Linda Z

You should be able to look at the annual statement SS sends out and see if those years reflect a contribution.

Excellent suggestion, Waysider, thanks. It beats digging into the back of the closet for my old tax records!

My statement shows 0 income from TWI for 82 and 83. Apparently twi complied with the law when it changed in 84, because my income is listed as "social security earnings" for the years 84 and 85. (I was only there 3 months of 86.)

In October of 1974 a law was passed exempting churches and their employees from paying social security and Medicare taxes. The law changed in 1984, and churches/church employees had to start paying into SS, although I don't remember having SS tax deducted in any of the years I was on staff (82-86).

Nicely said, Twinky.

Penworks, I've never seen you be anything but polite. Your posts are informative and you stick to the facts as you see them rather than resorting to name calling and telling people to take a hike if they don't agree with you. I appreciate that about you.

The next comment is for everyone and isn't directed specifically at Penworks (just to be clear):

No one who's called for less harsh treatment of new posters has suggested that anyone should stop exposing twi for what it is. I know that certainly wasn't my point, but it seems as if some people are reacting as if that's what has been said.

I forgot to say to Shellon, back on the first page, that I admire your nurturing soul. You're always ready to lend a hand, give a word of encouragement, join in prayer for those who ask (and probably some who don't). You're also qualified to give more help than some of the rest of us, given your chosen field. I don't think we can "meet everyone's needs," either. But some of us (not referring to you) could be more patient with new posters here.

Yep, she was a teacher in N. Carolina. I once met someone who had her for a teacher, but I don't remember who it was. If I remember correctly, one of her students got her into twi.

Maybe they stopped doing the SS church exemption thing after left.

Actually, I think it is important, as one more example of the double standards that prevail at twi HQ. I can think of a couple long-time staffers who were given the boot when they got too old or too sick, but since RFR's the head cheese (heh heh, head cheese), she'll probably retire when she's good and ready...in luxury, and with her pal Donna at her side.

Bolsh, I doubt she's getting much of .... check. She's been on staff since what, about 1979 or 80? That's 30 years of paying no SS tax (church exemption). No $ in, no $ out. Probably since she was a teacher before going on staff, she paid into a teachers' retirement fund.

Regardless, I don't think Rosie is hurting for money. It's rumored that she's got loads of it. I don't know if that's true or an exaggeration, but the fact is, she was able to buy a very nice house with a pool while working on staff. And now she has a boat, I hear tell. She always had the best of clothes and drank her tea (so daintily) from an expensive Irish porcelain cup.

Before she was even prez, she was touring Europe with her "BFF" Donna. She enjoyed a lifestyle far and above what most staff members ever dreamed of.

Oh wait! She must have "believed" for that nice house and those nice clothes and the trips to Europe with Donna. Yeah, that's gotta be it.

And if _that_ drives them away, ... good riddance.

Yeah, screw those unbelievers, right?

Am I the only one who sees the similarity between what Garth has said and the us-them attitude twi pushed?

Yup...some of us are pretty intolerant about getting preached at, myself included, then there are others who offer that virtual cup of GS coffee to even the biggest @ssholes. Welcome to life in the real world.

No, welcome to life in the virtual world. People are much bolder online--both in their pro-twi views and their anti-twi views (pick a topic) when sitting at their computers than out in the real world. Time after time I see people come here with an opinion that differs from what most here think. It's immediately interpreted as "preaching." Sometimes it is, but not always. Sometimes its just someone with a different viewpoint.

Picture GS cafe as a real bricks & mortar coffee shop. The place is full, one table is full of people chatting about their spouses & kids, another table has folks playing nostalgia games, one group is arguing passionately about politics, up by the front door is a couple of tables pushed together with people talking about TWI leadership,the pitfalls of TWI classes and what they think of Wierwille and Martindale. People come and go, the volume and civility of discussions rise and fall, occasionally the owner or one of the waiters has to ask people to shoosh, the bouncer hardly ever wakes up from his nap.

The likelihood of this happening in a real cafe is minimal.

