oldiesman

JustThinking, My initial comments about this thread have been about the article quoted. My later comments are about others' comments about my posts. So how am I redirecting anything? You seem to be belittling and trivializing my posts. Trivialization demotes the respect for another person leading to oppression, abuse and condescension.

Insurgent, I agree with this statement and hereby assert my equality, and say my posts are just as important as everyone else's. Trivialization demotes the respect for another person leading to oppression, abuse and condescension. How can I possibly trivialize their situations? I wasn't there. The only thing I can do, is relate my experiences and opinions. You seem to be saying that by me doing that, I'm trivializing others? geeze, you may be right, I should just be quiet, quit while I'm behind -- seems that would make you happy.

JustThinking, Politically correct? Talk so much and say so little? You seem to be disparaging my posts because I'm not responding the way you would like me to. If I would only think like you, the world would be a better place.

Goey, To the extent that a participant of GS has an opinion about a topic, it IS about that person, and how that persons thinks and believes. To be fair, the opinions of one participant shouldn't trump the opinions of another participant. If you gave your opinion about a topic and I said "it's not about you", which is another way of saying "please be quiet", or "your opinion doesn't matter", I'd be going overboard.

MO, I think saying to someone that the good they received from a religious organization was at the cost of those who were done evil, is trying to make them feel ashamed at their experience, and that it matters little. It's like, let's just focus on all the evil works and forget the good because all that matters is the evil works perpetrated in the past. Would you like to apply that to LDS? How about Roman Catholicism? And when did I ever claim that my godly experiences negated the evil ones? On the contrary, I think the opposite is more the case -- it seems folks like you claim the evil negates the good. Folks will decide for themselves how they choose to think on that.

JustThinking, At first I was going to comment line by line on what I thought of the statements made in the article. Then on second thought, I figured not because I didn't think I wanted to be that anal-retentive about it and start a big to-do. But the way I feel about it, there are two sides to every statement made in the article. Let me summarize my belief by saying that if one chooses to think VP and LCM as evil monsters, then it's easy for one to believe in and assent to the narcissistic theory. If not, then it's more difficult and probably unlikely one would give assent to the statements made. It doesn't matter whether I'm the sole person giving this varying opinion or whether 10 people are -- the content and relevance of the opinion is what makes it count. Do we give our opinions based upon who agrees with us? Hope not. Again I say, this isn't only about the actions/thoughts of VP and LCM. Just look at some of the statements and it talks about the so-called mind set of the participants and how they were victimized. That's me -- I was a participant, therefore my comments can relate and are applicable to the statements made.

JustThinking, This isn't just about how Wierwille acted but alludes to the alleged mentality of the participants. You don't see that? It's insulting to hear some of these things that comment on my alleged mentality, or my alleged victim status. "The narcissist is the guru at the center..." Yeah, if you put VP at the center of your involvement, he was at the center. If you didn't, he wasn't. "The often involuntary members of the narcissist's mini-cult inhabit a twilight zone of his own construction" So we're controlled, brainwashed zombies then? "He imposes on them a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions..." I don't need someone's psychobabble, telling me all about my "psychosis"... Do you understand where I'm coming from? I could give you more examples if you wish...

This seems to be the propaganda that the purveyors of the victim mentality mindset (not accusing you George, just making a general comment) must convince folks of, before folks believe they were conned. It's got to be about the evil narcissistic monster who seduces. Can't be about you having a hunger for truth; and God's people working to help you find it. You finding it and thankful for the things you learned. Nah. Dr. Wierwille wasn't at the center of TWI in my TWI world...my involvement and commitment wasn't to him... He was the teacher, yes, but he wasn't the sustenance that kept me going. I suppose it's possible some folks can make that kind of commitment to a man, and VP in particular; but that's up to the mind set of those making the decision. I think it's insulting to suggest all of us fell in that same boat.

I question that people "never" developed...that seems off the wall. But the other side of the coin can also be true. Can holier-than-thou, self-righteous, know it all, legalistic, love-to-lay-on-the-bondage, know-every scripture on sin, finger pointing brethren help you develop a healthy and respectful relationship with the Lord?

It's less bad, and less contemptable, all the way around. Looking at this candidly, I don't think it was the fornication that got TWI folks (and ex-TWI folks) all angry, upset and offended, out for blood. It was the adultery. I certainly don't advocate that any religious group teach publically that fornication is ok; all I'm saying is, I think it's much easier to be intreated and tolerated than adultery by all but the most stringent and legalistic of our society.

I agree with Catcup. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that even now, most TWI folks on the field would say that adultery is wrong and that TWI doesn't teach that it's ok. Just look at Craig's departure and the ever-lingering contempt for his adulterous affairs, to examine if adultery is ok with TWI. One thing though, I wish they would make it a definitive, no-mistake-about-it teaching like the John S. paper. Are the upper echelons still saying it's "ok", privately? If they are, they need to clean up their act.

Raf, I don't quite understand your question, but I think it's a fair conclusion that he manifested both good and evil, as the testimonies relate...

I can't argue with that...

