oldiesman

In contrast, he was still moving the Word, and doing good things "on the Word".Craig wrote Why ignore these things? Are they all worthless? All evil? When he asked folks to stand with him, he was asking folks to stand with and support him in doing the above things. That's all.

I do remember some criticisms of folks who stayed after the letter, that we were called "yes men".I don't recall too much gossip about Craig Worship those few years following. I remember riding on the train once, and my former twig coordinator talking about the ministry developing "the statue" of Wierwille, which was that paperweight with Wierwille's face on it. Remember that? I guess we also were accused of practicing idolatry because of that. Let's all worship that paperweight. :lol: BTW, does anyone have an extra? I never got mine.

I don't belief it was, and I don't believe I said that.I think someone else said it was a hypocritical load ...

No, I don't know that.I believe at the point he wrote the letter, and the few years (maybe 5 years at most) that followed, he was concerned about moving and standing on the Word, and profit followed. Was he in fellowship with God continuously? I trow not. :lol: But were not PFAL classes still being run, WOW program, people getting blessed and healed, him moving God's word, teaching, and so forth? I am not so presumptuous to believe he was totally off the wall, all that time.

I disagree in part Mo.Craig wrote Yes he did want support. And he was saying, and I believe this, that part of supporting God and Christ also means walking with mutual love and respect likemindedness and one accord. Thinking that Craig and the BOT is off the wall and worshipping other gods doesn't fit that description, which was why a line had to be drawn.

Nobody is saying that the abuse can be justified. But, a lot of good was done as well.Both godliness and evil were happening simultaneously. And I believe both need to be considered to reach a balanced perspective that has some depth.

You didn't have to accept.You were free to leave. He was inviting you to leave. If you doubted that he was walking on the Word and moving forth with the things of God, he invited you to leave. I look at this as a call to recommit oneself, rev up the engine, ready to move, leaving the past behind. Those who couldn't or wouldn't leave the past behind, were asked to leave.

It does have problems that way.With the ministry, any ministry, I think all monies collected by the responsible parties should go to that very same group, supporting that one group. Why be duplicitous? Individual folks can send their own money to whereever they want. But being a leader in a particular group, church, ministry, cult, whatever you want to call it, responsible to collect money for that group, you really should be in full support of that group, or get out. My belief is: make up your mind who you stand with, and then take a stand, one way or the other. This is what Craig was writing, and I believe he was right on.

I beg to differ.I validate the letter on its own, without needing support from the events that followed. But when I look at those events, they were godly. Folks left who believed Craig and the BOT were worshipping other gods, or at least not "standing on the word", which got the folks who were unhappy and malcontented, out. There was, among other things, lots of peace in the fellowships that remained. No more arguing about Craig and the BOT being off the wall. Twigs were loving full of peace unity, and no legalism. PFAL classes were still being run and the word was moving. There was still a WOW program where the word was moving. Some folks were even returning, who had left in 1989. I would estimate a window of about 5 years (1989-1994) when the word was moving. I'm not saying everything was perfect, but it certainly wasn't tyrannical, at least where I was. Far from it. I was a twig coordinator too from around the end of 1989 to end of 1990 and I know there was no legalism. I can't speak for others involvement during that time, but my time right after 1989 up until I stopped going to twig was pleasant and the word was moving. But after around 1993-94, was when I think the present day false doctrines started about the excessive legalism, prying into peoples lives, mandatory ABS, genuine spiritual suspicion, word already over the world, closed ministry, homo purge, excessive meanness, so on and so forth.

I surmise because the response was an insult, prejudging that Martindale was not standing on the Word. It might be something like saying to Joe Torre (who just lost the pennant), "I will stand with you as long as you keep working to win ballgames". If you don't believe Torre wants to win ballgames, then go someplace else where you may believe in a manager who does. That was what Craig was saying. Also: Craig wrote In these places Craig is saying he is moving the Word. Why then was there the need for a wisecrack, suggesting he is not? Because they didn't believe he was standing on the Word, it's that simple.

