chockfull

With all the verbal blood-baths people took as they exited TWI... with all the spilling of personal, confidential details of people's lives that "leadership" did - whether it was LCM or VPW or Who-Knows-Who-Harry.... Why the f**k didn't someone come back and sue their a$$es for slander?

There are several reasons why libel cases have not been filed.

The very top dogs avoid personal contact to insulate themselves, and have cronies do dirty work for them. Intimidation tactics are used to discourage lawsuits. They make up lies about very personal issues, such that taking legal action would expose a person to making public their personal business, which is a deterrant. They circle ranks among followers, blackballing individuals involved such that obtaining testimony would be difficult. When all that fails, they come up with a scapegoat and take punitive action against them to back off the victim. They use delaying and stalling tactics to push prosecution beyond legal limits which are typically 1 year to file.

Actually, there's a lot of parallels there as to why rape perpetrators are not often prosecuted successfully.

I believe another inaccurate statement is that twi taught they were the ONLY and SOLE place for truth. My recollection is they were claiming the BEST source, not the ONLY source. I believe CSBP supports that idea. Also, VPW said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original", so logically there is lots of truth elsewhere since he got lots of his stuff from outside TWI. Never heard or saw in writing the claim that TWI is the ONLY place there is truth, I think that is someone's fantasy and wishful thinking and my wish is that folks would be more accurate when describing twi and Wierwille's beliefs.

To be 100% accurate what was taught is "the Bible is our ONLY rule of faith and practice". This was taught in many classes and forums. And outside of the "spritual 40 club" early on in the ministry, the practice of bringing in outside speakers and teachers certainly did not continue throughout the 70's when the organization was at its peak membership. 80's through current practices there have been "recommended reading lists" but no outside speakers or teachers. So the Way leadership set themselves up as the only source of teaching scriptures, and combined with the above public statement, it is splitting hairs to say they don't teach they are the only source for where followers obtain truth. There are a few levels of indirection, but the follower is led to that exact thing.

Where this is completely seperatist compared to mainstream Christianity is that other Christian writers are not even considered. A home fellowship would never have the freedom to work through a Joel Olsteen or Joyce Meyer book, or even a specific topic workbook from mainstream Christian sources. There are weekly teaching topics focused on Way publications set by HQ leadership.

Also taught was Uncle Harry's sharing on tithing and abundant sharing that the more he matured in the Christian walk the more he just gave all his money to The Way International, and considered other organizations as "second-rate causes". So by implication, "maturity" is held in equality to eliminating giving to other charitable organizations and giving solely to TWI. This viewpoint ha's been taught in TWI throughout the 70's to present.

Teaching a "law" of tithing is easy (besides being self-serving in TWI's case). A law is duty, command, with clear tests and penalty or reward.

What Jesus, John the baptizer and the NT teach is an attitude of generosity... if you have 2 coats, give one away (that makes 15% sound cheap), give to him who asks you, invite to dinner those who can't pay you back or invite you back, give beyond your ability, etc. Impossible to even imagine much less do unless you have an inner attitude of love and generosity.

Cultivating that kind of true love and giving spirit is much more illusive than law of 10 or 15%.

I think it starts with absorbing how generous God is with us. And letting the Holy Spirit form in you the fruit of love and goodness. It's a work of God. "God is at work within you both to will and to do His good pleasure."

johnj,

Your approach here has some real merit. Basically much of the color of TWI teaching is law based, while professing to be among the only that truly understand "the grace administration". Going back to the law while made free from it turns an individual into a Pharisee. Galatians does speak much to the "bewitching" that goes on in bringing people under a false legalistic based doctrine.

Jesus confronted the Pharisees for looking down at the widow giving a mite, while they used the "corbin" concept to keep from even caring for their own parents.

