Tzaia

I think the "choice" discussion became an issue when someone suggested that this man is brainwashed and in bondage. The choice discussion is not defending twi; this is respecting this man's choice as a citizen of this country to choose what religion he participates in.

I think it's really good that you see your knee-jerk reaction. I don't think some folks are able or willing to do that.

As a general observation: when some ex-twi folks get to the place that peoples' associations with twi don't bother them anymore and they can let people's associations and choices with twi go, and wish these folks the best and best wishes, then I think they will be at peace and can move on. I did that with the religion of my youth... I wish those folks the best too.

Oldiesman, I know when people first "got into the word" they just couldn't contain their excitement and proceeded to dump their perspectives and opinions on everyone. I did it. There was not much in the way of a "live and let live" ideology in TWI - you were either in the group or you were definitely not going to spend paradise in the house. Moreover, the only way to make it to the kitchen was to be deeply involved. I made a conscious decision to plan on spending paradise in the latrine. I figured everyone would have to visit it from time to time, so I could keep up with what was going on in the kitchen.

Until one develops a "live and let live" mentality, the tendency is going to be to correct the wrongness of someone else's choice. Most of the ones here who are still in correcting mode have not been out for 20 years like I have. I spent a fair amount of time in the beginning trying to reason with my friends who were still in. Then I stopped.

Hopefully this young man won't do like so many others did and insulate himself from the rest of the campus by living in a "Way Home" with other "believers," but if he does, that's his choice.

Hmmm. Well.. that doesn't leave me with a lot of options..

:biglaugh:

well.. I'm in good company here..

:biglaugh:

I once told a group of ex-culties that "I am not inferior to you.. you're every bit as dysfunctional and screwed up as I am.."

well.. it's true..

heheh.

When I was able to look objectively into the whole thing and saw what I did and why, the notion of being all f'ed up wasn't all that hard to deal with. Being f'ed up is only bad if it's a continual state that you refuse to acknowledge.

Any psychologists available to expound on the topic?

I'm not a psychologist, but I've spent enough time on the other side to have an opinion. Based upon what I've read, the vast majority of people who are involved in a cult are cut out of one of 2 cloths. 1 cloth is the "misfit" cloth. Whether that designation is due to upbringing or thought patterns, it seems like we are attracted to "fitting in" to something. The other cloth is based on some sort of personality disorder. Cults attract more than their fair share of bipolar, borderline, obsessive-compulsive, dependent, and narcissistic personalities with a smattering of anti-social thrown in for good measure. For the bipolar and borderline, belonging to a cult gives a sense of "stability" in what is a tumultuous world. For an OC, the structure is comforting. For the narcissistic, it allows the "me" to be glorified. For the dependent there's always someone there, For the anti-social, it (the cult dynamic) allows them to operate openly.

Most of us former (and current) culties had (have) a strong aversion to "normal" because normal (didn't) hasn't (meet) met our needs. The other side is that some of us had not experienced normal, so we have nothing to compare the cult dynamic to in our lives. I have met very few people in cults who led "normal" lives before their involvement in a cult.

My friend Pastor June says, "Everybody seems normal until you get to know them." Then there are those of us who are openly dysfunctional and we scare the crap out of normal people.

Going back to the topic, if the person is still in TWI, that's his/her prerrogative and their lives. They are adults and mature enough to make their own decisions just like we made our decision not to be in TWI.

Totally agree. I'm just fascinated by the idea of someone choosing to stay. Is it due to willful ignorance or what?

One of the lawsuits appears to still be active. The other one is not active. What I can't figure out is why the lawsuits were filed in Hamilton County and not in Marion County.

I'm glad you are all willing to e-mail etc this guy.........I pray it makes sense to him and he does look it up to see just what TWI is all about.

But, I know when I got involved, I had a pastor, parents, friends, all telling me the same thing.....it's a cult! I did not listen, in fact it motivated me more to get involved and Stand with the ministry even though I wasn't quite sure of it myself. The more they talked, the more I moved away from them.........

Hopefully, your e-mails will have more of an impact than all the people that were in my life at that time!!

The reporter is not the one who needs an education concerning what TWI is all about - it's the kid who needs the education and he's probably not going to listen.

One of the things I found intriguing about TWI was its (supposed) slant on research. I've never seen the TWI research library, so I would be interested in what exactly was in the library.

