chockfull

Does this statement tie in to the "Her Holy Hermaphrodites" thread? Becuase I must tell you I just got this "ewwwwwwwwwww" feeling. I really don't want to know about what RFR does with her lips.

As a matter of fact, Don's PhD thesis was on the rennovation of the WC of Emporia from an old almost extinct college to the "new" TWI college.

You know WD I think I'm finally starting to get you a little. Yes, absolutely we own our responses to the situations we were in. There are huge numbers of mitigating circumstances and offenses and horribly gross mistreatment, but ultimately we are responsible for the only thing we can be responsible for. Our response to the situations. You are absolutely right in questioning where it exactly was that we started allowing the empty threats of the loss of foolish things to control our responses. I certainly did allow that, and openly admit it. We can't control what happens to us, but we can control how we respond. I can only say that in my own mind, I bought into the lies that they introduced the fear with. I was played because I allowed it. I can certainly see how it was accomplished - very subtly, with the balance of threats of losing what I had built over decades, with control through insinuations, but ultimately it is my fault. And in owning that I think I am a little bit stronger and a little bit wiser, and am building the strength to not allow it to happen again. I applaud your efforts with the Way Credit Union. You know I think many times I get thrown off by your statements because they come off like you are a cold heartless b@st@rd. Maybe you are. Maybe you have a healthy balanced accountable viewpoint. Maybe a little of both. I'd like to strive to develop strong accountable believing as well as compassion. To each his / her own. Absolutely. These people will reap what they have sown, or otherwise, as the verse states, God would be mocked. And He may be for a time, but not when all the cards are on the table.

socks, Awesome stuff, and it's inspiring hearing about what was a genuine grassroots movement. People can sense that kind of stuff deep in the heart, and that's what draws and attracts them. Quite a contrast to what the lifelessness of way prod went more and more towards over time.

The trait of "being nice to people" with vp in my opinion you have to look at within the overall perspective of his life and what he was trying to accomplish. He was trained in school as a pastor. He did know the duties involved there, with meeting with people and caring for them. He did this for families when many other men went off to fight in WW2. During the time most of us knew him, he was expanding his organization he founded into a worldwide organization. As such, and as common to founding CEO's of many companies, the "sales" mode is always on, as is communicating vision. Can you separate a man from that vision or that mode? It's hard. Were the motives "pure"? Well, within the confines of his vision, probably so. Did he genuinely care for people and show it beyond what they could do for him to help establish his vision? That's hard to determine, and we may never have an answer. Certainly he was a man consumed by his vision, so everything he did and everyone he interacted with was framed by that. The vision itself is what I question. If it was genuine and God-inspired, as opposed to egocentric and megalomaniac-like, why would you sexually abuse people, make political power plays, take the glory yourself, and act like an overall abusive jerk? The overall fruit of his life, and that of those who followed in his chief position footsteps is one of abuse, control, perversion of scriptures, using people to please himself. So the real crux of it from my opinion is that the fruit defines the man. And you can't separate a person from the fruit they produce.

Maybe they were on the way to their keyboard and tripped and fell, injuring their wrist. Maybe they decided to take up knitting. Maybe they found a heathen website to post on saving souls. Maybe you are projecting.

Comparison - sure thing, bubba!!! Here's a start:

That just makes me want to take out a black permanent magic marker and cross out the word "Promoting" and replace it with "Obscuring".

I personally think the account in PFAL was not a real account, but a parable type of account made up by VPW to prove his point. After all, VPW's expertise and his doctoral focus of study was homiletics. I'm certain he knew the best way to make an impacting point. A parable story is more impacting than straight teaching of the point. If you bypass all the parable type rhetoric, and try to analyze that story literally there are plenty of holes in it. There's quite a disconnect in the story about the minister "giving his kids to God", and how TWI recommends overseeing children. Also, to think that a mother with a young child would allow them to be near a busy street allowing them to run out in the traffic is ludicrous. Assigning blame to someone in a grief-stricken environment is pathological (but actually commonly practiced in TWI). He used a parable to make a point about fear and faith. There probably is some truth to the lesson, however, as many have pointed out that whole 'law of believing' stuff can really be taken easily over the top to be a glossed-over generalized religious mental exercise kind of like 'the secret', which is too over-simplified in how things really work to be effective. This also starts to make me wonder about the Job account as taught by VPW. Was it really 'fear in Job's life' that allowed all his children to be killed? The 'hole in the hedge' theory? Or is Job rather an account of the reality of human life, kind of like what Ecclesiastes contains, and showing God's goodness to bless people as they go through life's struggles and cope with grief, loss, unkind public opinion?

