects. Many of the women in the "early years"of twi that were ordained, paid a high price for their "ordination"...I know of several of them that were Wierwille's personal mistresses.

Christian minister?...No, I'm sorry, the man didn't qualify for that title...he was a sexual predator who cloaked his evil deeds under the thin veneer of Christianity.

It still seems like a remarkably cynical remark. There were many men who came from that background (including my father) and I can't remember ever hearing him voice a comment like that. Indeed, he always treated my mother with the greatest respect and consideration. I can't help wondering what experiences in his life led to him having such a warped view of women.

I have a question.

How does "submitting to your own husband" (who loves you like Christ loves the church)

equal

Degrading women

?

Degradation has no place in a godly marriage, or in any godly relationship between people. I don't think the whole "degradation" bit was part of the marriage vow. I didn't vow to my husband that I would take abuse or be treated as less than a woman of God when I married him. He didn't vow to put me down and treat me like a lower form of life.

I think the whole "submission" to the husband as the head thing is a little from degrading women... but that's only my opinion.

A valid point. John uses his position as head of the house to act as a tiebreaker (when there is a situation and we are vehemently opposed to each other) not as a tyrant who treats me like a five year old child. 1 Peter 3:7 exhorts husbands to 'Dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.' I have heard teachings that 'giving honour to the wife, as unto the weaker vessel' means to treat her as a piece of fine china or rare crystal in value, not to denigrate her as a second-class citizen. The phrase 'heirs together' is the same word that is used of a believer's position as a 'joint heir' with Jesus Christ. Christ is the head of the body but believers enjoy all the same privileges as Jesus Christ and no where (as far as I know) does the Bible refer to believers as second-class citizens. Indeed, that verse seems to imply that if men degrade their wives, their access to God may be limited (prayers be hindered).

Interesting glimpse of your ex way connections.

I feel for women who need to work but still do all the house work on top of a 40 hr week, when they have an able bodied spouse who could help but doesn't.

That's pretty degrading!

Well, only one of them. Most of them are very good people.

I agree. We ran into one interesting situation during our last ROA. Some of the Corps women arranged their work schedules so they could watch each other's children instead of leaving them with their fathers. These same women (and men) held John in contempt because he watched his own children and was so p#$$&-whipped that he was willing to change poopy diapers. I think that's ridiculous.

Think all ya want...ya gotta catch me first

I notice you don't live terribly far away.

jeannieyam, next time tell the two of them to clean it !!!!! you'll supervise

Works for me, although John is very good at doing more than his share of housework (we're going through one of those phases in our marriage when we both have jobs). Thanks for your support.

Quote: "Then a woman came over to me, and said, 'I think God sent a man here to meet your need.

Meet me at 9am.' I thought,

'Women never tell the truth.' " End quote.

Without trying to justify his behavior (which I admit is extreme), I wonder what in his dealings with women led to the conclusion of 'Women never tell the truth'.

Quote: Well, thanks, I guess. But why are you trying to convince anyone? You're the one who lives with him, not us. I was under the impression that you didn't care what any of us thought, and had explained away phrases like "clock her like she deserves". My mistake. My apologies. End quote.

I don't particularly. I mention a facet of his character that most of you who THINK you know him are unaware of. And BTW, I'm sure you don't want to be married to him. Very funny, lol. BTW, don't start me thinking about human sacrifices again.

QUOTE

Oldies, do you think the above examples represent a man loving his wife as Christ loved the church?

QUOTE

absolutely

Mr. Hammeroni, I think you may have misunderstood Oldies posts. I posted between there and I think the word 'absolutely' referred to my post, not yours.

In TWI as I knew it, the wife was subject to her husband...and the husband was subject to the Fellowship coordinator, the branch coordinator, the limb coordinator, the Region coordinator, and any other coordinator that could get their nose in there.

There was a time when that was true, but John was usually quick to tell anyone who offered unasked for advice to mind their own business.

Congratulations, and may you have many years of happiness.

John & Jean we are

Hi folks.

Like it or not, the Way taught (or teaches) the bible and the bible teaches that the wife be subject to the husband (Eph 5: 22-24).

After all we once were participants in a BIBLICAL group who believed the BIBLE is the word of God?

Nobody was forced to do this and we consented to it, year after year.

This does present a problem for the wife if she does not want to live like that. Of course it does. The whole damn bible presents a problem if one doesn't want to live like that.

But I am still of the opinion that folks should stop blaming twi for something that the bible says right there in plain English.

I would add, I think husbands who love their wives as Christ loved the church are worthy of the wives submission.

I agree with most of your points (especially the last one) but I will point out that the Bible exhorts wives to be subject to her 'own' husband, not every man who comes along.

And, for anyone who thinks being married to John is a fate worse than death (but not totally off topic) I had a situation recently in which the believer I had asked to housesit for us tried to 'reprove' me with the Word on the subject of what it meant to be 'the keeper of the home'. Before he got three sentences into his tirade, John shut him up with, 'Jean works very hard to keep the house as clean as she can, and if you don't like it, feel free not to come here again'. The gentleman stamped out with a very red face and has since sent me a very nice letter of apology. I just thought I would throw that out there for anyone who might think that John degrades women.

In Pfal there was that little section on VP leaarning how to SIT, the minister that lead him into tongues put his wife in her place--and VP respected him for that.

But did the wife really do something terrible? Seems to me she wanted to know how long he would be...Really did she deserve to be smacked down?

It seems like all he really had to say was 'I don't know'.