I'll go back to a point I was trying to make in my first post (rephrased because I'm too lazy to go back and quote myself). Where were you in your head when you first got here? Not everyone comes here the first time to preach, even if they express some unpopular views.

Then, in through the front door walks someone who has never been in before. He may have lurked by the front door, listening conversations, or run in to use the bathroom, or maybe even gotten a to-go cup, but today he's going speak. He plops himself down at the front table and announces that all those at the table should get back to 'The Word', get over it and stop hashing over negatives.

What would happen in a 'real' cafe? probably much the same that happens here. Several good-natured souls would laugh indulgently and offer the newbie a cup o' Joe, a few more curmudgeonly denizens might reply with variations of 'bite me rubber-head' and one or two might offer to take it outside.

Hopefully, in a real cafe, if the person was being a jerk (easier to tell with facial expression, tone of voice, posture, etc.) then maybe it would get heated. Or maybe if the person wasn't being a jerk, but was just speaking what he/she felt was true, someone would say the classic, "Let's just agree to disagree." Why must there be such a knee-jerk reaction?

We're here to tell the other side of the story. [snip]

Yeah, but the main page says, "All are welcome here." Perhaps that should be revised to "All are welcome here, but you'd better have really thick skin because if you stray very far from what we think, you're toast." Hmmm, have we made everyone really feel welcome?

...we're more than a little opinionated.[snip]

This has got to be the understatement of the century.

Tzaia said:

I would agree that the tone is harsh towards people that are perceived as not getting "it".

We (collectively) have not done a good job at meeting people where they are.

I thought the once-new-and-improved rules were going to help this. I was apparently naive.

Twinky said:

Give newbies a chance to get through the door, folks! Don't rise to the challenge to "speak the {GSC} truth" quite so aggressively.

Amen. When people do this, it very much reminds me of twi. One of the reasons (of many) that I walked away from twi was the constant in-your-face, "We Are Right!" attitude so many had.

Some old friends of mine, exwayfers, are very involved in a couple twi offshoots. I see them two or three times a year, and when I do, I don't get in their faces and start yelling about how duped they are and how everything they ever believed was a sham. They know where I stand. When they say something I don't agree with, I just say, "I disagree." Simple. We might discuss it a bit, but they're adults. It's not my job to tell them what to believe or not believe.

We come together on the things we have in common, like mutual affection and watching each other's children grow up and comforting each other when one a loved one is lost. We don't get together to argue and "confront" each other. I've been where they are. The fact that I decided to move on from such twi-influenced thinking and the fact that they still embrace a lot more of it than I do doesn't make me care any less for them or them for me.

Call me soft-hearted or soft-headed or something, but I think a little more kindness and giving people the benefit of the doubt would go a loooooong way, along with letting them make up their own minds.

Intolerance bugs me. It bugged me in twi, and it bugs me still. I'm sure many will disagree that it happens here. And I'm sure many innies disagree that it happens within the confines of twi, too.

Thanks, Exsie, for bringing up this topic.

I think I know exactly what excathedra is saying. (Hi, exsie. )

I know lots of ex-Wayfers who don't come back here after a visit or two. It's not because they're so "pro-twi" or "pro-twi" doctrine.

Yes, some people find the posts here hard to take because it tarnishes the image of people they once held in high regard. But I've talked to others who simply don't like the harsh tone often leveled at new posters who don't immediately jump on the everything-anti-twi bandwagon within their first couple of posts. If you think I'm exaggerating, then I think you might want to take a step back and try to put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute.

Of course some new people are going to come here "preaching." If they're still in twi or just got out, that's what they're used to, or maybe it's what they think they still should be doing. I know over a period of years that gets old, especially if you view these types of posts collectively ("Oh no, here comes another one"). But these are individuals, not a mob who have joined together to wreck anyone's day here.

The defensive/aggressive posts I often see here may help people posting them to vent their outrage, but do they help anyone coming here for the first time? Who is this site for? Is it only for amusement of the long-time posters? Or is it also for people who first peek in, maybe timidly at first, or maybe with both barrels blazing, who might learn something or have something good to share if they aren't blasted out of the water their first few times here.