The 'gifts' vs. 'manifestations' argument - here's a couple of points: 1) Gifts of healing is taught as a gift - each individual occurance of operating that manifestation is a gift. So at least for one of the 9, no dice in stating it's not a gift. 2) Christians mostly refer to 'gifts' as particular talents that Christians develop when walking in the spirit. So their usage of the word would more closely align with how TWI defines 'longsuits'. So what if it's a current usage, not a precise biblical usage? Except that they aren't as limiting on what constitutes a 'longsuit'. One could have a gift in painting, organizing, finances, almost unlimited the possibilities, and none of it focused on the mechanics of how God delivers them. TWI on the other hand - totally focused on the mechanics of the operation, and as such vastly limit the definition of 'longsuit'. How many of you in TWI for years ever figured out what your 'longsuit' is in the strict definition? Which one of the 9 are you best at operating? Do you know? If you're honest, probably not. Why? Because even in their definition of 'longsuit' a good deal of the latter part of I co 12 doesn't fit in. 'Longsuit' really isn't an accurate dividing of the word. It puts God in a box. God can energize people to develop great talent in many areas, and that's regardless of if they are completely aware of how precisely He energizes. So making a huge distinction between BG Leonard and VPW RHST book - is a pharasaiac straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. If we look at how most Christians talk about 'gifts' as a more modern current usage as opposed to religiously judging them on gift/manifestation - maybe we have a lot more in common with normal Christians than we think. Maybe it could free us up to develop some more things in our lives.

The representation of good music might present an unfair competition to the blandness of way productions?

Outstanding!!!! This is hilarious and brings back memories. Thanks for posting this. The quotes on the last page are so frickin' hilarious: What a hilarious attempt to be profound while saying nothing. We certainly have seen the history when the curtain and veil is lifted. It's the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Except he has a drinking and sex problem. wtf??? It sounds like someone reading the "Footprints" poem while on magic mushrooms. What exactly is the 'history of the moment' ???? I mean, like, once you live a moment, then it's history. See, isn't that profound? Actually, since he brought up the moment, more how I feel with the moment and TWI history is kind of like this: Stuck in A Moment

Now for some reason I think Catcup might take extreme issue with this statement. Why don't you look at some of her posts or search for that name here.

My that sounds like the opening to Charles Dickens novel A Tale of Two Cities - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times..."

Definition of Compassion (TWI literal according to usage): Compassion - 1) a fake emotion you need to display outwardly so that people think you care; 2) a sign of weakness; 3) something that we will beneficently bestow upon you by not attacking and destroying your lives if you kiss our ring and feet, obey without question, and never talk about how we hurt you.

No I am not saying Pharisees did not have individual sins. If you would actually read my posts, I have pointed out numerous times that Jesus addressed them as a group because they were criticizing him and attacking him as a group. I do not get your point. You are ranting about someone singling out individuals and their sins and discussing them day after day, and how Jesus didn't do that. Is this an overall condemnation of all of GS? If that's how you feel, then don't let the door hit you where God split you on your way out of here. Jesus dealt with individuals and their sins all the time. The man with the possessed kid trying to pin his believing on Jesus - his response - 'if you can believe, all things are possible'. Raising Lazurus from the dead - everyone criticizing him - he put every single one out of the room. The person criticizing the woman for wiping his feet with her hair - he confronted that sin right there. Even in his resurrected body he told Peter - what is it to you? when he asked about the disciple he loved. He most certainly singled out individuals, dealt with their sins, and if they were responsive helped teach and heal them. Even if they were not, like Judas Iscariot, he still dealt with him individually and publically, and the record is there for everyone to see. He healed a guard's ear after someone lopped it off, confronting that sin. These examples are numerous and right off the top of my head. You seem to be the one that is trying to prove that Jesus did not single out individuals. So prove it - where is your chapter and verse? While he doesn't name the name there, he names the report, and that the person is commonly known. He addresses ONE INDIVIDUAL, and that person would be very well known to anyone in the Corinth area involved in Paul's teachings. You have some really stupid logic there, WD. By your logic, maybe courts shouldn't single out individuals who commit rape or talk about the rapists' sins day after day during their trial. Maybe trials should only deal with groups of people in general. Maybe there are no individuals that abuse, it's just society in general's problem. Maybe even your own stupid and intolerant logic is not really your fault - it's somehow some group's fault, whoever raised you, or taught you wrong, or whatever. People who sexually abuse others in the name of God SHOULD be exposed, they SHOULD have people talking about their hypocrisy, and they SHOULD become famous for their deeds. Kind of like OJ Simpson.

