waysider

I wonder how any of this relates to a grown man (VPW) telling a roomful of people that he fondled his own teenage daughter's breasts to teach her about sexuality. Several posters on this site were first hand witnesses to that event. edit: We don't know if he actually did it. What we do know is that he openly claimed he did.

Thanks for the corraberation, George.

On this day, in 1942, a musical legend was born. (Dec. 17, 1942-May 4, 1987)

I'm sorry to hear that about your daughter. As a parent, I know how that sort of thing can sting. And, while I do recognize that there are certainly serious psychological aspects involved with sex, what I was trying to point out was the absurd hypocrisy demonstrated by the disparity of Wierwille's teaching as opposed to his behavior.

Look, it's Haley's Comet! Mama Mia, That's a spicy meatball!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

There was commission??? LOL

You were salesmen.

"Was it in CF&S or at Rome City campus or in some meeting?" I don't think it was in CF&S. I witnessed that debacle more times than I care to admit and don't remember it. Knowing what we now know about him, though, that line of thinking certainly fits his character to a tee. Thanks for the tip on the TV show.

Nah---You're thinking of elephants.

Having grown up not far from Kent State, it has a slightly different effect on me. -----CSN&YYour turn

We only thought it was important because Wierwille told us it was.

You betcha!

We tell the other side of the story.

Don't feel bad, soulsearcher. You figured it out in a couple of months. For some of us, it took years or even decades. Some still can't come to grips with the reality of it all. BTW----I edited my previous post to add more of the Kristen interview.

I'm listening excie. I hear you loud and clear. (Mwaaaa!)

Here's some insight into "the lockbox". http://www.greasespotcafe.com/gsradio/audio/gsradio-2008-02-20-85102.mp3 http://www.greasespotcafe.com/gsradio/audio/gsradio-2008-06-11-80766.mp3 Here's a highly recommended book. Losing The Way (You can order it by using the Amazon box on the home page.)

Tin soldiers and Nixon coming

Isn't that, in essence, what he did in CF&S when he showed photos of breast shapes and then added comments like, "Aren't they just beauuuuuuuutiful?" ?

Living Loving Maid-------The Zeppsters

Yeah, those darn administrations seem to get in the way at the most inconvenient times, don't they?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And yet another dilemma emerges. They could rationalize the "many wives" by citing instances in the O.T., which was supposedly not addressed to us, while, at the same time, ignoring Titus 1:7, a section of scripture supposedly addressed to us, which delineates the criteria for selecting elders. ("If any be blameless, the husband of one wife----") So, by practicing "polygamy" (as defined in CF&S), they revealed themselves as unworthy candidates for elder positions in the church.

Well, the whole thing presents a dilemma of sorts. If you still believe he was a MOG who spoke for God, then, by his own definition of terms, he was a polygamist. That's something that is biblically unacceptable. If, on the other hand, you no longer believe he was a MOG and that his words lack credibility, he was, by virtue of his behavioral activity, a sexual predator. So, the dilemma here is that we were either following a Bible defying polygamist or a sexual predator. It doesn't look too good either way.