It's possible to disagree with the "why don't you move on" posters without being defensive and hostile. Did you never defend anything about twi when you first got out, or when you first found this site?

This is for real. Every time you go to the site and click on the big purple button on the home page, sponsors of the site donate toward food for strays/rescues, etc. You can visit and click daily.

If you buy anything from the store there, more food is donated. There's a huge selection, from little gift items to art and nice jewelry. I've bookmarked it at the top of my list, to help me remember to stop by daily.

You can also donate there to specific animal rescue causes, such as spaying and neutering, buying vaccines, helping to care for special needs animals, rescuing animals after disasters, etc.. A $10 donation to one of those gets you free shipping on your order, and there's a facebook link to click to find out about other discounts/deals. I got $10 off my order from that. Pretty cool.

I hate malls, so I was happy to find some nice Christmas gifts, including a little something for myself.

Check it out!

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/home.faces?siteId=3

Here's another preventative measure to consider: vitamin D supplements. Unless you live in a really sunny climate, you're probably vitamin D deficient, at least in the winter months, and one of the things vitamin D does is boost your immune system. I've noticed a big difference in the severity and duration of cold/flu bugs since I started taking it (my level was extremely low when I was tested). My doctor says it's the only vitamin he takes.

At work I just got a press release from a doctor confirming the importance of adequate vitamine D. He said that the normal recommended dosage isn't enough. You might want to ask your doctor about this if you tend to be vulnerable to colds and flu.

Patriot, that doesn't surprise me.

I remember Donna M screaming at all the staff women at lunch one time, saying that they should be able to work full-time, manage their homes, care for their children, blah blah blah, without complaint. The bottom line was (paraphrased, but this was her point), "If you think you have too much to do around here, tough. Shut up and do it, and you'd better have a freakin' smile on your face while you're at it!"

Her shout-fest wasn't well received by the moms, given that she had housekeepers, nannies, drivers, etc., and she wasn't even working full-time. She was too busy hanging out with her BFF RFR.

That's probably correct, Rejoice. In DM's original post he made a point of following her for 5 miles, so in my initial post that was in my mind.

OldSkool, thanks for bringing us up to date. I've had no contact with anyone at HQ since 1989, so this was all new info to me.

Interesting that they brought in "cult experts!" I wonder if it was those Scientology people who took over some anticult group? (Didn't that happen at one point, or am I loopy?)

What you heard that RFR said behind closed doors about hating the changes is sooooooo like her. She's such a phony. I've posted before that she used to tell the department receptionist to lie if VPW called for her, saying she didn't know where Rosalie was. And for public consumption she smiled and nodded at Craig, but behind his back it was clear she had little use for him. I'm not surprised to see she hasn't changed.

Today I work in a corporate environment. Some micromanaging goes on at work sometimes, but no one tries to run my life on my time. If anyone told me I had weekly mandatory meetings at night and on weekends, I'd show them my "Been there" T-shirt and start looking for another job!

When I signed on to work on staff, I had no inkling how little time I'd have for living life outside the confines of twi hq, or I wouldn't have done it.

Probably the most revealing remark RFR ever made to me was during one of my annual evaluations. I told her that with all the meetings and extra work hours, I had no time for myself, to simply read the Bible and study on my own. Her answer: "You don't need to do that. You [because I worked on the Way Mag and other publications] are reading the Word all day at work every day." Pretty strange thing for an uppity-up in a Biblical research organization to say.

Twinky, count your lucky stars. I couldn't wait to join HQ staff when I got that assignment. Silly me!!

DWBH, because I think it might be intimidating for a woman to be followed and then questioned by a way-over-6-ft. stranger, that makes me a cultist?

Well, excuuuuuuse me, but I think that's a reasonable, objective view.

When I was on staff, we were told it was challenging to be there, that we had to be strong. This was purportedly because our mission was so important that the devil was always trying to get in our way. In reality, it was challenging to be on staff because there were many people in positions of authority who had no business supervising anyone.

