oldiesman

(1) No water baptism requirement to participate. (2) I have no idea... ask Wordwolf. (3) No requirement. (4) Going door to door was essentially a WOW activity. WOW was a one-year commitment where the participant volunteers to witness 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, some of which included door to door witnessing. I was WOW twice, and door to door was not very frequent, but there was some. The purpose was to make twi fellowships available, and sign folks up for PFAL classes. (5) No requirement other than WOW when the family fellowship decided to go.

maybe there's an interpretation :D

Welcome Noni. My ex-brother in law who was once heavily involved in twi, converted to jw a few years back. He now has essentially shunned all of us. Last time I left a message on his phone, I asked him to read "Crisis of Conscience". Haven't heard from him since.

Tom, A few years back, Dave sent me the 37-page letter of February 1987 from John & Pat Lynn, Tom Reahard, Robert Belt and Ralph D., to Craig, Don, Howard, Johnny & Ricardo, wherein they wrote they were marking and avoiding the BOT for essentially, their dereliction of duty. Quote after quote of Dr. Wierwille's teachings and concepts; but NOTHING mentioned about the immoral sex being practiced. I think if the illicit sex of twi was an issue to these folks, who virtually started the exodus of 1987, their letter would have been the perfect opportunity to present that in their argument.

I'm still waiting for your PM exc so we may chat. :)

Happy Birthday.

FreeAtLast, Thanks for sharing. Have a great weekend. :)

I have a friend who's riding his Gold Wing to Sturgis. I tried to talk him out of it.

I agree in part, but I also believe folks who made decisions could have erred in judgment, as well. I leave the heart searching for God. I think that's His domain. Which is to share my thoughts and opinions, which is what this forum is all about. Why do some folks have a problem with this? May I suggest, unchain yourself to this forum if you can't handle opinions other than your own. Ex, I'd love to. Feel free to PM anytime, I'd love to get to know you better.

And why would it be good for them to shut up? I thought the general idea of the forums is for folks to give their opinions, the more diverse, the merrier? Those who tolerate other viewpoints have no problem.

No T-Bone, I'm not at liberty. You don't have to believe me, I'm not offended.

HCW never said that Kevin was applying the law of believing magic, thereby ignoring safety considerations, as satori alleges. That is all satoris' spin. Did you read all what HCW wrote, before satori's rant? Heck, I don't think even HCW would or could actually know what was in Kevin's mind and heart in that particular moment, unless Kevin shared it with him. You are spinning, using satori's distorted spin, as what purportedly occurred.

I could probably make a case that the driver wasn't really actually "believing for safety" since he seemed to be ignoring basic driving precautions. But what the heck, its Thursday.

Here satori seems to be opining that in that situation, the driver was applying "the law of believing" to be safe in the midst of his unsafe actions. But, how in the world does satori know all that? Does satori know the specific mindset of the driver, at that time? Did he speak with him, to make an accurate assessment of what he was thinking and feeling and believing in that specific incident? Or could satori be communicating a misconception based on ignoring the driver's actual position, which he doesn't know, and substituting a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position? Wordwolf, thanks for the strawman information. It was helpful. :D

I have shared what I know, and some of my opinions and experiences in twi. Doojable, you are free to share what you know, and your experiences. I'm not saying some things didn't or couldn't have happened, but an allegation on this thread has been made that twi wanted/expected this driver to disregard all safety; which has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination. If you have a specific incident(s) where you believe it was twi's fault, go ahead and post. I'll read it. We disagree hitchhiking is "tempting God" though.

Just because you have a mindset fantasy that this is so, doesn't make it so. The driver was expected to "pay no attention to safety considerations"? How in God's Green Earth do you know all that?

Well, we disagree on that point Doojable. I still like ya. :)

Tonto, let's say that's true, and twi didn't want to spend the loot to get you there. So? Had twi spent the loot, to get you there, and something bad happened in transporting folks there with the loot they spent, they'd get blamed anyway. Don't ya get it yet? (Some folks do, I've gotten some emails so I know some folks do get what I'm saying.) Oh glow-ray. :D

Did the BOT or corps ever have any corps policy that stated corps were asked/expected to drive in an unsafe way and "believe God would cover"? I actually heard differently, from teachings, that one shouldn't expect God to protect you when you do that kind of stuff. It was referred to as "tempting God", and God doesn't cover that kind of stuff. Do you remember the "reckless and hilarous" devil spirits in Athletes? Same deal. But TWI doesn't get thanked for that... But as I mentioned before, the anti-twi folks will blame twi whenever they can, at every opportunity, for everything that goes wrong in twi. It is always twi's fault.

So then your position is that twi wanted/expected the driver to disregard all safety, in that situation? That seems to be what you are alleging, specifically. Have you interviewed the BOT and asked them if this is what they wanted/expected? Or the cabinet, or corps director, at that time? Where in corps or lead literature does it advise drivers to and from lead to disregard all safety while driving? I think if you want to access that kind of specific blame, you must get very specific with your facts.

I disagree. The corps was about training participants to accomplish exploits and feats and sometimes, those feats were challenging and involved some harm. Driving has harm. Getting up at 5 in the morning and exercising has harm. Hitching has harm. Door to door witnessing has harm. Speaking to people has harm. Anything done out of the house has harm. Otherwise, gee, just stay home. How far do you want to push the envelope? The way corps was about pushing the envelope, and if folks who volunteered for it didn't know, golly, they should have known what was expected before volunteering. If they didn't research their investment, knowing what was expected, they made a mistake. And again, had twi chosen cars & trucks to transport folks to lead, and there was a crash, twi would get blamed anyway. The anti-twi folks would blame twi, not Greyhound.

The driver himself could have gone slow and waited for less wind, and avoided the accident. Because the driver didn't, and they crashed, you blame twi. Golly, doesn't even the driver bear some responsibility here? After all he's the one person who was in control of the truck, at that specific time.

Nothing does not do that, except staying home. Had TWI abandoned the hitchhiking concept, and instead went for cars and trucks, and a truck crashed, you'd blame twi. You have done so.

Bagpipes, praise God you had fun ... I do think lots of folks found it quite challenging, which may have been the idea all along. That's what I thought anyway... to push the envelope and expand lifes experiences and challenges.

I don't see that as the same Tom. I have specific knowledge that that guy doesn't want me to knock on HIS door, so I will not knock on HIS door ever again. But, should I stop knocking on all doors because one man threatened me? "No." I could, but that would mean I'd be allowing one guy to direct my actions and my life in a negative way. When TWI had knowledge that by doing a specific activity, at a specific time, at a specific place, a possible evil would occur, then yeah, I'd say they bear some responsibility. (example, Rosalie sending Fern off to the motel...) (there are many others, I just noted that one) That was specific, and wrong. But hitchhiking is different. Hey look at driving. There are at least some 30,000 U.S. deaths due to driving every year. It's dangerous. So when twi asks someone to drive a car (a dangerous activity that twi knows causes 30,000 U.S. deaths per year) and they crash, it's twi's fault for not banning that activity? Not to mention the fact that people themselves know that driving can be dangerous, yet they do it anyway...