oldiesman

Rascal, my tc's were a married couple. The woman was opposed to staying with TWI, the man was in favor. The man, according to him, to keep his marriage together, relented and did what the woman wanted. The punchline: women have more power in TWI than they realize, or would care to admit.

Alfakat, Partial baloney. That may be true of some, but the folks I knew, baloney. They followed VF, the area coords and the twig coords, who followed VF. They had no demonstrable, justifiable, logical reason. VF was ....ed with LCM, THAT'S why. They followed the NY crowd. Had VF stayed and stood with LCM, you think the whole of NY would have left? No way in heaven and hell.

According to Craig, the folks whose primary loyalty was to God, was not a problem at all. The key ingredient was:

It's not mixed feelings about adultery being wrong, but mixed feelings about these folks tolerating it. It's hard to imagine something being so wrong, being tolerated and explained away like that.

Because it appears the missing ingredient, was your willingness to at least give Craig the benefit of the doubt and declare you'd be willing to stand with him in the movement of the Word. One of the points I tried to make with VF, was that if his commitment level to TWI and God and the Word was so strong, vital, and sure, why would he allow Craig's request to stop him from doing what he really wanted to do; i.e., move the Word in TWI? So in that sense, Rascal, if you wanted so desperately to remain with TWI moving the Word, why not just give in a little, and do what he asked, which was:

Radar, thanks, and you are correct. They can get involved if they want, but they want no part of this. I personally would love to hear from the Wierwille's and what they think of all this, but it seems they're in the same boat, they don't want to get involved. But I'd still like to hear their perspectives.

Oakspear, thanks for confirming the vagueness. I also see your point about not being involved after that. My actions would have been a little different; I would have stayed involved locally (if I was with honest folks) but not contributed any more money to hq unless and until my questions/complaints were answered satisfactorily.

I never knew the Corps tolerated adultery and still have mixed feelings about it. How can they honestly tolerate something that's such a betrayal of trust. I know I've heard the stupid excuses, like "shaking hands" and whatnot. I knew we tolerated fornication...and that issue seemed to be always dealt with as a private matter between, um, the fornicating parties. But still and all, I think the adultery issue is irrelevant to Craig's 1989 request for commitment and loyalty to move the Word, at least where I was and the state I was in. Sex was not an issue. If it was an issue, I would have known about it back then, confronted it, and that's that.

JustThinking, Thanks so much for the compliment. I have to say though, in all honesty, I don't see myself as being slow to judge...I think I've done my fair share of judging, which is why I get a fair amount of criticism. But thanks for your kind words.

Wordwolf, So then you're saying that some folks wrote something like this?: "Craig, we heard a rumor that you have been having an (more than one) extra-marital affair. Is this true? Could you please explain?" And you're saying Craig said "that's none of your business"?? If that's the case, they were right to leave. But, I certainly wish some of those folks were New Yorkers, cause that ain't the way it went down in the Empire state.

Alfakat, I'm intrigued. I don't know if it will change anything now, but it sounds interesting.

I would have done the same thing I'm suggesting to you now. I think the problem back then wasn't specificity; it was vagueness.

By "then", do you mean 1989? I would have written down all my complaints, and addressed them directly with Don Wierwille when I spoke with him in 1989 about continuing to stand with TWI. If I had been knowledgable of Craig's adultery in 1989, I would have made the attempt to contact him and ask him about it; find out his side and asked if his actions changed.

Raf, you are correct. Had I known at that point, or if someone would have taken some time to explain some specifics (i.e. VF), that Craig was having an (or more than one) extra-marital affair, or something else demonstrably carnal, I would have asked questions, directed at the Trustees. I had access, at that point. VF didn't mention anything about sex. My TC's never mentioned anything about sex. All I heard from VF was that the Trustees were worshipping other gods, with no specifics. I personally had no complaints, other than the lack of communication by the Trustees; which was admitted to me directly by Don Wierwille. Additionally, all the folks I spoke to who were leaving, were vague about why they were leaving, other than the fact that they thought Craig was a carnal thinker and the Trustees were screwed up. No real specifics, like adultery. And again, I had asked my TC's to make a list of all their complaints and address them directly with the Trustees....and they refused.

I learned of his extra-marital affair with an AOS cast member, years later. At this point in time (1989) I hadn't known about it at all. Don't know if everyone knew at that point as well. However, who's to really say at that point he wasn't making a fresh start and a new commitment? What he was asking for was the benefit of the doubt, and I didn't see where that would have been an ungodly (or carnal) choice.

Raf, ha ha.. Actually, I thought at the point of his request his mind was decent and in order and the reasoning behind the decision was sound. I remember back then, he was coming out of the fog, and 3-4 years after that, the Word did move as best as they could (I say 'they' because I was basically gone in 1991); there was still PFAL around until 1994 or so and the other things like WOW. The fact that you believe Craig at that point was a carnal thinker only goes to why he made the decision; to have folks think that way (and certainly express it verbally, continually) only makes it that much more difficult and tumultuous for everyone in the TWI family (household).

Excerpted from Craig's Companion Loyalty Letter II April 14, 1989

People paying $1000 a month mortgage toward the eventual "ownership" of a house cannot lead a fellowship; but people paying $1000 in rent toward the pocketbooks of someone else can? I just don't get their logic. (or illogic)

Golfie, As soon as I added my ABS from the forms, I threw them in the trash. They're destroyed. I still have a couple of light brown songbooks but can't find any more blue ones. Guess I must have destroyed them, too.

Ok I'm ready to spill the beans. According to my source, who knows VP's real signature and examined all three signatures, No's 1 and 2 are from his handlers; #3 is the REAL WIERWILLE #2 is from his secretary at that time #1 is from one of his handlers, don't know who

Raf, I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one. I think the reason why the scripture doesn't address whether the baby comes out dead or alive, is because the answer is pretty obvious. But that's me. I don't think the bible has to state every minute detail for us at times to use our common sense on some things.

Rafael, I read those links, and it seems to me that the folks on the side of "premature birth" are ignoring common horse sense. Let's say you and I are having a fight, and I cause the pregnant woman, who is 3 months pregnant, to abort. Are you saying that that fetus is going to stay alive after coming out? "and yet no mischief follow" can't mean the fetus in this case, can it? That's what these folks are ignoring, it seems they're just ignoring the obvious.

Rafael, I think the "premature birth" argument makes little sense because when a fetus "departs" and is at the 1st or 2nd term, mischief will ALWAYS follow, because the fetus will surely die unless some miracle takes place. Therefore I think the mischief refers to harm to the woman, not the fetus. The only way I see no mischief following and it refers to the fetus is if in the third term and the mother is near childbirth already. But that seems to me more outlandish. If that was what he was talking about, don't you think that verse would be more clear? What do you think?

I'd be more inclined to agree with it being a crime, for a late-term pregnancy where the "fetus" could live outside of the mother. Something like partial birth abortion, which I think should be banned. However, I do have a problem with charging a federal crime for the termination of "any stage of development" of the fetus. I think that's overboard.

Pat, I think the above statement gives you a good defense if Paul is willing to testify on your behalf.