That's an accurate summation of what we established on the thread. It was great to get various people's viewpoints on the subject. I, at least, learned a lot.

We had a good vacation, thanks for asking. We saw most of the tourist attractions in Washington (Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, etc.). We saw the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers (very moving). We also had the privilege of going on a staff-led tour of the Capitol building. We missed out on the White House (which now takes up to four months to arrange through your Congressperson), but all in all, we had a very good time.

i guess you can spell

Off topic;

Deleted by Pawtucket

now that's about the best laugh i've had all day, jean. come on !!!!

--

why would you continue to bother rascal about punctuation and spelling. it keep making you look worse, in my personal view

One more time, I'm a little tired of Rascal continuing to complain that John and myself don't understand her posts, when she refuses to make the effort to make sure they're clear. As Oakspear said on a different thread, 'If someone WANTS to communicate badly, why bother to communicate at all?'

I for one am glad that you shared what you did above. It's so much more interesting than the slapfest that happens when you and other posters lob insults at each other.

It is apparent that you and other posters still don't get the point I was trying to make (or don't want to get it). Whatever....shrug.

Reproof? It must be great to fellowship with you guys! Do you critique every tiny little thing, every imperfection just glares, distracting you etc? All done out of love and concern, perfecting the saints and all that?

I think I'm having a flash back!

I didn't start this one Jean--you put it out there on a public forum and people responded. Quite revealing.

No, obviously I don't critique every 'tiny little thing'. I didn't mention her spelling or her punctuation until it became clear that it was habitual, rather than a momentary lapse or inadvertently touching the wrong key. And, BTW, I hold myself to the same standard. I make plenty of mistakes in typing, but I take the time to proofread my posts and correct them. In this post alone I probably made 10-15 spelling or punctuation mistakes.

As far as the topic goes--many of us come here to examine behaviors that were common and acceptable in TWI --like half thought out reproof or directives from leadership-- that we could not question without inviting a whole can of worms to be opened in our lives. Here, we can question, examine, pull apart, think through, conclude, decide, and not blindly obey those who see themselves as spiritual authoritays.

Here, people earn their respect by their postings, not by their position in the Household.

And I am only asking that Rascal be willing to earn my respect by her postings, not her emotional outbursts.

John

Let me get this straight you are going to tell me what rules are good for my life?

(too many rules)

Maybe if you manage your own before you look in my backyard.

Let me ask one more question after all this time posting here can

you show me one time that you said you would pray for someone?

Whether he said it or not, there have been many times over the years when he has prayed for the people on greasespot. I know this because that is the kind of man he is. And he manages his life just fine.

You were told by several people that your comment was rude. But you chose to ignore that reproof. So now I am saying it again, it was rude. No one launched a personal attack on you or John. Temple Lady's post and Brambles post were not addressed to anyone, if you chose to apply the contents to yourself then you applied them because you felt that they fit. (If the shoe fits!)

Bottom line: You were given reproof, you should have corrected yourself and simply appologized. But you chose not to do so. Now there are accusations and cr@p flying everywhere and the household on this thread is in confusion, hurt and undue anger. You have the power and Godly responsibility to correct this problem, the question is "Will you chose to do so?"

Actually, from my point of view, Rascal was given reproof that she (and you) chose to diregard because she (and you) think the way it was phrased was rude. No one has claimed that anything I said was untrue.

I actually wasn't referring to myself as one of the stalking victims, Jean. I don't think my experience in TWI was anything as dark as some other women on this site, plus I feel that I can pretty much take care of myself on a forum. This little dust up is small potatoes compared to some.

I was thinking about several women who have had stalkers on this site in the past year or two and made an observation.

I 'm certainly not the only one who has seen it--why don't you, Jean, address the other posters on this thread who have popped up in defence of Rascal, hmmm?

But I can see how you could think I was referring to myself, since you have taken upon yourself to question my presence on a thread, and have made insults to me in the past.

Since I quoted Eyesopen and was clearly responding to her, once again you're reading something into one of my posts that wasn't there, and once again I'm going to suggest that you read my posts carefully so you understand what I'm trying to say.

Once again I am compelled to ask the question, where is the opposing opinion? Rascal was talking about layers of habit patterns that needed to be peeled away to get back to correct and healthy thinking. Bramble was agreeing with her. Where is the "victim" in that? And on a side note, isn't this thread titled; "Why is therean Ex-TWI site?" Is not each poster expected to some degree respond to the title question? Is that not what Rascal did? So what is the big problem here? Some disagree, ok so disagree without making personal attacks and move on. That is considered polite civilized adult behavior. It is something I learned by the time I was five years old. Don't force me to pull Rodney K!ng out of my pocket!

For one, I disagree with the idea that renewing your mind to the Word is an habit pattern that needs to be peeled away to get back to correct and healthy thinking. I believe that thinking about the Bible IS correct and healthy thinking. And I disagree with John that Rascal can still get her point across with poor punctuation. Anyone who has sat through PFAL knows how a couple of misplaced commas can alter the intent of a sentence. And, finally, I don't see why all of you seem to think that Rascal is incapable of standing up and speaking for herself (including Rascal).

Just stopping in to say I am much, much better. My choices were, get the swelling down or surgery. I wasn't excited about the 2nd one. Ignoring it wasn't an option.

Thanks so much for your prayers, Mark, and any others.

Be back soon on this thread.

Deb

I would have prayed for you if I had been aware of the problem. I'm certainly glad you're feeling better. I'm back and ready to resume. BTW we had a great time in Washington D.C.