Where exactly is it you see 'ranting about the individual involved' ??? This podcast is an individual's account. There are individuals in the gospels who wronged Jesus - like Herod for example. Pauls talks about Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. As I stated before with the Pharisees, there were a group of them all together attacking Jesus to try and discount his healing people on the sabbath, not washing hands enough, hanging out with publicans and sinners. Since they were attacking all together, he addressed them as a group. You failed to address that point, and yet it's your main founding logic behind telling Kristen and all here that it's wrong to bring up an individual's sexual sins.

This is an estimate, not fact. There are 15 regions in the TWI USA work. Each region represents from 500-600 what they call 'active believers'. This puts membership in the USA work currently at 7500-9000 people. I don't have a means to estimate international involvement.

exc, Your son sounds like a wonderful and interesting young man who has courage, a sense of humor, and is starting to ponder the deep things of life. May he grow into a tall tree in the forest showing forth all God's beauty.

WD, Kristen's sharing is her unique life's experience. She is sharing it to provide clarity, and help those that can benefit from it. She is not commenting on Pharisee's personal lives over and over day after day. The Pharisees attacked Jesus as a group, so he addressed them as a group. The sins of TWI leadership many times were individual offenses as opposed to group offenses. So responding in generalities to them as a group makes zero logical sense. The coverups of the individual sins were group efforts, so we can call them modern-day Pharisees, that strain at gnats and swallow camels, that tithe of mint and spices, but ignore the weightier matters in life, that need to learn what it means that God would have mercy and not sacrifice. Pharisees typically didn't own too many chariots. They were the working-class religious zealots. The Saduccees were the ruling class. If you'd take the time to look through the account in Matthew 23 rather than making vague generalizations about it, you could learn some great detail about what Jesus did think needed to be confronted. With respect to handling individual sins publically especially of the sexual nature, you don't need to go much farther than Corinthians, in 1 Cor. 5:1 one individual is singled out for a sexual sin, and Paul's recommendation was to handle it and confront it publicly. This is not even a person with a leadership responsibility, yet it is to be brought up in an epistle meant to be read in all the churches, and with impact for generations to follow. That is not gossip, that is not a lack of concern with personal sin and the impact it had on all the believers. That is confronting it, saying it's wrong, and handling it. For you to state that Jesus would not want these things exposed or handled publicly, or that he would not want accounts like this to get out to warn people is a completely slanted view of what the scripture teaches, and it is one that is similar to the way TWI leadership handles these things, to discount them and sweep them under the carpet. It has taken legal action to change this, when in all honesty it should have been handled from a good moral Christian conscience. Yet that is the pattern - there is no good honest moral Christian conscience when it comes to TWI leadership.

Estimated Prophet, Thanks for your responses and consideration. We are as you say pretty much on the same page. These are murky waters to navigate and all of us are blind at junctures. I am thankful for Ralph taking the time to delve into these matters, and provide some detail and clarity. I don't know what he's up to lately, but hope all the best for him. My hopes are that we all can pursue a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and our Heavenly Father, free from the yoke of bondage and the leaven of the Pharisees. My goal and vision is that we can stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and walk the path that God enlightens for us in pursuit of His will for our lives, wherever that takes us.

Thanks. Intentions and what is actually accomplished at times can differ. My issues with your statements are addressed in the above post. I would agree, and add that they "teach for doctrine the commandments of men". I have always viewed Jesus Christ as the head, yet through my association with TWI and their leadership who appeared to, yet in their inner hearts and life practices did not, I was hurt as well. Is this my failure to hold JC as the head? Or just that I was deceived because I didn't know details like Ralph shared? I agree with you. I agree with you. I agree with you. I can relate to you here - I'm thankful for the Word I learned. I have forgiven and will not allow bitterness over what was lost to rule my life. Here we go again with the insinuations. I do seek proper training, I continue to research the Word, I give Christ a try every day, and seek him to be Lord in my heart and life to the best of my ability. I'm sure like most, some days are better than others.Maybe instead of judging others you should take your own suggestions? Who exactly is it that you think it is that motivates exposing the sinful and destructive practices of TWI? Jesus Christ? Or the flaming head of Jerry Garcia in a vision? Or is it Satan? I'll tell you there are varying opinions on that. I know who motivates it for me.

