wing

In the town where I was born lived a man

only the good die young, billy joel

Thanks Sunesis. About spring/summer of 72 Del was put in charge, but who he replaced I don't remember. Like you I was just a kid. There weren't many limb functions going on before Del got there.

Sunesis, I've been wondering for a long time about that event in the TWI timeline. You came out of NY, I came out of CA. Early 70's. Friends of mine used to speak about VP making an unannounced visit to the state, sort of surprising them at one of their meetings; but behaving aggressively to claim the ministry as his, not theirs. Since I wasn't there to see it, it disappeared into the place of vague memory. I guess it's not a question about clergy ordination, so it's off topic. Sorry ... but anybody know about this?

Ham, For what it's worth, M*l Ge*orge, Ge*rge J*ss were't way clergy (at least not as far as I know). BOT weren't either (you know, Ermal, Harry, Don, Howard). You ask a good question, where did all of the early followers dissappear to? Of course, at twi, those that left didn't get much of a chance to explain or say any goodbyes. So that really is a vaccuum. There only a few families from those early years that stuck around. There are probably some way clergy here at gsc that could add alot of insight to your topic. I agree that age should have been more of a factor. For my time and for what I saw at hq, becoming a way clergy wasn't necessarily revelation. Some folks married into it (by becoming a spouse to an earlier corps grad); for some folks it was because of an assignment (there were positions that carried a rev title with it); for some folks --am I being too bold to write this?-- becoming a rev was a result of who they knew. Being 'gifted' was not necessarily a part of it. Like you've mentioned, some rev's had no business doing it at all. On the other hand, some really really really 'gifted' folks were not revs either. I forget the title of the guy that I worked for, he was a rev (... trustee cabinet - that was it); he talked to me once about it (I passed) and he wanted me to understand that they didn't want too many revs at hq. Some way revs still cling to that title. I think it's bogus. I cringe when I see it. No offence intended to those who think that their covenant of salt was valid, but the whole twi thang was tainted and skanky. The rev part too. Paraphrasing Don'tWorryBeHappy ... you gotta start all over from the beginning, don't rebuild any of it.

"TAKE A STAND CARAVAN" ... thank you WordWolf. Way too many event titles for me to sort them out now. A different witnessing thing (something that might fit at that celebrity thread, but this name might not be as well known) involved a guest speaker that came to hq for a weekend once. Tom Brown, an author of several wilderness survival and trail books, came to speak about his book "The Tracker". He gave a good presentation, he was open to questions; he knew his topic, had 'been there' types of experience. An approachable and easy to talk to sort of guy. (my recollection, as someone who was just listening from a chair in the room) This was not a VPW event, but he was in the room too. (Which is to say that vic wasn't parading this guy around, someone else had invited him) I have described all of 'that' to describe 'this': When the 'Guest Speaker' was gone, at an after meeting VP asked for comments about the speaker. There was alot of enthusiasm from people in the room: "Great guy, Great time, Great learning" ... all of that. But VP was not happy that so many people had liked the speaker. The speaker, said VP, had sold all of us on his product. But we, said VP, had not sold him on ours. All of that enthusiasm evaporated. That is the incident, at least as I recall it. Take from it what you will. Why post it? just another example among thousands (millions?) of examples of how selling pfl was probably more important than the people. I did an internet search on that author (Tom Brown), and it brought this memory full circle for me to find that he also wrote about "The Vision: The Dramatic True Story of One Man's Search for Enlightenment". Maybe he had different ideas, and VP couldn't sell him his?

[quote name='nick' date='May 30 2008, 10:51 PM' post='414271' snip .... sucked because id be standing there, siting as hard as i could trying to use the maniftation of beliving to open thier heart, feeling somewhat responcible for thier hard heartedness. after all, the law of beliving is clear that if i expected people to recieve the word... snip ugh. Nick, I appreciate the thoughts and the scenes that you posted. Witnessing, ugh! For sure! I did it too, like most everyone else. I have to say, in retrospect, that I pretty much hated it. God has no hands but our hands? I was so duped (even thought that I had answers!)

fooledagainII, you do have a knack for posting compelling questions. :) Don't know if this would be bad, funny, weird, or just sad; but it's the one that came to my mind... The timeframe is around 1980-81. Takit (a music group at TWI for a while) had a performance in Dayton, OH. (The event had a name, and they did several across the country. Does anyone remember what they called these things?) As I recall, this was the first of those events. In support of that outreach, a lot of us were sent to 'witness' at the Dayton Mall early that day, to get people to come to the thing. After a while, LCM (he was in that group of witnessers too) started hotfooting it to the door, saying that we all had to leave with him pronto. What happened? He had apparently hassled a few too many mall shoppers, the shoppers then complained, causing the mall security to call for the local police to come. The police had in fact gotten there, and our future prez was scootin outta there before they could get 'im. Come to think of it, it is funny.