Did researchers go and visit libraries that contained some of the ancient texts? Were different texts used for comparative purposes when arriving at conclusions, or did they simply study texts that were bought for purposes of research?

Here is one of the premises that I wonder about:

The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God, therefore any inconsistencies can be explained by errors in translation or transmission.

What I saw happen in TWI was the Bible being given an extreme makeover to satisfy the above premise, which included the genealogy sections, 5 crucified, how many times the cock crowed, and most of the events leading up to the crucifixion, the crucifixion, the burial, and the resurrection; namely because not one of these accounts in the 4 gospels agree (completely) with the others.

While it was obvious (mostly after the fact) that no real research was going on, what were the researchers actually doing?

That almost sounds like stalking someone or at the very least invading their privacy. Why don't you just ask them yourselves?

I think you are confused. Whether someone owns a home is a matter of public record and is not subject to any privacy laws. I can either find out by accessing the public tax records in the Assessor's office or the public records that are in the Recorder's office. Offering to look up that information is not stalking, nor is it a breach of privacy.

I have a few friends who have access to information like that. Sometimes when they offer to look info up for me or someone else it sort of freaks me out and ....es me off. I always politely decline but I can't help but think they are taking their position way too lightly. I worked at a school and I had access to student's grades, schedules, socials and tax information etc etc etc... I don't think anyone would have liked it if I just handed out that info like candy.

Since you haven't provided any specific instances of what info people have offered to look up on your behalf, I can't comment on whether they were acting unethically in offering to look up information, nor can I draw any parallels to how that fits in with your job at a school as it is against the law to provide anything beyond "directory" information about students without express written permission by the parent or guardian, or student if s/he is over 18. What I do find intriguing is that you apparently have no problem talking about other people's business, but appear to draw the line when it comes to verifying. I'm not convinced that you're taking the high road by drawing the line there.

Either way, my suggestion is that if you don't want others to offer to look up info for you that you refrain from wondering out loud about other people's business, especially when you consider such things private matters. Then getting p!$$ed off when offered help is a non-issue.

As far as my concern for K!m as a life-long friend and classmate, I'd like nothing better than to sit down with him and find out where his head is. Knowing that he's stayed in TWI after all these years tells me that doing so would be more frustrating than satisfying.

It may have taken me longer to stop the drugs and drinking. It may have taken me longer to reevaluate my life and make some changes. I would not have met my now husband of 28 years. I probably would not have had 2 additional children. I might have buckled down harder and finished pre-dent and become a dentist like I was planning to do instead of marrying him and dropping out.

I might have never gone back to church.

I wasn't like a lot of you. I didn't buy into the whole immersing myself into the organization is the only way to God spiel. My husband had already experienced the "joy" of being a twig leader and wanted nothing more to do with it. He was so "impressed" with the advanced class and going WOW that he never encouraged me to do either. Actually he said it was a bad idea. Our involvement was so fringe because we refused to be directed to the extent that we were probably merely tolerated. Our attendance at twig was sporadic, particularly after the kids were born. Since I had 2 babies, my tendency was to be late, therefore unwelcome. I also tended to gather the children and leave after about an hour and a half.

I felt TWI gave me a systematic approach to Bible study, which has taken me farther than if left to my own devices. That approach is what ultimately led to me rejecting much of what was taught in the practical realm and finding that other things were simply irrelevant.

The "we" is offensive. Speak for yourself please.

I don't think she was speaking of an all inclusive "we" without exception or perhaps even without distinction (whatever the heck that means).

I never brought anyone to TWI; never carried a green card; never promoted the class. In fact, I was downright embarrassed about being a part of TWI and only spoke of it in terms of doing home-based fellowships, yet I was not offended by her use of "we".

I feel for those who had their identities so wrapped up in TWI that they were unable to see how they were being used. That didn't happened to me, but I do understand because I watched as good people put an organization before God and family, fully believing with all their hearts that they were doing the right thing, and castigating people like me who didn't share their opinion. I know how I felt when I stood my ground on doing what I believed was best for me and my family and the subsequent bad treatment because I was considered spiritually inferior. It hurt and made me ashamed to be part of an organization that would do that.