My first department coordinator was great. He expected us to do the best work possible and meet deadlines--what any good boss expects--but he had a sense of humor and treated the people under him with respect and grace.

That all changed when our department was handed over to the woman who's now at the head of the whole organization. Boy, did it ever change!

Imagine being a grown man or woman and having your department "coordinator" require you to put your name on a sign-out sheet every time you needed to go to the bathroom, the snack shop, whatever. The smokescreen she put up for this little piece of legalism when we protested was (delivered in that fake-sweet Southern drawl most of us here are familiar with), "So if anyone calls for you, we know where you are."

Oh, please. Like a caller couldn't wait 10 minutes and call back? Like the receptionist couldn't take a message so you could return a call if you were away from your desk for a few minutes? RFR had been a teacher before her meteoric rise through the TWI hierarchy, and apparently she thought she was back at the school, needing to control every moment of every day of every person in her department.

I used to ask, "If what we're doing here is so important (and I believed then that it was), why can't we be treated as adults?" I never got a reasonable answer to that question.

I discovered quickly after going on staff that VPW had a habit of putting some very strange people in charge of some very big responsibilities. When I questioned a cabinet member once about his judgment re: some of these people, I remember being told, "Well, you have to take people's shortcomings along with their strengths." That's true to an extent. Nobody's perfect, and I've rarely had a boss whose every action or decision I've liked. But at HQ that was an excuse for people being put in supervisory positions because they were good at kissing VPW's butt, not because they were good at motivating or coordinating anyone.

Don't get me wrong. Not everyone on HQ staff was a jerk. There were many fabulously loving, diligent, good people there. Some of those good people were even lucky enough to have gracious, smart supervisors, but too many of them had bosses who treated them like children or worse and didn't have a clue about how to get the job done.

I didn't mind working for relatively low wages (I wouldn't call them "slave wages" as some have; mine wasn't that bad). I had done that before when I was working for people who couldn't pay more but whose product or service I believed in. Just having graduated from the Corps a year before I went on staff, I had no debts and could afford to live on a pretty small salary.

I certainly wasn't there for the money. I was there because I thought I was helping people by contributing to something important. However, when I got an up-close look at some of the people I'd seen from afar as "pillars of the church," and when I got a taste of the creeping legalism that was poisoning the place, I was floored.

They're having trouble recruiting staff? No wonder. The person in charge may put out PR vibes about a "kinder, gentler" time in twi. I don't believe it for a second. Perhaps they've had to loosen the vice-grip of control over people to keep everyone from jumping ship, but trust me, there's little that's kind or gentle about the top dog of twi. When viewed from a distance she may seem like a sweet, rather odd old woman, but beneath that grey, curly perm there's a master manipulator.

The very fact that Rosalie Fox Rivenbark was able to scoot all the way to the top of the twi ladder--and that she's stayed there for so long--speaks volumes and volumes to me. Her powers of manipulatoin and her love for legalism have been well known for decades now, and this is who the people have allowed to bully her way to the top of the pile? The fact that she's remained in a position of power for as long as she has tells me she out-Foxed them all!

I know I proabably sound bitter. I'm really not anymore. I'm amazed that RFR hasn't managed to destroy what little is left of twi, but I'm not a bit surprised that they're having trouble recruiting staff. What's the incentive? The low wages? The endless string of mandatory meetings week after week? Being treated like you're 6 years old or mentally handicapped? What's not to love?!?!?

Actually, I recommend going on staff for anyone who's on the fence about staying in twi or leaving. It can be a real eye opener. :B)

In the "TWI current numbers?" thread, OldSkool posted the following. I think it deserves its own thread.

I can't say what "official numbers are" but I can say that they were having a REAL problem staffing HQ. The first year this became an issue during placements, there were a series of meetings held to generate ideas to face this problem. Basically, the Prez Cab was the lightning rod and took the blame from RFR for not promoting Staff properly. Nevermind that all of the Cabinet only have oversight for their little fiefdom in the cornfields. No direct control over hiring, or promotion, or human resources! I digress.