Thanks... it was hurtin my brain tryin to remember that guys name, or how he had been a 'celeb'. Wasn't his tune put on the ROA 72 record? Or maybe it was filler in the film of ROA that year. For what it's worth, my internet search (allmusicguide) resulted in this: Puckett & the Union Gap, at the end of their run, had defaulted their CBS record contract by refusing to record a specific song (... because they wanted to write & record their own stuff; but their contract required them to record songs provided by their CBS producer). The four original members (not counting Puckett) quit, being demoted to weekly paychecks (instead of percentage of the revenue). The band got retooled, replacements were hired. This is where Barry McCoy comes in, as the replacement keyboard player hired by the manager. But this revamped group failed, and was disbanded after their one and only appearance in 1971. Puckett quit to go off on his own. McCoy apparently found the way.

Doesn't ring a banjo string either.

Lisa... Definately NOT happy to hear you had to endure SILENTLY those things which you just described. I think I thought I was happy at the time. Now I don't think I knew what happiness was. Waysider correctly described that being happy was not the thing. Being joyful was. (Whatever that meant?) Another common phrase from that time was: God first, others second, yourself last. How could we work at being happy? Unless happiness was doing that ministry (god) stuff; or tending to that someone else second stuff. There are so many values that were misplaced on us. With this you have pointed out yet another one. One or two fond memories withstanding; I am mostly unhappy about the experience now. Very much like the feeling of finding out that something had been stolen from me.

Happy Mother's Day :)

I have a friend who quit his hq staff job. He was devastated; felt that he didn't have another choice. why? AOS was gearing up, & some dancers were in from NY at the time, some broadway chorus types. . . While going to his own car in the auditorium lot, he found a couple in another car doing the 'f...' thing. The couple was LCM and one of the NY dancers. They didn't stop when he knocked on the glass. Before he left he looked me in the eyes and told me all about it. It's sick.

holy smoke, Oldies. You sure post like a product of the way international. The recent post of yours (#101) brings to my mind other wierwille follies. Like old phrases about the word fitting with 'mathematical exactness, and scientific precision' which I sense in your logic. Maybe that 'hand in a glove' thing too. do you have an answer for everything? If this, =principle 1? If that, = principle 2? etc? It all seems to add up, at least for you. Got those spiritual calculations all ready. too bad God doesn't work that way. No formula gonna contain Him. but where's the heart? vic mussed that up too, banking so much on his 'laws' of this or that. then at the end, vp even complained about his own ministry having no heart. if he was right about anything, he was right about that. no heart. Here we are, discussing the death of a follower of the way. There should be a memorial to honor such a victim. instead when I read your posts I see holy smoke. like a screen, a distraction, or a deception, a refocus of attention to any place but on what goodness may have been in the life that was Sandra Ann Sullivans. no heart Oldies. if ya got it, ya haven't let it be seen. calculations, formulas, assigning blame, or assigning responsibities. sorta cold. I used to live and work at the way international; and I'll admit that I used to bleed green like that too. Maybe you still do. It was all supposed to add up, but it don't. It was broke to begin with. I think you're kidding yourself if you really think that it works. PALF is a scam, was a scam. But it was a beautiful shell game. :( maybe you should have your own thread. wing

ok, I don't know what group this was, or what they were called. But maybe they should call themselves: "The First Church On The Right"

I could use some help in my garden (losing in a battle with voles) wing oops, not on topic :)

brideofjc- MASTER card? now that's funny! Twinky- Thanks for your comment. But ya know that EP wanted to put Jesus in the room.... Myself, ... I do remember there being something of an underpinning (secret?) 'theology' which hinted at something else entirely. I think that some folks (in secret) played pretty loose, doing some freaky stuff there; in order to supposedly 'bless' another b'lievr, and ta 'meet that special need'. But of course, in the name of (that absent) christ. I wanna change one of vp's favorite sayings (from: "God has no hands but our hands...") into this: "GOD DON'T NEED YOUR HANDS TO". . . ____________ (fill in the blank for yourself) Chat on, secret agenda?

