oldiesman

Lifted Up, I'm willing to have a high level of debate, but when dealing with debaters who consistently engage in distracting personal attacks and character assassinations against me, I try to add a little humor once in a while. In my thread to Dave, I tried to be somewhat humorous and I hope some folks took it that way. But I AM sending him his $5.00! :)

You mean they didn't inform you that you were signing up for a four-year commitment? Well I must tell you Rascal, I definitely got that impression when I signed up.

I'm not trying to "focus" on them; just offer the suggestion and possible debating point that folks who participated in Wierwille's excesses may have done so willingly. You seem to want to portray most or all women as helpless victims. But it really depends on the facts and circumstances. BTW, Happy Friday. :)

Wordwolf, So then you're representing that God's Word teaches us that we don't have to keep our promises?

David, Now before you go patting yourself on the back for such a kewl post; the papers you sent me really were not that much more valuable than toilet paper. You sent me two items, the 37-page letter to the Trustees of 1987 by John Lynn, et al.; and the Notes to the Clergy meetings of November 1986. The Clergy Meetings pretty much were vague condemnations from Chris Geer, with no real substance. The Patron Saint of Aloofness at his best. I mean, I've gotten more wisdom from one of Rascal's sentences on a bad day. Such statements by Chris Geer like: --the Corps is going to sleep, forsaking biblical responsibility --there has been abundant insanity at the level of the trustees --massive upsurge of insanity in the Way of the USA resulting in a virtual neglect of God's Word --you wrongly took an action that was not scriptural. About the only thing of any specificity in that paper was Geer's condemnation of John Schoenheits paper on adultery, and the concurrence of the Trustees. Then there was the 37-page letter to the Trustees on February 1987 by John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Ralph Dubofsky & Robert Belt. An abundance of vague and ambiguous pious platitudes, quoting and praising our father in the word and the teachings of Dr. Wierwille throughout the entire letter, and how the Trustees should get back to them; with no real substance or specific reproof about anything. Nothing specific confronting the sexual promiscuity, adultery, fornication, druggings, plagiarism. Nada. Now about the vast amount of funds you sacrificed to send me this information, you wrote in a cover letter: David, I think you reminded me about this money you sacrificed in a previous post, and also mention it now again. SO I am going to send you $5.00; the $2.00 for the copying costs and $2.67 for the postage fee and throw in a tip. This way I don't have to hear your whining anymore. Now if you would please excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom.

I think I get what you're saying Lifted Up. In other words, someone who believes in pro-choice should be consistent and carry that belief over into twi. i.e., condemning twi for murder because abortions were allegedly "forced", not because "abortion is murder", would be inconsistent. or, someone who believes in pro-life should be just as consistent with all groups and everyone, as with twi If I misunderstand you, please correct.

I never suggested he was. But what do you think about Marsha going back a second time to his motorcoach? Is she exempt from criticism? I think, by her going back a second time after she left the first time, she was facilitating and participating in any "abuse" that may have occurred thereafter. BTW please refrain from namecalling. Let's keep the debate on a higher level.

Ok Skyrider, but in practice, if someone left the Corps, twi allowed those folks to return to the corps if they wanted, or go to twig if they wanted. This is a fact, whether or not they desired folks to come back in. Called by God? Actually to this day, I'm not so sure.

A vow doesn't necessarily have to originate with God in order for God wanting the person to fulfill it. (Numbers 30:2) But if you are saying that all corps vows were ungodly.. well I just disagree with that opinion.

Actually, it did and it does. :) You are still basing your statement on the false premise that there was some "requirement" to make another vow once the first one was broken. DUH.

I get what you're saying What the Hey. Nobody's posts should be so fragile that they are above reasonable scrutiny and criticism.

I trow not. Once the vow was broken, there was no requirement to make another one. DUH. Sounds like you are making up your own rules and regs. :)

No I'm not. I believe your motives and desire was to be a blessing to God, serve God and keep your commitment. That is why I think you made the choices you made, and it follows along with your own testimony.

Well if you want to get technical, I didn't just leave, I was dismissed. There is a difference. I would have liked to stay longer and even asked Craig if I could stay longer the day that he dismissed me; but wasn't allowed to. But yes, I broke the vow, was forgiven and from that point forward attended an excellent twig fellowship. I do know others who had the same experence as me; i.e, leaving the corps, not going back, and later attending twig and prospering. This is a fact that the folks who left the corps were always welcome back (this was pre-POP, I can't speak authoritatively after 1991).

I know the reality of what was expected when one signed up for the corps, and the huge commitment one was making to God and twi. I think you do too, which was why you made the choices you made. That is my assessment, and you really haven't said anything about your experience that would change my mind.

Skyrider, If posting opinions on GS cafe is being a meddler and busybody, I think we all may be guilty. :) I was dismissed from the corps; at that point the vow was broken. I failed to live up to the standards that I vowed to. I saw that, asked God for forgiveness, and moved forward being "Joe Believer". I was forgiven by God, and by twi. But at that point my desire to go corps was diminished. That was ok, because there was never a requirement to go back in residence. I am dealing with facts and reality. Are you?

I don't know that I am "clobbering" anyone over the head. I am posting opinions and of course am open to better ways to do that without compromising content.

Then it must be established. :)

I am no expert but do believe they were trying desperately to help her keep her vow to God.

Nero, That's a good question, but first let me share a little short story. I was sitting in my apartment a number of years ago, and all at once it started to rain hard. I looked up and noticed that one of the windows was leaking water and getting the books wet that were on the ledge next to the window. I immediately called the landlord, and complained about the leak. He came over, and when he walked in, he looked at me like I was an idiot and said "why don't you move those books out of the way"? Now for an example, there's "Marsha". The following is a summary (if these facts are wrong, someone will chime in to correct): "Marsha" was invited to Wierwille's motor coach. She was given a drink, and fell asleep. She wakes up on the bed, and Wierwille says "I could have screwed you, but I didn't". She leaves the coach, and is furious. Next day, SHE CHOOSES TO GO BACK TO WIERWILLE'S COACH!! At that point, Wierwille had sex with her. And so according to these facts, I believe "Marsha" is partly responsible for getting abused. She went back to Wierwille AFTER she was drugged. How could anyone call this encounter "rape"? There is an old Chinese proverb: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". Marsha gets fooled, yet goes back later and has sex with Wierwille. Nero, if you don't understand this point, I will give you another.

LKH, I don't know that this is supposed to be a "safe" forum to help women. My understanding is that posters may express opinions of all kinds, no holds barred, as long as done with due respect. Sometimes these opinions can be very controversial and extremely emotional. But I maintain that we all are better off getting everyone's opinion out there on the table rather than dealing with some form of censorship. This is why I think the GS forums are such a great place to be. :)

No it wasn't. God does require us to keep our vows. (Numbers 30:2) I think you believed that too, which was why I believe you chose the abortion. You made a commitment to the corps, and wanted to honor that commitment, and the corps leadership helped talk you into keeping that commitment.

Lifted Up, I get what you're saying! If the anti-Wierwille/twi posters would render the same judgment and condemnation they do to others and other groups, as they do with Wierwille and twi, they'd be way too busy all day long finding fault with half the world! They'd likely go crazy. But their contempt against twi is justified since they are exposing the evil there. One has only so much hours in the day. :) Thanks for your input.

Welcome LKH, No not at all, I'm not saying it was all the woman's fault. I'm saying that the women are partly responsible, depending on the facts of the situation. No, the leadership is not without any blame.

Actually no. I believe what I'm doing is rendering opinions. No more, no less.