TWI leadership mandates to their leadership teaching these principles on tithing and abundant sharing quarterly, including their debt policies and scriptures (the no mortgage policy). The majority of TWI followers are unable to own property unless they completely refuse this principle and buy a home anyway rebelling against the teachings, which has been becoming more common. Then they cannot be fellowship coordinators or attend the Advanced Class or the Advanced Class Specials which they have moved to bi-annually in Ohio at their HQ. TWI has a net worth of $55M, with roughly half of that in short term investment capital, which earns roughly $200K per year. They spend very little of that on the people, doing no country-wide events that are not debt restricted, and they keep expenses low - 75% of income goes to HQ, 25% stays in the states, and the majority of the 25% goes to pay salaries of the 1 or 2 couples working for TWI in the multi-state region. The corporate culture is to spend as little as possible to put on events, with many using free rooms.

If you look at the fruit of the result of these teachings, you certainly don't see the prosperity promised, except for some of the higher executive positions in Ohio that are paying cash for homes there, own sailboats and the like. The average follower is kept poor and enslaved by these teachings, while the Pharisee class is enriched.

Excellent post Spectrum49!

I wonder if the OT priests used any of the tithe for fancy motorcycles, classic cars, private jets or motor coaches.

The motor coaches certainly turned in to traveling sexual abuse centers, made so by both the first and second "men of God" of TWI. No wonder he died of cancer. He turned into a cancer.

And no one wants their A$$ in a pit on the sabbath ... do they ? Hmmmm ?

Innies ........Best get mowing and cleaning.

It's better to have your A$$ in a pit than pits on your....

Oh, nevermind.

Anyone else recognize that magazine layout for the front cover??

Thought so. :blink:

It looks like a Jehovah's Witness Watchtower magazine cover?

You know, I like DWBH's post. It kind of reminds me of Jesus expression that you can't put new wine in old wineskins. I can't really say that I know what the new wineskin is in our day and time. But it is easy to see the old wineskins.

Focusing on the negatives, both actual and imagined, prevents remembering and seeing the many positives.

This is the essence of free will: it's what we choose to DWELL ON, and to DWELL IN.

By continuing to focus on, repeat, magnify, and even exaggerate the negatives, then the opportunity to see the many positives is lost forever.

Those who choose to live in the negatives long enough cannot even imagine the existence of the positives. This is a more horrible self-imposed limitation than anything that ever happened in twi.

Sorry - just had a chance to read through this and comment. Mike you are presenting a logical inaccuracy here - by saying that bringing up stories of negative things that happened in TWI is "focusing on the negatives", "DWELLING IN , or ON" negatives, repeat, magnify, and exaggerate negatives. You are saying that people who repeat stories of abuse are choosing to live in the negatives to the exclusion of positives.

This is somewhat delusional, and it is very similar to the type of logic you hear from TWI leadership - rather than acknowledge, confront, and change patterns of spiritual abuse, they teach at length a type of "Pollyanna" viewpoint similar to the logic you extoll. This is a classic ploy to shift the attention off of the abuser and on to the abused.

It is similar to attacking a rape victim for going to the police, telling their story, testifying in court, continuing to openly talk about the experience to help others through trauma and take a stand against injustice.

What it does is excuse the leadership who abuse and puts pressure on the abused to "forget about" their treatment and "just focus on the positives".

Here at GS many will refuse to excuse the abusers and focus on the abused. Most of the time this is because the abusers have kept their position, power, and influence, and have continued to abuse going on to other victims. Many want to speak up until these types of people have been removed from the power, position, and influence of being able to abuse more and more people.

And you will not hear people standing for the truth like that in your typical TWI fellowship. You will hear more of your Pollyanna type of thing, where even when very clear examples of abuse locally are in their face, they refuse to address it, talk about it, and move on forgetting about those involved or hurt. You see - it's much easier just not to deal with it under the guise of "not dwelling on negatives".

God doesn't want your sacrifice of "positive attitude". He wants mercy and justice. He stands against those who abuse, and with those who have been abused. He is on the right side of righteousness and justice. Unlike many people in cults.

Jesus said that the divorce laws in OT were written because of the hardness of their hearts. He said what God joined together let no man tear apart.

But you can't determine another's freedom of will, you can't control it, and at times it's very small how you can even influence it. We are all broken. We all fall short.

That's where His love makes us whole in spite of that.