Gee, I dunno EP; kinda wish I had been a part of 'der Vey' that you claim. But I wasn't. (I'd been assigned to way international hq, like. . . forever; -because vp thought that "hq needed my heart"- and I am quoting his very own words to me there.) 'der Vay' that I knew didn't rely so much on Jesus. Jesus was mostly the 'name' that we did stuff in. Or the name that we would use to command stuff to happen in (especially when that god inspired thought faced some uncooperative reality that we'd have to command to go away "in the name of..."). It's been a while for me, so forgive that this description may be a little rusty, but I'll try to recall it. . . Wasn't it more like this? '. . . God was in Christ in me, and now IIIIIIIIII gotta do all of this god stuff, -because after all he has no hands but my hands- (and I better get it done, and get it done right, or some someone's gonna have a helluva reproof spree on me). . . and wasn't there some doctrine about the absent christ? that effectively meant I'd better work much harder to believe to bring stuff to pass? and wasn't it all on the believer to make it happen? and wasn't thanking God essentially telling god what it was we were gonna believe for? and wasn't Jesus part in the process "in the name of", seeing that he was absent? Jesus had simply been put on a shelf. In some respects, Jesus was like a magic wand, to use the power in his name as needed to complete that will of god thing. Or maybe like a 'get out of jail free card' (you ever play the monoply game?) to use his name to maybe stop some bad thing from happening. Long after I'd left 'der Vey'; there came a moment one fine morning, when it eventually got through my thick head that I did not even know Jesus in 'der Vey'. No, 'der Vey' that I was part of abused Jesus as much, if not more, as it abused anybody and everybody else.

I'm beginning to loathe my memories of TWI more than I ever have. This stuff got swept under the rug. Even once is too much. But it happened again and again. No prayer, no memorial, no apologies. And this was supposed to be a church? Instead, that elitist-ego-MOG mentality to cover his own a$$. I'm gonna go pay some tribute time in the memorium threads...

"You're gonna be a greasespot. . ." Well, ok, I'm just kidding. My leader didn't really talk to me at all. I, and my family, had just moved back to the wife's hometown. This was by our own choice, and it was our own plan, so that our child could have grandparents nearby. No permission was asked of TWI, nor offfered; and no assignment was accepted. The LC, who had been a "friend" for more than fifteen years; and even had years before been a guest in my house; turned out to be no friend at all. That LC began speaking ugly and awful things behind my back to my ministry friends. Some of those friends had the decency to let me know. A branch leader, working for me at the time (and who had also worked with me at hq for a long time), came to work one morning informing me that he had been instructed by the LC to quit his job with my company, he had been told to find another job. Why? He explained that the LC told him that I had become like the devil. So did he quit? Yes, . . . meaning that he quit being the branch leader. But he did stay with my company for another 10 years. (Maybe some posters here can guess what reminded him more of the devil?) But to me personally that LC said nothing, not even when I asked him about it. (which I did do). I guess that I and my family had been marked and avoided? (Even though I did not hear the term at the time, I learned about that for the first time when I started coming to greasespot cafe).

Paw & third trunk coordinator: Excellent presentation on a very difficult topic. Thank you for all of your efforts. (Very cool that your family stayed so close in all that mess.) peace to you and yours, wing