The Prez Cab were then asked for their ideas how to remedy the problem. There were a lot of different ideas from the Cabinet, with the more obvious ones, such as addressing the glaring lack of incentives to serve on Staff, receiving censure and subsequent reproof sessions in the days to come because they were too concerned with carnal matters. In the end some crappy DVD was made by a sub-committee and sent out to the fellowships, that was designed to showcase the BENEFITS of being on Staff. The obvious slant was people on the field were too deceived, too concerned with worldly matters, or too stupid to know all the spiritual blessings that awaited them working 46+ hours for peanuts and living in some crappy modular home, or worse yet, in some ultra crappy dorm. The purpose was to inspire them with all the benefits the testimonials on the DVD were to point out. They had current Staff members interviewed. Only select Staff, of course, because there is plenty of discontent around that place - and that is no secret.

To me this is indicative of plummeting numbers! (and lack of interest for getting systematically screwed by the BOD.) Haven't they ever understood that the laborer is worth of his hire?

It just goes to show you that all the PR in the world (DVDs, RFR's fake smile on stage or her voice [eek, I can still hear that voice] on a tape, the TWI PR guy's BS, etc.) can't forever hide what it's really like to be on staff at HQ. The truth had to catch up with them eventually.

I got my first clue about being on HQ staff in August of 1982 when Emogene Allen herded all new bookstore and Way Pub staff into the bookstore like first graders, had us sit on the floor, and proceeded to stand over us yelling about how HQ wasn't our mother and that we'd darn well better find and get settled into our housing over the weekend between Corps Week and ROA...and we were already working that weekend, I might add. (This was before everyone was forced to live in a trailer or dorm.)

All incoming staff had been sent a letter about a month earlier asking questions like, "Do you want to live on grounds or off?" "Would you like to live with others or by yourself." "What kind of furniture do you need?" I forget the rest, but the letter gave the distinct impression that since we'd all be new to the area, someone would at least give us suggestions on where to find housing, etc. Then we got yelled at for thinking such a thing. It was bizarre, to say the least.

I still remember the WTF looks one of my friends in the 9th Corps and I exchanged sitting there on the bookstore floor. What a welcome!

If it was bizarre under EA's rule, that era was nothing compared to how it became when the regime of RFR began!

I have to get to work now, but I'll have more to say later.

I know there are a lot of ex-staff here. How was it for you?

OldSkool, I hope you don't mind, but I'm going to start a new thread with your last post. Since the "current numbers" question comes up fairly often, some people might not read this thread and might miss your informative post. I think your recent, firsthand information about the HQ staff shortage is significant and shouldn't get buried here.

Speaking just for me, I never doubted your motives or your character David. I just thought that if I were in that girl's shoes, I might be a little intimidated. Perhaps I misread the amount of questioning that went on, and for that I apologize.

I think you're swell. Whether you scared the bejeebers out of that young woman, I know not. I was just throwing in a woman's 2 cents on how she might have felt. If a "firestorm" ensued, I think I missed it, but I usually breeze through here briefly these days and perhaps something got deleted before I had a chance to read it.

Looks to me like asking questions of anyone involved in CES/STFwhatever will be about as fruitful as my asking my elderly pooch why she pooped on the living room carpet. She just looks at me with a "Who me?" expression on her face, and I can't get much more out of her.

LZ

MStar said:

The woman had a bumper sticker on her car. What on earth is that for other than to advertise and to invite questions?

As a woman, if some big, tall guy followed me for 5 miles and then approached me the minute I parked and started firing a bunch of questions at me, about ANYTHING, it would be intimidating, at the very least. I'd be a bit stand-offish in that situation, too.

From reading DMiller's posts for years. I'm confident that he meant no harm. But I don't think it was the right thing to do. That young woman had no way of knowing he meant her no harm, and I don't see why anyone would think she'd be obligated to answer his questions.