Remember, too, way innies believe that mainstream churches with their Trinity and dead up in heaven are devil spirit inspired, so they may not think you have any wisdom.

He wouldn't be the first person I did look up his address. He appears to be in a house, but have no idea if he owns it. I might have a friend who has access to tax records check that out.

I used to take a pretty heavy stance against the trinity, but as I've grown older I've lightened up considerably on that issue.

Yeah, Lifelines, it was called. It was a full sized book, too, not just a booklet.

This was not Lifelines. It was one of those about the size of Slain in the Spirit. Had things in it like "Learn to read what's written on the page."

Last night I was at my 35 yr high school reunion. One or two of my classmates (maybe 3) were in TWI, but this one I knew in particular was because we had talked about it at length - back in 1983. So I walked up to him later and asked him when he left (because I assumed he had enough sense to leave) only to find out he's still involved. He indicated there were a fair number of people involved. He asked me why I left. I told him I would like to sit down and give him the specifics, but now was not a good time.

I told him we belonged to a mainstream church now and were very relieved at being away from TWI. I do plan to contact him because I want to see if "mark and avoid" is still in full force.

It should be interesting. I'll keep y'all updated.

BTW, his name is K!m H3nders0n. I do believe he graduated from the corps back in the 80's, but I'm not sure.

There used to be a booklet of VPW quotes. I had a copy, but have misplaced (lost, thrown out) it. Does someone have that booklet? Some of that stuff was pretty good. Probably someone else's material, but good, nevertheless.

Ham,

I hear what you are saying.

I think one of the things that turned me off in going WOW or going into the Corp was the disparagement between the standard of living of the higher ups and the people in training or the man in the field. It's one thing to all be in this together, but when the standard is so different, someone needs to pay attention. I refuse to finance someone else's lifestyle that is not within my reach. I don't mind being a 10%'er at my church because the pastors and paid staff do not live lavishly. I had a real problem giving TWI 10% much less 15% because of the lack of stewardship.

So, tell me Mr P - I never quite figured out what "Mark & Avoid" was as this was not part of TWI 1 or at least not called that. If someone "left" prior to POP I guess it was more or less "assumed" that they were possesed (why else would they leave??) I can remember when friend of mine left the 2nd or 3rd Corp, which was unheard of in those days and I thought that being his friend and hanging out with him would maybe help show him the light, show him the error of his ways (of course, that didn't happen) but I actually got phone calls from the Limb Leader of NY at the time telling me to stay away from him (that didn't happen either) but I thought why wouldn't they want me to help this guy??? I guess that was a form of M&A without the label.

Sorry

KJV Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Charlie was a nice guy. He may have taken PFAL, and was marginally involved in CES in that he came to a few of the gatherings early on. I saw him on occasion when he would come to John's home or come into the home office. I don't recall ever meeting his wife or children. He died August 9. Here is the obituary. http://www2.indystar.com/cgi-bin/obituarie...ow&id=94540

Zero interest before, zero after.

WayWorld temporarily prompted me to suspend my disbelief. But, eventually, I returned to my true self.

Some may find reality unpleasant to live in, but, whadda ya gonna do?

Religion is Bull...., get over it already...

Actually your type of responses are why religion itself is not bull..... IF we are doing what we need to be doing, then we don't need religion to help us stop being our own worst enemy, but some of us obviously need the structure provided by religion to stifle our baser impulses.

Even our agnostic foreign exchange student was aware that the environment of a "religious" family was probably better than one that was not.

The reality is that during the time the Lord tarries, we will all experience death. Two people have not experienced death as we know it.

VPW had the mistaken notion that he could believe himself past the consequences of risky behavior. That is what I believe is the wrong part of his believing=receiving doctrine. He ignored the rule that believing=receiving doesn't defy the natural laws, particularly the one of cause and effect. I believe that anyone who overtly engages in risky behavior (cause and effect) that is known to cause one to sicken and die is guilty of committing suicide - slow as it may be. I call it slow suicide. It just doesn't have the impact of taking a gun to the head, swallowing a bunch of pills, slitting one's throat, or suffocating one's self, but one is nonetheless assisting in one's own death.

No doubt. I do believe there were other times where the spirit (& Spirit) of God confirmed he was rather remarkably walking by the spirit.

It's a conundrum when I read accounts of others who say because he did sush & such, he was a false prophet who coudn't have walked with God in any regard.