Oldies that 'law of believing' is wayspeak. to make it the rule of activity is to misplace who is doing what. waysider is right, IMO, it is unbiblical. maybe that is not important to you, but maybe it is. what makes it unbiblical has to be that it does not work every time. Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth. unless you want to add to the scripture record. your choice. Jesus found him, made some mud, put it on his eyes, told him to 'go wash. . .' and the man followed that instruction. No exchange about him having faith, not even a suggestion about what going and washing might do for him. there was some discussion / question among the disciples about sin maybe having a previous effect. but Jesus said that sin had nothing to do with it. Oldies, is your God involved in this? because (it seems?) that you will not allow that "this happened so that the work of God might be displayed" (the words of Jesus given in Jn 9:3). Jesus healed others, and 'faith' was part of the activity. (but what does that word 'faith' mean? people disagree on that). This isn't a sermon. It's only me trying to point out that God ain't in the box that the law of believing believers want to put him in. God will do what He wants to do, when He wants to do it, and in the way of His own choosing. This isn't a 'free will' discussion topic. But this is about your ability to take God's will into your own control. Similar to that, if we pretend that you are God, why would you do anything that does not put the glory where it properly belongs? The real God got pretty peeved at David (1 Chronicles 21) when David tried to take control into his own mortal hands. Tens of thousands of Israelites died. God is love, and all those good things; but that ego driven sophistry will not get you on his good side. didn't work for TWI, ain't gonna work now. We need faith. don't get me wrong. IMO we need faith desperately. But a faith that depends on a man is a big mistake. Brushstroke, if you're reading this. . . I apologize because this stuff probably doesn't apply so much to your concerns. Fr John sounds like a good guy. Glad that he is close by for you to talk to. thanks for your time, wing I feel that I should clarify a comment that I made. . . "Jesus healed the man born blind (Jn 9). Hard to put 'lord I believe' into that mans mouth." Because by the end of the chapter the man comes to say those very words. But BEFORE he got to that point, he was healed by Jesus, he admitted to his neighbors that he went and washed, came seeing; he was healed. Asked how? he said the man called Jesus. The pharisees questioned him, the man allowed that Jesus was a prophet. They asked him again. He still answered Jesus. Along with his eyesight, he was thrown out of the synagogue (this part of it is no blessing at all). After this Jesus finds him again (not the other way around). Jesus asked him if he believed. . . the man asked him 'tell me so that I may believe?' After all of this, occurs the 'I believe'. I am only illustrating that, as much as twi wanted the believing to come first and foremost, it is not always the case.

Oldies, Do you want someone who will say God cannot do all things? Do you want to decide what God can, or won't, do? You won't get that from me. Peter and Paul were 'delivered' many times (But I'm not sure what that means to you). Wierwille's explanation blames you if things don't go YOUR way ( which he / you might call GOD's way since 'whatsoever you ask' is your rule). Or, it gives you the credit (glory) if things do go YOUR way, because after all YOU believed it. You're being a good way witnesser. That's your call to make. But it's a one sided line of thought. My question for you is this: who determines what is 'best'? or, in this case, what is 'deliverance'?

Oldies, You are wellspoken, your posts are concise; with intellect and measured restraint. There are times I have enjoyed reading your thoughts, and there are times that I don't. That's okay. . . post on and express yourself. Your intent appears to be to support Dr Wierwille's teachings and platform. I wish you well. Personally, I have found his work to be lacking. This time, IMO, the scriptures you quote (Lk 10:19; Mt 21:22) are barely a token to that intent. About people dying, why or how; trying to connect that to any kind of deliverance? You've got to ignore most of the bible to make your case. Here are a few scriptures (maybe brushstroke will look em up for himself) Everyone dies ( believing ain't gonna change this ) Genesis 3:19; Hebrews 9:27. There is going to be some persecution (even in the words of Jesus. . .) John 15:20; Matthew 5:10. There is a longgggggggg list of people in scripture whose examples are important to God. Hebrews chapter 11 is a fair start. What of Abraham? Jacob? Joseph? David? all grossly mistreated. . . What of Isaiah? Jeremiah? John the baptist? all killed in ugly and disgusting ways. . . What of Jesus? How can you read any of these, then so limit them with "I believe God wants his children to live in prosperity and health. i.e., wants the best for his kids in all situations"? Who decides what the term 'best' might mean?

Remember the Sing Along the Way book? There were at least three variations from the 70's to the 80's (not counting any older hard cover "hymnals"). The book was just a paperback collection of songs and choruses to sing at the fellowships and meetings. Eventually the book was added to, expanding its contents. Soon after this was released, the legal team (new at hq at the time) pulled the plug on it, a recall of sorts occured. The problem was copyright permission, that no effort had been made to secure it for any songs being used. After copyright permissions were completed, a new reissue was made. Much thinner songbook though, many songs omitted. It seems that several lyrics had been changed (adapted) by TWI to suit unique doctrines, and were not acceptable to the rightful copyight owners. No one sued for copyright infrigment, those songs were simply dropped. Does anybody else remember this? Was this plagerism, of a sort? Maybe not as high handed as other specifics already discussed on this topic. But it does serve as a reminder of how such a 'fast and loose' attitude (policy?) existed about using other people's stuff. The church that I attend now (and I am a part of their music program) had to buy a license in order to play copyrighted songs as part of the church services. But the license does not grant them blanket permission to publish those things.