Goey said from another thread: Sorry for the derail. I just get all warm and fuzzy and excited when I read that. :lol:

The point was people were sending money to Scotland and Argentina because they were thinking that the Board of Trustees were evil and worshipping other gods.What Craig did was basically said "this is wrong thinking, make up your mind because I am not evil and worshipping other gods, and make up your mind to stand with me or someone else". I see nothing wrong with that. Craig said "...so make up your mind whether you are going to stand with us as Staff moving God's Word or go the route that has been set in the last couple of years, which I believe has gone very sour." Yes, he is admitting that the route was sour, and it was probably his fault for blabbing his big mouth all around about POP. But, the letter is a call for unity and teamwork. It's like Joe Torre asking the Yankees to stand with him to win the world series, even if you know Torre might have been a bad manager in the past. Craig is not a child of hell, he's a born again believer who blew his responsibilities in Christ.

Goey, lots and lots of folks never heard about this stuff until the 90's, myself included. Perhaps if they did, they may have followed your example. But this has nothing to do with the letter, which was a call for unity and teamwork. Still has nothing to do with the letter.If folks wanted to leave because Craig threw a tantrum, they could have left, before or after the letter. At that point in time in which he wrote the letter, he wasn't necessarily abusive and ungodly. Additionally, do you allow that maybe God can forgive past sins of people in their life who want to make a fresh start moving the Word and being in fellowship with God and people? How do you know Craig wasn't at that point? Craig said he endeavored to heed the godly reproof and correction. If you don't believe him, that's your prerogative.

I didn't say that evils never happened out WOW, of course evils happened. What I said was, they weren't tolerated. What does that mean? Tolerating evil would mean the leadership would have to condone the same evils happening, again and again and again and again, with no reproof or correction. Someone beat the crap out of people over and over and over and over and that person got a WOW pin? Someone doing drugs over and over and over got a WOW pin? Someone that refused to work got a WOW pin? Like I said, it's news to me.

Belle, I am sorry to hear that you don't have kids and you are sad about that. If it is any consolation to you, I also have no kids and probably never will.

Try critiquing the letter according only to the time period and context it was written. Future actions are inapplicable, in my judgment. I think this letter is right on. What problems happening later, Craigs tantrums, hard meanness, and hurtful actions and screwups have nothing to do with this.

So then physical assaults, drugs, and being a bum were tolerated on the WOW field? That's news to me...

Belle you neglected to quote this part re: ABS: What do you think about twiggies abs money going to Scotland and Argentina? Honest? ethical? Fostering suspicion ya think? And most of the people advocating this were on the U.S.A. payroll. That was one of the many reasons why he had to draw the line. People needed to make a decision where they stood.

The more I read that letter the more I agree with it. The 'mindset of total suspicion' was so true of that day and time, among other things he wrote. Right on.That's why the whole penchant accusatory mindset was based on suspicion. Nothing much concrete.

Good observation lilbit.Thanks for sharing. To my knowledge physical assaults, drugs, and being a bum wasn't tolerated out WOW. Sex (other than adultery) was tolerated if consensual and discreet.

Shut it down and come back home. ;)

P.S. Goey read this: I wrote that too.

Goey you take one sentence out of what I wrote and make a whole schpeal out of it. Ok forget I said "hate". God forbid you be thought of that way. How about "justice"? does that meet your approval? You who want justice and want twi to die for all the wrongs committed. Heck you write enough about it. ... All I'm suggesting for some of you is, put your money where your mouth is and DO SOMETHING LEGAL about it. It's available...

Ok, it was brainwashing then. It washed away many of my fears doubts and unbelief.

Are you sure?Have you actually explored the legal possibilities? If you did, you'd find out it was that easy. Get 10 people from Greasespot who are willing to spend $100 a month for a couple of years and I guarantee you will find an attorney who can do a class action. But, you must be prepared to lose if the odds aren't in your favor. Still, its a worthy cause if your fed up enough. Lawsuits begin not because you are in love, but because you are very mad.