Whether he was walking by the spirit is open to debate. Remarkably? There's no sign of any special anointing. I don't think he was any better at discerning in a spiritual sense than anyone else. Was he able to zero in on dysfunction and exploit it? No doubt about it. Was he in the "gifted" category in that regard. Probably, although it's a "gift" that is often misused as we saw.

VPW was not a prophet. I haven't studied the prophets in depth, but even a cursory reading does not reveal people who possessed the character of VPW. They did not act in ways that tarnished the name of God. He was more like David, except that even David eventually got that what he did to Bathsheba and Uriah was wrong. I don't think VPW ever thought that what he did was wrong. The fact that he didn't get that wrongness makes the idea that he "walked with God" to be rather absurd. Can you "walk with God" and sin? Not while you're sinning. Did he walk with God sometimes? Perhaps. But an ongoing walk shows growth in certain areas of life. To me, it looked like he regressed in certain areas. 1 area was that he held the idea that he was immune from the consequences of risky behavior. Another area was that he did not become more Christ-like in his behavior, he became less Christ-like. He covered that by making up different rules as to what being Christ-like entailed.

When I was in my mid-teens, I had to take a class before being baptized and joining the Congregational Church.

Congregational Churches were historically Unitarian as understood in the context of the Unitarian USA group (not the universalists)

Well that is interesting ... I wonder if those are a matter of public record then.

They should be with the SOS of Ohio. I think it's ironic that on the TWI web site there is no posted code-of-conduct. Of course we have seen what happens when a group does not adhere to its code of conduct.

Ever since I have been in ex-way communities, I am absolutely fascinated that people can take or leave many Way doctrines but they hold on for dear life to JCING. Here's a thought, what if that book is wrong? It's just like believing. The Way really made it out to be telling God what to do, instead of the more humble approach of asking. Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?

Paw, I didn't have an opinion about it one way or the other. I had never heard of the word "trinity" until I was in TWI, although I had heard Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Never got the context. I read JCING and thought it made sense. Then I sat down and read everything in the Catholic Encyclopedia and all of Augustine's works and studied history from that era to get an understanding of how the trinity came about. Then I lined that all up with what was actually written in the Bible, along with getting a Jewish understanding of Messiah, and concluded that the trinity has no root in the scripture, but was the best that people could come up with in light of the differing views of Jesus during the early years of the church.

I believe that JCING is a reasonably good representation of who Jesus is not and why. However, I don't believe it even begins to accurately address who he is, nor does any other non-trinitarian group besides perhaps the Christadelphians, and ironically CES , because of what Su3 P!3rce and Ra1ph Dub0fsky brought to the table before they got disgusted about other things and left.

After I left TWI, I sat down and went over every major doctrine and thought that JCING was ok, but incomplete not worth arguing over and have actually had flaming trinitarians come to my defense when others have accused me of not being a Christian, because my Christology is well thought through. I think that while Believing = Receiving is probably right, it was wrongly taught, which is why it backfired. I don't believe water is a requirement in baptism, but I've been baptized in the Jordan River and I have the T-shirt. I believe in an open Communion table and have actually been served communion in a Lutheran church with the pastor fully aware that I am not a Lutheran.

I don't believe any stronghold trumps the 2 great commandments and if you've got some belief that does that, you probably ought to reexamine it.

First off, this was my favorite class from TWI. By far. I had a ton of fun and laughed.

Secondly. I was only 13, so my judgment is suspect.

masturbating is healthy for the prostate. Whether you're shooting alone or with someone else, keep on shooting. And I'm 100% serious about this.

I'm sure at 13 it was wildly entertaining, but inappropriate.

If you want to masturbate - fine. You don't need a note from the doctor. There is no proven link between "shooting" and prostate health. There is a link between what you eat and prostate health.

Her teaching was followed by a gynaecological examination of the elder Corps women. Then, it seemed a little odd. Now, it seems like pandering.

With all you there as witnesses?

The problems with TWI far exceeded mere doctrinal points.

It was a convoluted lifestyle that was designed to support the whims of a select handful of upper level officers.

Well I avoided that part of it for the most part. I didn't buy into the whole lifestyle thing. As I said, it became something I could live with - providing I was left to live my life as I saw fit.