Back to the topic of whether it's actions or theology that makes a cult, I'm going to chime in with an opinion that it is by far more of the actions that concern me in that category of TWI than it is theology. (Although the topic diversion into the Trinity is interesting reading and I started another thread on it).

To me the controlling and abusive behavior is the crux of the issue as opposed to theology or viewpoints. They break down an individual's boundaries, personal and family freedoms, and substitute the "greater good" of the group for them. They have a viewpoint of "unity" and "one accord" meaning an unquestioning belief in and support of leaders who are governed by baser motives of political power and the furthering of the group for their own baser gains. There are so many stories of individual boundaries being crossed here on this site - of course the sexual predator stories are the most despicable, but the others are just as bad - dictating who someone can date, controlling making people move from where they are, whether they can own property, pets, controlling the number of children they can have, whether or not they can have a profession or not (even though some of those is just for their way corps). One big one is the shutting down of dissenting opinion. Rather than an open discussion, debate, and investing resources into a defining result, a very few in high places determine what they think and shut down all opposing views. The debt topic is one very clear example of that. A few in high places have determined their viewpoint. Opposing research is rejected and ignored, the leadership is required to teach on the party line quarterly, and participation in classes and leadership is hinged upon not having any debt including a baseline family mortgage. Top leaders were forced to sign a paper indicating their support of the issue for fear of losing their jobs. I'll tell you the times I've most felt like I was in a cult was when I was trying to explain to other Christians why it was I didn't own a house - all relegated to one marginal interpretation of a New Testament verse. And trying to explain to someone why leasing a car wasn't debt but purchasing one on a loan was. People would just look at me and say "why do you let some group tell you what to do like that?" I don't know.

To me TWI is a cult because you can look at the wasted trail of the destruction of lives behind their leaders operations. That hasn't changed over time. That is fruit. And fruit defines the tree.

You forgot "also".

Reminds me of a couple of 36 hour marathons getting that marked in my Bible.

My wife knows how I feel to a certain degree and is waiting for me to

have trust and confidence in the leadership and the way again.

She thinks I will wake up one day.

Other family is clueless.

Do not want to give to many details WGB and all

copenhagen

My friend I have a reading list recommendation for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-When-Take...3715&sr=8-1

It certainly won't cause the arguments that a more directed book purchase might. They even have a workbook model available for small groups, like a fellowship.

I really would love to see as an experiment what it would stir up if a TWI fellowship really started living and applying that stuff.

Chockful,

I would answer them, but honestly I am not 100% sure

I do believe God is a trinity.--A family--I do think it CAN and for me WAS another Jesus. No resemblance to what I know now.

On the rest--I don't know.

If I were to describe my quandry--or struggle---I would be at a loss for words.

Glad I made you laugh though.

I understand. I think I pretty much said I was going through changes on viewpoints on a lot of that too. I do think it's a good thing that our understanding, appreciation, and viewpoints of the Lord Jesus Christ is growing and changing. The more I see the more I'm forming an opinion that a lot of it is just labels like "Republican" or "Democrat". And that leads to a degradation of the view of an individuals relationship with the Creator. I wouldn't have a problem calling Jesus Christ "my Lord and God" like Thomas did. It's a growing relationship, like a spouse. I mean, how can you describe the word "love" relating to a spouse over many years? So many things are hard to put in words.

And for you to assert that comparing TWI's theology to Arianism and Ebionitism is in some sense derogatory comprises a misunderstanding of the heresies themselves.

No such assertion - just relaying the means that a couple of people have presented that argument to me in the past.

Arianism, in its various forms, states that Jesus is not God, and is a created being. Most Arians held an Adoptionist view of Jesus, in that He was endowed with the Father's grace and through His cooperation with His Father's will, He attained divinity, though not equality with God, over a period of time. The Ebionites, according to the Church Fathers, believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but a prophet, indeed the greatest of the prophets and a perfect man who fulfilled and obeyed the Law better than anyone ever could, but nothing more than a man, and certainly not divine.

St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, says of the Ebionites:

And also St. Hippolytus of Rome, who expounds the doctrine of the Ebionites concerning Christ, in his book The Refutation of All Heresies:

None of those quotes sounds much at all like any teachings on Jesus Christ not being God that I've encountered in TWI.