Why do you wonder? Can't you accept the information at face value without questioning his motives? Many people were hurt through the events and practices he addressed. That should be enough in and of itself as a clear reason to bring it all back up now. There are many details in his podcast that never have been brought up before. What's your motive in questioning? being aware of the leaven of the Pharisees in and of itself helps direct hearts back to the Good Shepherd As are most people who have a conscience's heart. They grieve the injustice, and the years and effort spent supporting such charlatans. This is a godly thing. I also thank God for my Savior Jesus Christ. He is the true head of the body, and stands in direct opposition to the functioning of pseudo leadership as described in Ralph's account. What's behind your message besides a veiled reference to a mote in your brother's eye? What does this veiled reference accomplish other than to discredit his account? Why is it that every genuine heart sharing here on GS seems to have people needing to attack it and discredit it immediately afterwards, all in the name of Jesus purporting to bring "healing" and "forgetting the past"? Most people here have had enough of people trying to silence the atrocities commited by the leadership of TWI by sweeping them under a carpet, paying off millions in lawsuit settlements with believers ABS, and talking about some nebulous concepts of healing and forgetting the past. They could experience that in the organization. People don't hide behavior that's appropriate, they hide behavior that is inappropriate. When the inappropriate behavior is brought to light, people can make better decisions than when it was hidden. Agreed. Even Jesus said of the Pharisees - "follow what they say, but don't do what they do". That is a day by day and thought by thought process my friend - pulling down strongholds, casting down imaginations, bringing every thought to the obedience of Christ. sincere well-meaning Christians often do the most damage. So write him a letter or give him a call. Asking about it in this forum in response to a sharing he made on events in the past serves nothing but to cast doubt on what he did share. Which Church is this you speak of? TWI? Another Christian group? The body of Christ as described in the Bible? If the latter, how can you purport to speak for the entire body of Christ to say he has not been communicating Christ? Does casting doubt upon your brother in Christ somehow bring Christ more clearly into the picture? If so, please enlighten us how.

Have you not read Matthew 23, where Jesus confronts the scribes and Pharisees in detail? Very interesting read. He uses the words as a figure of speech "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" 8 times. This represents a new beginning. He teaches in detail to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. So by your logic, Jesus himself spent a significant amount of time "running his mouth about someone else's sins", and that doesn't take much effort. The Bible speaks differently. Considering deeply in detail all of the leaven of the Pharisees, as well as highlighting in detail the hypocrisy they functioned with in the outward appearance being godly but the inner reality being evil, can be healing. It can present a new beginning to people. In this thread, Kristen's account presents a story that unfolds to detail out this exact hypocrisy. The accounts of abuse people have suffered can be healing to those who have suffered similarly. It can expose evil which previously was unexposed. It can help people leave, and stop supporting evil with their time, effort and money. That is a good thing.

Enlightening account of events surrounding that time. Additional info I learned by the accounts were that all BOT / BOD were aware of adultery doctrine and practices, Donna was in the Yak twig and thus aware as well, and the extremity of the viciousness that is wrapped within the corporate culture when one loses favor with whoever is perceived to be in power. Those are reasonably established facts. They also serve as benchmarks to look at when people want to talk about a new changed more wonderful TWI. Have those practices changed? Donna and Rosie must have lied about Donna's knowledge of the adultery practices to justify her staying at HQ. She has a top administrative executive position now. When people lose favor there is still a viciousness of treatement. So lies, political posturing, and viciousness. All ingrained in a corporate culture that was developed in the '70's and has not changed. People want to make ad hominem attacks on the character of RD to discredit these facts. They also want to derail and discount these facts by asking "where was Jesus during this time, and why no focus on him?" Those are tactics to distract and discredit, and lead away from the way of truth, not towards it. And the fact that time has passed before these accounts were detailed and questioning the purpose. By the same logic, we should discount reading the gospels because they were written possibly 60 years or so after the events occurred. I'm sure the Sanhedrim would question the accounts and accuracy in the gospels, as it would discredit their position of political power. Ralph comes across to me as a man governed more by his inner conscience and ethics of morality established as a Christian man than a man governed by political posturing. That is to his credit. He has even rightfully through this questioning asked some root core questions about establishing ministries as his reasons for not jumping on a spinoff bandwagon. Where's the proper training to avoid making the same mistakes?