If Billy D is correct, she's only marginally involved. So for all we know, it wasn't even her car or her bumper sticker. Maybe she was driving her dad's car.

This made me chuckle.

To JAL I say, with no animosity: Why not lose the business model that you learned from twi? Instead of thinking of people as your followers, and as your "contributors," why not think of them simply as fellow followers of Jesus Christ? Then, why not simply walk away from the drama and start fresh (but not with the same old business plan that you carried from twi into CES/STFI)? It's clearly not working, and people are being hurt as a result.

There is great freedom in walking through life with your spiritual "eyes" watchful for ways to help others right where you are at any given moment. That would be a lot more satisfying and take a lot less energy than fighting over an organization that's been embroiled in power struggles for years.

My suggestion to you would be to let it go. Just be you, go where you feel inspired to go, touch those people who cross your path, and let them see God's love and grace in you. You might be amazed at how much good you can do without an audience or an organization. Why not quit campaigning for followers? Isn't that how CES started?

To the "contributors" of CES/STFI: Why not step back, take a breath, and ask yourself why you're involved in that group. Really, why? While you've been merrily "contributing," the people who run that outfit have been doing their level best to bite and devour each other. Over what? Political BS, looks like to me. Trust me, there is life for Christians without limiting yourself to one little group. If it were me, I wouldn't jump off the STFI bandwagon and onto the new JAL bandwagon. Step back. Take a breath. God is with you. You don't need any "leader" to show you what to do.

This is my take on the whole mess in a nutshell: It's more important to be loving than to be right, or "accurate." Love, real love for God and your fellow humans, will always lead you to do the right thing and get you to the right place at the right time. A pseudo-academic obsession with being "right" or "accurate" will only lead to inflated egos and neverending verbal battles. Which path sounds more enjoyable?

My suggestion for everyone involved in STFI, from its "leaders" to its "contributors," is this: Try getting off Accurate Avenue and take a ride on Freedom Freeway. Just try it. If you don't like it, if you feel you can't function without a "group" to lead or follow, then by all means start one or find one. But before you do that, why not give it a try?

I'll give ya a ride this time, ya little twit, but the first time you crap on my back, I'm droppin' you like a rock!

Penworks, in a thread from 2 years ago, someone said he was in touch with Jim J. He (Frank) still posts here, so maybe if you PM him he can give you an update.

The Highway said:

We did have classes on OT History, NT History, Early Church History, One God, Orientalisms, Counseling, etc. And even though the instructors were Way Corps many of them were not necessarily twi-flunkies. They came in off the field with a lot of energy and many of them were genuinely good teachers. We read a LOT of materials, wrote a LOT of papers, took a LOT of tests, and did a LOT of discussion activities.

I wasn't in the College Div., but in Family Corps V (we graduated with the 9th Corps), we had those same classes plus Keys to Research, Figures of Speech, the Book of Acts, Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew (and some others I can't think of right now). I missed most of the Hebrew class because I was at LEAD, though. Most of the class instructors were excellent; a few were yawners. I did like the "block" curriculum model. I thought it was helpful to focus on one subject at a time rather than taking a bunch of classes at once in shorter sessions.

Twinky, you got 4 hours of private study time every day?? I would have loved that! We worked 4 hours in the morning and had class in the afternoon (or vice versa), plus evening classes, Corps nights, SNS, Sunday a.m. fellowship., whatever. Add to that scullery duty, chair stringing, and the other chores around the campus, and free time was minimal. We did get some decent blocks of time our last in-rez year when we were working on our research papers, but not every day. I enjoyed that time immensely.

LCM assigned your topic??? Good grief. When I was in, at least we got to pick our own topics. Mine was on "Overcoming Hardness of Heart in Leadership." My advisor said, "Why in the world did you choose that?" I said "Because I've seen too many hard-a$$es in the Corps." He sorta looked at me funny, but he didn't ask me to change it. It was one of my best times in residence except for the typing, which gave me carpal tunnel syndrome...lol. It was before the computer age had really hit...boy, what I would have given for one at that time!!!