And about Arius, this is an epistle of Pope St. Alexander of the Church of Alexandria, who was elected Pope of Alexandria instead of Arius because of Arius' heretical views. This is from his Catholic Epistle, to the entire Church, where he quotes the Arians in their statements of belief:

Yes - Catholic history. You're not a Catholic, but are you trying to assert in a logical discussion that Catholic history is not one-sided?

Chockfull, can you give me a reputable source that would show that Church history prior to 1000AD is unreliable?

And what exactly do you mean by "It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world."?

~Phil

What exactly I mean is that to draw parallels between TWI's One God teachings and Arianism and Ebionitism is a stretch for a few reasons:

1. Lack of clear ability to completely represent Arian / Ebionite doctrine & viewpoints.

2. No clear understanding of TWI's representation of Jesus Christ not being God and viewpoints related.

3. Over-generalization

The word heresy itself is pretty extremist. The Greek word hairesis means diverse or other. Heresy in practical application in the early church just meant someone didn't agree with the guy who won the political election. The word heresy eventually turned into a hate crime type of word - first being associated with excommunication, then the Inquisition. It gets tossed around like nothing, but there is quite a lot of evil in back of how that word has been used throughout church history. Brand a man a heretic, and it's not much of a stretch to burn him at the stake - like happened all the way up through the Reformation.

I have a question for you. What's all the mental acrobatics around the concept of Jesus being a "created being"? How exactly in your viewpoint did the virgin conception take place? Did Jesus actually go through the full fetal development or was he a fully cogniscent conscious "little God" in there in Mary's womb? Was or was not life created in Mary's womb?

B-O-R-I-N-G. And yet, the worst of the canned read fellowship teachings cannot come close to the Kindergarten-level-education-targeted STS teachings. "Hi, I'm going to talk to you like you're 5. And smile while reading from cards. Hopefully I will sound profound." NOT!!!!

I never knew about the sexploitation until the lawsuits - just simply never ran into it, except for a couple girls I knew said they had affairs with some previous leaders. The politics and control I guess I went along with it and probably came off like those above me came off to me. So in that I suppose I was a tool. I started to see things then spoke up, then got in increasing amounts of trouble, then left. Not a unique story at all.

I don't know really how I deal with having been a tool. I'm not in a 12 step program or anything. "Hi, I'm a tool, but I haven't tooled anyone for 1354 days". I guess the more disgusted I became with the examples above me the less I wanted to imitate them. Hopefully that's steered me towards non-tool land.

Dynamic Monarchianism...that's a perfect description for what TWI's theology is. Well, actually I think TWI's would better be described as a form of Arianism or perhaps a variation of the Ebionite heresy.

You know I've heard the Arianism and Ebionite heresy comparisons - usually spoken derogatorily and from a condescending type of intellectual position that only a Catholic priest can really pull off with the right facial expressions and voice inflection. It's not a compelling argument. 2000 year old views are not current views as modern viewpoints more reflect the advancement of academic achievement of mankind. Arian didn't have GPS satellites to influence his perception of the world.

Also, with as many other things the Catholic church has edited in a one-sided fashion with no opposing viewpoint published, and swept under the carpet, out of courts, to the bottom of lakes, into abortion clinics, etc. I'm not so sure that Catholic history prior to 1000AD is even that reliable of a source.

This leads me to question...how does TWI view Jesus, exactly? I know they don't view Him as God, but is He a divine being but not God, or is He just a human who attained a certain state of holiness or enlightenment from God, like Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha? Or rather, is He one of the Prophets, as Muslims view Him? Is He just a good moral teacher as the Jews view Him? What, in TWI's view, does the title "Son of God" mean? What does "Son of Man" mean?

Brush,

I don't know if I can quantify TWI views quite as philosophically as your "divine perichosis of love" analysis, but I think I can give it a shot.

The sum and substance of the belief is I Tim. 2:5

"For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus".

