oldiesman

Probably not... I opine that they probably view their relationship with participants as no more than a 50/50 partnership responsibility between them and the participant, and any screw ups that may be asserted to be "their fault" might be viewed no more than 50% their fault at most, and at least 50% fault of the participant, since their probable view of a twi participant is that they "freely availed" themselves to participate.

Wordwolf, it's Friday.

I see what you're saying doojable, but I still wouldn't call them twi policies, even "unwritten" policies. Happenings and experiences yes, but not necessarily twi policies. Oodles of things happened with corps grads and those "in the know" that weren't necessarily twi policies. I gave you an example above. I am in full agreement with you that it would help if folks qualified their experience to the specific time period they are recollecting. But even still, I still feel that an experience or tradition doesn't necessarily mean it was a twi "policy."

So your position is that because the bible doesn't say he tithed a second time, that means he didn't?

I don't know. Does the bible say that Abraham just tithed once and didn't tithe again?

waysider, had I ever heard anyone from twi imply that SIT was a requirement for salvation, I probably would have done just what doojable did, speak up about it. The matter was so clear in PFAL. Now if some individual wants to believe within their own thought processes that a person they know isn't saved and since they didn't hear them speak in tongues, it only corroborates their belief... well.. that's up to that person. But twi didn't teach that as doctrine. I don't care if the person who believes it is 4th corps, they are still wrong. That was the individual having his own thoughts on the matter. twi taught that SIT proves one is saved; they didn't teach that the absence of SIT proves one is unsaved. Thanks LornaDoone.

doojable, that's fine. But at the same time, it's really not a twi policy then... all it seems to be is one person's tradition of doing things, and maybe other folks are doing it too. But if we want to find out exactly what a twi policy is, we need to go to hq to find out, and get it in writing. Here's an example: I was out WOW, and was bothered by the fact that the limb coordinator was setting dates for PFAL classes. I thought it'd be better and more honest if we set a date after we signed up enough folks. What'd happen more than once, a date would be set and we would try to get folks signed up but wouldn't get enough, then the class would be cancelled. I thought that was dishonest and reflected bad on myself, telling folks something and not following thru, and look bad for twi that it was cancelling these classes. We weren't being honest with folks. Now here's the question: was it a twi policy to set dates for Pfal BEFORE enough folks were signed up for it? Yes it was a practice. But is it fair to call that a twi policy? I wrote hq, the Trunk Office, and at that time Ralph D. was the trunk coordinator. Here are excerpts of the response I got back from him: The way I see this situation, the limb coordinator of that state was not following twi policy, even tho' this guy and his wife was an established corps grad, been around for years and years, and supposedly was representing twi in this matter. He wasn't. So you see, I feel you must contact hq to find out what their policy is. To be fair, just because folks follow a tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's twi policy.

Bliss, that was taught in twi as well. I remember hearing it... like folks who think they have protection from a speeding ticket going 100 mph on the highway as long as they're "believing". No go. twi taught that that was tempting God and not covered by believing. All such acts would only be covered if one had revelation to do so... something unlikely unless extraordinary circumstances. Remember Athletes, reckless and hilarious devil spirits? same deal. tempting God....

doojable, you did the right thing. Let me throw this out and ask your opinion on this .... do you think it'd be fair to portray the understanding of the 4th corps grad as an unwritten twi policy?

I always had health insurance on the job and that didn't effect my twi participation one way or another. Didn't want life insurance, as I was young and single and felt I didn't need it. That was my decision. There was a believer retirement planner in New Jersey who did that stuff for believers. Out in the open. See, these are just a few examples I'm talking about. Folks thinking that some stuff is twi policy, when it isn't. If you ask twi what their policy is, they'd tell you. They may even recommend some stuff... but it was up to the individual believer to decide for themselves what's best.

A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there. Example: One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership". At times I did. Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story. I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.

Doesn't necessarily mean someone is deliberately lying or they didn't exist, but someone could definitely be mistaken in their perception of an supposed policy of twi or the trustees. Perfect example of this Belle, is your insistance that twi taught that SIT is required for salvation. If you can get that simple concept wrong, it wouldn't surprise me that you and other folks could possibly get some other stuff wrong as well. This is why it's so important to document things in writing, if possible.

But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted. Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.

Those are pretty good questions and I think the answers are in the gray areas of life for each individual making the decision. One tolerates what one tolerates. Some folks are able and willing to tolerate more than others. During my stint, I was willing to tolerate tithing for a time according to the book (CSFB), 10% of gross income. When I discoverd that it wasn't bringing results, I was not able to tolerate that standard. It is my belief that each person made that decision for themselves, or should have, regardless of the wishes of another (with the exception of children). Another thought: up to this point we seem to be focusing only on the negative, the fear and intimidation; but what about folks who actually believed in tithing, who gave out of love, and the heart of giving, not grudgingly or of necessity? Those things were taught in twi also. So it's possible folks were motivated by those things as well, and still are. I just can't automatically assume that all these folks are tithing because they are afraid God won't spit in their direction, even though Craig in one of his rants said so.

This situation sounds unique, and I feel it's best to refrain from judging one way or the other because it's possible other things besides tithing could have been in play. I don't know if that twig would have been considered part of twi even if they gave money because I don't have all the facts. I've seen that happen before though, where other twig requirements weren't fulfilled and the meeting wasn't considered an official twi meeting regardless of the money. That may or may not be in play here, I just don't know.

And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe. But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.

Outofdafog, you're talking apples and oranges. Parents teaching their children to tithe, giving them the tithing money and telling them to, is entirely different than an adult individual requirement to tithe. What choice do they have? The bible says they should obey their parents. They are also exonerated from personal responsibility, since they must obey their parents. What happens if they decline? They can't.

Nobody's forcing you to respond to my posts Wordwolf. What's the point? The point is trying to answer a question Tom asked in his opening remarks. As far as discrediting, I probably get more of that than anyone else here except maybe Mike. It's all part of the game. When folks post, their ideas/opinions may be discredited. And you do plenty of discrediting yourself for you to talk!

Skyrider, if you don't knock it off with the whitewashing rhetoric, I'm going to have to resort to some rhetoric of my own, regarding your posts. Posters should be able to post their opinions on a topic, without the fanciful labelling. I've been guilty of that myself in the past, but more and more, have tried to eliminate these things from what I write, and keep the debate to a higher standard if possible.

I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?

Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread. I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions.

Georgio, Who's gonna tell folks about the Coffee House if you don't go to the mall, or door to door? :) Door to door works. Look at the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Welcome nowgrown.

FOR ME TO POOP ON...HEH HEH HEH

If this statement is what you're referring to, it's hardly an answer, because there was a wide variety of fruit, both good and bad. If you wish to analyze specific situations and say "this situation" or "that situation" wasn't on God' authority, I would likely agree with you depending on the facts.