The one recurring theme with all these anti cult articles is: you must have been a victim. You could never have been anything else. Dictionary "narcissus" -- a beautiful youth in Greek mythology who pines away for love of his own reflection and then turned into a narcissus flower... VP kept saying to us: it's the Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word... I have to say in all honesty that if he wanted us to focus on anything, it was God's Word, not himself. You may call that Bible Worship if you wish; I think that'd be more accurate than narcissism.

Uncle Harry, Maybe they don't. It depends on the situation and the people involved. You can either tell them the truth, lie, or say "it's none of your business". No. You can. No. Is not disclosing information, lying? Is everything, everybody's business? In the context of adultery, I agree with you. The point is that fornication is not necessarily abuse, as we are talking about abuse by TWI folks. But shooting your neighbor in the foot is much much worse than shooting yourself in the foot. Adultery is much much worse than fornication. Let's put it this way, i'd rather justify fornication, then do something worse like mandate a life of bondage by marriage to someone not wanted or loved. Yes, I know the bible equates fornication with sin. But it's not nearly as bad as adultery and in the context of abuse, fornication doesn't have to be abusive.

Wordwolf, That's why I think it's important to make a fairly clear distinction between fornication and adultery. You're not suggesting that fornication is nearly as bad as adultery, are you? Let's not forget that "thou shalt not commit adultery" is in the 10 commandments. "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is in the 10 commandments. "thou shalt not bear false witness" is in the 10 commandments. I see nothing there about fornication... I am aware that God's best is for adults to get married before having sex, but it's just not that cut and dry in real life and today's world. Don't you agree?

Of course there is. Here's an example: a good looking, sexy single female reverend is horny and wants to have sex with me. I consent. Voila! I don't call that abuse, do you?

John S.'s paper corroborates that this stuff was certainly discussed and believed. I don't recall it ever being "taught", as in CFS, but I think it matters little now. I'd also like to again state what I believe is an important distinction, the one between fornication and adultery. I think these are two separate issues. Fornication doesn't necessarily have to be abusive, if you have two consenting adults. It can be in a lockbox private matter that doesn't hurt anyone else if it's handled correctly. Personally I don't have a problem with that. Adultery is another matter entirely.

I think it's reasonable to make a distinction between fornication and adultery. For instance, two singles fornicating doesn't have to be abusive. Whereas, two committing adultery is definitely because of the betrayal of trust, bearing false witness, breaking of one of the commandments, etc.

Mo, Folks can believe whatever they wish. But I wouldn't call it wrong or ungodly if someone chose to disassociate themselves with others who don't share their beliefs, or wish to withdraw from folks who think their beliefs are harmful or stupid. This principle was practiced by Jesus, Paul and other biblical characters. Remember "evil associations corrupt good morals, ethics"?? How far one goes with that is the individual's choice, but one shouldn't be thought of as unloving or abusive if one chooses to only associate with folks with certain beliefs. That's the individual's choice.

George, let's get real. Do you spend a lot of time with folks who couldn't care less what you thought or believed, even now? I can't think of too many scenarios where'd that be reasonable, except perhaps work, where you earn a paycheck and are there to perform tasks for your employer.

Real friends are genuinely interested in what you're into. If they can't be bothered knowing, or even making a small attempt in knowing, what interests you, how are these folks your friends? Are they worth hanging around, knowing they couldn't give a fig about what you thought and believed? Jesus said something about this, that his true family wasn't necessarily his earthly brethen, but those who hung around him and were genuinely interested in his life, thoughts, words and deeds.

Never had a problem with that tenet, cause why waste time on somebody who's not interested in you or what you believe? This also happened even when folks didn't want twig. If folks are sincerely interested in me as a person, they'd check out what I was into. Relationships with girlfriends ring a bell. I'd share with them about twig, or PFAL, that I got lots of goodies from it, you'd think they'd check it out just to see where I'm coming from? Sometimes. There's always two sides to this argument. You speak in such absolutes; but I've seen true love, care and concern during my stint. If some folks didn't see it, I can't imagine why they would've stayed so long. Speak for yourself -- why accuse your brothers and sisters of acting this way? I think most of us just wanted to love folks, and see them also have the benefits we enjoyed. Another insult. I think if that was the case, most of us wouldn't have ever gotten involved. We agree on this point. Fornication was always a private matter between the participants. The victim mentality propaganda machine wants us to believe we were all victims, and victimizers. How else can they sell all their endless books and tapes? Another insult designed to think of yourself as a glassy-eyed brainwashed zombie who had no will of your own, no commitment and dedication to God's Word, no love of your own, and no reason for involvement other than supply the needs of the "monsters".

Hi Shaz, I guess it's ok if you want to think of VPW/LCM as monsters, coupled with insulting the participants, thinking of them as nothing more than glassy-eyed, zombie-like victims who can't make a decision on their own or accept any responsibility for their own actions. Otherwise, it's great!

Speaking from a Spiritual Partner's viewpoint, I like Research Geek's attitude. I hate to think all that spiritual partnership money went to total waste.