oldiesman

WordWolf Wrote: Well I can't say I blame you for not wanting to dig out your Way Memorabilia, as I too am too lazy to dig mine out as well. :lol: But if you ever get ambitious, I'd love to read about what specific issues VF confronted LCM about at this point in time, if any. So far, all I know about is vagueness and suspicion, no real specifics with any juice. BTW, you also may be forgetting something. In March of 1989, VF was in Chris Geer's camp for at last a year. He was following Geer. So I don't really know what biblical issues he could have helped Craig with since he thought Craig was off the wall worshipping other gods and would not change, since Geer thought the same thing. Vince was likeminded with Geer. But I still would be happy to read what specific issues VF confronted Craig about.

I was in NY, and I still firmly believe that had VF not followed Geer but instead allowed himself to stand with Craig to move the Word at that time, folks in NY would have stayed, on a massive scale.VF was a man above reproach. Those who knew him, loved and respect him. Had he decided to stay, and, shall I say "win another one for the Gipper", folks would have been happy to stay. And remember that the man Craig was in 1989 was most definitely not the man he was in 1999. He was far and above worse in 1999, and you would do well to consider that in your analysis.

Glad you had Ralph D... he also struck me as a decent man who wouldn't put up with that stuff. Didn't know him personally, but somehow I was at his house once in Long Island for a final session of PFAL. Another word about Ralph and WOW: When he was the Trunk Coordinator, I wrote him and complained about what I thought was a mistaken twi policy, which was the routine of allowing folks to sign up for WOW at the rock. I thought it didn't give them enough time to contemplate their decision, enough time to prepare, or enough time to count the cost, etc. Ralph wrote back to me and said we do that to allow folks to make a decision as God may work in their hearts; and that statistically speaking, percentage wise, less folks left the WOW field when they signed up at the Rock. That surprised me...

He lived it at times, I saw him walk in love, and at this point in his life he certainly could have been too. And walking in love isn't always a pat on the back to people. Sometimes it could be a kick in the butt. But I also have a letter from VF in my Way Memorabilia collection (forgot what date) where he writes that "barring none, Craig has more love of God in him than anyone", or words to that effect. I'm not joking. This was, of course, before the time period when VF started following Chris Geer. I wasn't the first to mention "blind obedience" on this thread, if that is what you were referring to.

They didn't. Otherwise, they would have told me about it. We were very close.However, even if they had, that incident could have been one of the issues they were upset about and something to address the BOT with. Well, first, any employer has a right to demand loyalty and obedience from his/her employees. Second, it was in the context of "moving the Word", which at one time was twi's Prime Objective. Perhaps this isn't a good example, but I also sometimes see it as something like being an officer in the military; there you have a Prime Objective, and you certainly would want to obey your commanding officer's orders when in the act of obtaining the Prime Objective, he gives a command.

It was a Corps teaching I heard back in 75-76. If you are uncomfortable with "corp principle", then I'll say it was a "corps teaching". I viewed blind obedience as something like a chain of command, something like in the military. I believe the corps had some military attributes about it. i.e. One was expected to follow the direction of leadership. This was all in the context of moving the Word. ("blind" doesn't mean go jump off the roof.) Of course, if the leadership was wrong, and you could prove that according to the word, or, offer specific godly reproof and correction, then you were/are perfectly within your rights to object to the "order", and hold your ground. Problem I saw back then was, folks were not offering any godly reproof or correction, just objecting to the chain of command concept, with no specifics. At least that was what I experienced in NY. I asked my twig coordinators to write down specifically all the problems, the beefs, they had with Craig and the BOT. We learned that if you have a problem with someone, you go directly to that person with it, and not behind their back. But they refused to do it. So that's another thing, I couldn't stand with folks who couldn't give a fig about what I asked and thought was a reasonable request. I asked the limb coordinator too. No specifics. Raf wrote: I strongly disagree, at least in the context of all this. Ask yourself this question, and please, try to be honest about it. If VF would have stayed, and made the commitment to stand with Craig in moving the Word, would you have still left? He would have conVINCEd everyone to stay and move the Word, that's exactly what would have happened for a few more years.

Wordwolf posted: It appears here that Outthere objects to Craig's request for loyalty. But where's the godly reproof and correction about Craig's walk of 1989? Any specifics?Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989. So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden? I would add, even blind obedience was in the context of moving the Word, as Craig wrote in his letter:

Welcome to the fold, Belle. "we are one"

Wordwolf said: I would be happy to listen/read about any stories about specific reproof given, and the consequences thereof.I know of at least one instance I believe is true, from "The Cult That Snapped", where Ralph D. confronted both VP and Craig about the fornication problem. But that was before this letter and isn't applicable to folks we are discussing. Again, am willing to hear specifics. Even the limb coordinator of NY couldn't/wouldn't give me specifics, when I asked. Yet most of the whole limb followed him anyway, which shows me that they weren't interested in specifics themselves. I was allowed to read a couple of VF's followup letters as well, that he sent to my twig coordinator. No specifics. Lots of suspicion, backbiting, hard heartedness. Complaining about him getting the boot...etc.