So TWI views Jesus as a man, the one Mediator between God and men, the only-begotten son of God, the only one now raised from the dead, ascended above all principality and power, and seated at the right hand of God. He is our Advocate, and the Red Thread or title subject throughout every book of the Bible which speaks of him indirectly.

So no, not God. No, not a divine being but not God. No, not a human who attained holiness or enlightenment from God like Buddha. (But a human who fulfilled his Father's will and was raised, ascended, and seated at the Fathers RH above all spiritual power). He was one of the Prophets, but no not just one, and no, not like the Muslims view him. He was a good moral teacher, but no, not only that as the Jews view him.

In TWI's view the title "son of God" isn't substantially different in meaning than normal language in that "son of Chockfull" would convey the same relationship to me as Jesus to God (except has infinitely fewer benefits). I don't recall in TWI teachings son of Man being emphasized a lot, so I don't know I can answer what TWI thinks that means. All in all it's a pretty simple straightforward description and application of terms. Where it doesn't fit VP handles in his JCNG book to explain the "difficult verses". And his research principles are that the "difficult verses" must be understood in light of the "clear verses". So whatever interpretation he comes up with for John 1:1 it can't contradict I Tim. 2:5.

-cf

No question - P.T. Barnum...

Now that has potential. If VP was PT Barnum, would that mean LCM was a man in tights on the flying trapeze? And RFR was the bearded lady?

Well, I appreciate your effort--and yes, not the "Popular" stance--I should know! LOL But, I too draw a distinction between not having all your t's crossed and i's dotted and flat out rejection of Jesus deity. That God looks on the heart is what I think as well, because we are without excuse. The Trinity--It IS an important doctrine.

Hey G,

Did you ever actually go through trying to answer the questions posted personally? I saw a bunch of CS Lewis quotes that were more along the lines of persuasion or debate points, and a number of other posts discussing others responses. So I gather there is somewhat of an interest in the topic title. But I didn't read anything from you personally answering the questions and describing where you're at.

I mean, I guess you don't have to answer them. But it does a little bit remind me of Will Smith's movie "Hancock" that I saw last week. Hancock is in prison in a therapy group, and everyone is sharing all their life stories, and it gets around to him and he says "pass" everytime.

That's a good question, maybe the holy spirit just needs a perch?

Now that is downright hilarious.

Dude smoked like a chimney, drank like a fish, and didn't have George Burns genetics. What do you expect? All the "broken heart" cr@pola is CG's twisted megalomaniac weird worship mindset and leverage for him to climb into power. VP may have been depressed a little and feeling somewhat useless - it's called "retirement".

Apples and oranges. The difference between a religious organization and a military dictatorship is night and day.

And yet the similarities are huge. The same seeking for power at the top, and abuses down the chain of command. The military dictatorship accomplishes this with a physical show and use of force. The religious organization does it with mental abuse - fear tactics, mark and avoid, etc.

Given the opportunity to compare VPW to various historical figures, who would you choose and why?

Oh, you can really run with this one.

Compared to:

Napolean - same complex - a little taller.

Freud - similar views - everything is about sex drive

Pope John Paul II - less pure

Jimmy Carter - similar impact - say you're a Christian, then screw everything up

Attila the Hun - shared views on women

Answering my own questions…

1. What is your understanding of the Trinity?

I grew up in a Protestant denomination and my understanding of the trinity is basically the substance of the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

VPW’s discourse with his pastor who said nobody understood it they just took it on faith was not one that I could relate to.

2. Does one have to believe in the Trinity to be a Christian?

I would think that if it is the lynch pin to the new birth you’d actually see the word in the Bible. With myself having children I can certainly see their heart beyond their mental acrobatics and logic they go through at times. I can’t see how my loving Heavenly Father would be any different. I’m a Christian because Jesus is my Lord and Savior and I asked him to become that in my life and believed the Father raised him from the dead. When he calls my name at the bema I’ll answer. It’s not a doctrine thing – it’s a heart thing.

Honestly I see a whole lot of non-Christian fruit in behavior surrounding the answer to this question. People using scriptures to beat one another down, extreme positions, being argumentative, strife, division – basically works of the flesh. If God can look on the heart, can you give your brother a break? Or just because you may think he’s not your brother doesn’t mean he’s not your brother. That’s like Jesus answer to the question “who is my neighbor?”