I totally agree, and this was part of Craig's rationale.Craig wrote: Wordwolf wrote: Yes, I believe that was the focus of most of those who left, at that time. It appears all they focused on was making a commitment to stand with Craig and nothing else. In contrast, the focus Craig was after, was this, when he wrote:

Not so Oakspear.Part of Craig's rationale was that this had been done several times before by VP, when VP perceived that folks needed to recommitment themselves to stand with VP and Corps leadership in the movement of the Word. Therefore Craig wonders why should folks now act so incredulous that he, Craig, make the same request. The focus is on making a commitment to stand with Craig to move the Word. Here's an excerpt from Craig's April 14, 1989 Loyalty Companion Letter: And so part of Craig's rationale was that folks were leaving *just because* of this request for loyalty which was widely considered by those leaving, to be "carnal". They were saying he was carnal, and "look at how off he is." Craig correctly pointed out their hypocrisy, by saying VP required this as well. He suggested "was VP carnal"? Obviously not, otherwise folks would have accused VP of that too, and left, which they didn't.Craig also invited folks to be specific with reproof and where he was off. He wrote: This indicates that instead of receiving specific godly scriptural reproof, he said he received vagueness, and much suspicion. He also wrote: And so at that point I think he was asking for another opportunity to prove himself, and folks who left at that point declined, most using as justification his "carnal" request.

Oakspear, there are more of us than some realize. "we are one"

ULC also provides certificates through U.S. mail.

Thanks for pointing that out Oakspear. Actually Oakspear, he did suggest in the letter that one may stand with God irrespective of what people one chooses to stand with. I thought that was a great statement he wrote.Craig wrote:

Oh come on Goey, try to be a little more tolerant of others' beliefs will ya? :lol: From what I've read so far, the ULC ordinations aren't based on a Christian perspective at all since they allow anyone of varied spiritual beliefs/non spiritual beliefs to be ordained. It is not a Christian church, or limited only to Christians. Athiests pagans wiccans and satan worshippers may also be ordained. :lol: "we are one" B)

To my knowledge, ULC doesn't support rape adultery and pedophilia, but only "that which is good". Of course, "good" may be defined by an individual. :lol: But I'm not sure if they actually defrock ordained clergy who have been convicted of these crimes. I have to check...they have a website and a discussion board. It's very interesting. :lol: :lol:

My favorite Elvis Gospel single is "Joshua Fit The Battle". Another favorite is "We Call On Him". I looked for these pictures sleeves in my collection and found Joshua and Milky White Way, but couldn't find We Call on Him. I might have sold it on ebay. BTW, this "Joshua Fit The Battle" picture sleeve is perhaps the nicest example in the country. I kid you not. You hardly find this particular sleeve without some kind of ringwear, and the previous owner of this sleeve was a big Elvis collector and kept this thing immaculate. Belle, my favorite is "Run On". Sounds just like a Rap song but with a gospel theme. "what you do in the dark will be brought to the light!"

I made a mistake. It is not Universalist, it is the "Universal Life Church". BTW, I can also perform Exorcisms. Here is the official Holy Water I may use.

Umm, I'm not sure right now. Let me look up with the principles of my church is and I'll get back to you. :lol:

I do not believe this to be the case. We can be loyal to people as well. Here's an excerpt from Craig's companion letter of April 14, 1989: (I have added paragraphs to make it an easier read).

I misspoke. I couldn't have made that conclusion back then, because at that time, I hadn't known anyone who was complaining about LCM's sexual misconduct, or that his sexual misconduct was a reason they gave for not standing with him.

Bluzeman thanks for your support. The guy who was sent home was definitely treated unfairly compared to others. I know premarital sex was tolerated, that's for sure. I had heard rumors that many folks in my WOW branch were "doing it" back in Amarillo TX in 1974-75. I mentioned this to the branch coordinator. She poo poo'd my allegations, and said later (in front of a few folks) that I "squealed on" half the branch. That statement corroborated those rumors. I learned later that she was one of them having premarital. As I think back now, the person who was running the branch wasn't much of a leader. Sort of a fake "toughness", with little real substance. Boy oh boy, the absence of clear and consistent correct doctrine on sexual activities caused so many problems, didn't it?

At that time I didn't know anything about sexual misconduct. But you are correct, it couldn't have been a "conclusion", since it wasn't relevant to begin with.

Goey is correct. Let me pipe in here and say that I am an ordained minister in the Universalist Life Church. Marriage anyone? And stay the hell out of my parking spot. "we are one"

Then you would have had justification to leave, even BEFORE the loyalty letter; but that was not the reason from what I saw.I spoke with my twig coordinator, branch coordinator, area coordinator, limb coordinator about them leaving, and not one of these folks said anything about sexual misconduct of LCM. Nor did the many twiggies I spoke with about that. I personally spoke with the limb coordinator, June of that year (1989), asking him to stand with Craig. Had he responded something like this, "well Phil, the reason why I am not standing with Craig is, among others, cause he has committed adultery in the past, and doesn't want to change". Had he responded like that, I would have respected his decision! Instead of that, he said that I was carnal, my family was carnal, that the BOT is carnal and worshipping other gods, with no specifics. Gee, what a spiritual guy. Therefore I concluded that sexual misconduct of LCM had little to do with folks leaving, and I still hold to that opinion and haven't heard a whole lot of evidence otherwise. What I saw was he was asking for support from his staff and if at that point the staff and corps couldn't or wouldn't give it to him, for whatever reason, he was asking them to be honest about it and resign. Craig wrote Here he implies that one CAN stand with God in a situation other than standing with him, and he asked folks to be honest with themselves and if they couldn't support him, go elsewhere where you can stand with God with someone else.