3. If one does not believe in the Trinity do they believe in "another Jesus"?

I understand the old man nature’s penchance for choosing Jesus Barabbas over Jesus the Christ.

The Jesus I know was the humble one who was later exalted. My relationship with him and belief in him has been with the same guy independent of what my viewpoints on the Trinity have taken.

4. Where is VPW's JCNG book accurate / inaccurate?

As a general answer, I think that there’s some good questions and points in the book – the history is handled incompletely but gives the gist of things. It probably served a good purpose confronting the mouth-breathing militant Trinitarians and bringing up genuine questions about the doctrine that need to be sorted out.

With that said, with more years of perspective I do think there’s a certain aspect of that book that falls into the straw man fallacy. What VPW is setting up to knock down isn’t a full-blown mature developed concept of the nature of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit. It’s a straw man.

5. What turns have your beliefs taken w/r to the Trinity surrounding your involvement in TWI, in and out?

Before – accepted it without question and believed in it.

In – rejected it. One key there for me was the question of what happens when people die. If everyone went to heaven, then if Jesus were not God he’s just another average Joe. If they all sleep to await his return, then he is a unique case – the only one raised from the dead, ascended, seated at the right hand of the Father.

After – continuing to question, evaluate, grow. Views are changing. I still love the same Lord. God humors me in spite of my shortcomings.

My earlier posts should not be construed that I reject the trinity, but that I was trying to explain how I understood Wierwiile's and Schoenheit's reasoning. Other Unitarians are Unitarian Universalist, Christian Science, Unity School, Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witness, Church of God of the Abrahamic Faith, Worldwide Church of God(Armstrong), in addition to TWI, S&TF,CFFM,C&RF,COF,etc.

There's also a Pentecostal branch - One God Apostolics

Similarly, I think an honest look at JCING is worth doing. Just a few years prior to that book, where did VP stand?

I asked dew, vpw's son a similar question to that once - there was a discussion going on about changing what you taught when new research was discovered. I asked if he previously taught on the trinity how did he handle explaining teaching against it later. He said vpw didn't understand the topic or wasn't resolved on it so would avoid it. If it ever came up as his assignment in a teaching pool in the denomination, he would trade with somebody.

Geisha even though you didnt answer me directly after re-reading your posts I found my answer here in this comment. I believe that Tom pointed out that this 'unanimous' belief of Jesus was not always unanimous. In fact they had a meeting and a vote and conveniently held the vote when most of the opposing faction could not be present. Once they had come to a conclusion and 'voted' in their version of Jesus they summarily shunned, ostricated and often killed the remaining members of the opposition. You might also find it interesting to know that there was more than one faction that in fact did not believe that Jesus was God. So you see Christianity did not always have the 'same' Jesus of which you speak.

It was also pointed out by Tom that Jesus' own followers didnt even know who he was until God told them. Now mind you I'm not making an argument for or against Jesus being God, I'm just saying that there is a lot more to the story here and a lot of history that you may or may not be aware of. I'm also saying that maybe it's just a bit over my head and like T-Bone I'm gonna believe that God and /or Jesus Christ are big enough to overlook some honest confusion and misconception from us mere mortals.

BTW thanks T-Bone I dont know about 'wisdom' but I thought that this needed to be said again:

Great mental picture here!

Chockfull could you provide us with a link? That sounds intriging.

Here's a YouTube clip - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZnuVb9l5o...feature=related

A different and possibly more apt title for this class could have been "L is for lechery".

I don't know if I remember this one correctly, but doesn't he make reference to a Tiajuana donkey video in that class, or German Shepherd or something? Or am I crazy and that was the Advanced Class? I do remember the slang terms. Which provided endless source of entertainment, and usually needed to be updated every class.

I wonder which came first - the chicken or the egg? Meaning I wonder if all of the attempts to be "free" and teach in these categories caused vpw to think he was being free when lecherous, or if the lechery in practice was what produced the really weird doctrine?