laleo

I can empathize with your story in that there was a time long ago when I spiraled downward after a series of one difficult circumstance after the other, each worse than the one before, in a period of about six months. All my usual coping skills failed me. It took me a couple of years to begin to feel "normal" again, and that was with a lot of effort, misdirected at times, but ultimately life-enhancing. When I look back on those random pieces of grace that preserved my sanity, I don't know how I could ever package that grace into a formula to pass along to another in need, except to suggest that they keep their heart open to kindness (and also to offer them kindness). I wonder (and you don't have to answer this) if that same set of circumstances visited you now, decades later, even knowing so much more than you knew then, wouldn't it still leave you reeling? One time, a few years ago, I was going through a minor rough patch, and searching for a way up and out, and a friend turned to me and asked, "What are you holding onto?" That question alone was enough to point me in the right direction, and I'm grateful she asked it. Actually, I agree with you maybe more than it seems. I think our thoughts, feelings, and (especially) actions do contribute to our own happiness (or lack of it). But from the way you've told your story, I wonder if some of your anxiety didn't arise from your own sense of honor being violated. Don't you think that it's the people who most aspire to live rightly who also suffer the most, simply because they care? So far, it seems that there's an aspect of your solution to suffering that might inadvertently further suffering, by suggesting that we have control over things we perhaps don't control. (Or maybe it's just my own visceral reaction to anything that resembles the "renewed mind.") I look forward to hearing the rest of what you have to offer.

I don't know, Steve. This method strikes me as being inherently futile. And exhausting, too. If your "heart" is made up of your previous habits, and your habits are good ones (aligned with God's Word, or however you phrased it), then why would your heart still be deceitful? After putting all that effort into developing good habits in order to have a good heart, why would you again have to evaluate your heart's contents? At what point do you simply live in a way that is pleasing to God without being under constant scrutiny? Or don't you? To me, you seem to be describing someone with an overactive conscience, on the verge of constant internal shaming. Those hypocrites you describe feed off of that shame. I'm a little curious what your reason is for posting this. Is it a warning to "leaders"? -- letting them know that you're on to them? Is it a method for attaining a knowledge of God? If so, surely you must realize that two equally "good" people may value different things in different degrees. In other words, maybe I value loyalty and you value honesty, but we both value virtue. Must we all value the same things to the same degree in the same way using the same method? Maybe I'm just not following you.

Glad to hear your father got the help he needed when he needed it. Every now and then the universe does prove itself to be as generous and kind as I hope it might be. Until, of course, someone (George) comes along and nullifies the whole experience. Actually, your father sounds a lot like my father-in-law, at least as far as the hotel room is concerned. He's another one who would be more inclined to drive around until he has a heart attack rather than pay the extra twenty dollars to get a good night's sleep, although since your father ended up being where he needed to be, it worked to his benefit. Good story. I enjoyed reading it.

Vickles: How do you know that your co-worker gave your boss an ultimatum? How do you know that she had a long conversation with your boss complaining about you? Whoever is telling you these things, maybe let her know it's time to keep it to herself. If it's your boss, I'd be very wary of her. She sounds like someone who likes to stir the pot to preserve her own power. Divide and conquer. I wonder if your problem is with the person relaying the information, and not with your co-worker at all. Your co-worker might have someone whispering in her ear about you, too. peahead: Is that tongue-in-cheek? If you're trying to be funny, your timing and delivery are off.

This has sort of taken off in another direction, but I did want to say thanks to waterbuffalo. And satori is correct about the humor. Pretty lame, I know, so it's hard to tell sometimes what's supposed to be funny and what's not, but neither of us were serious. dabobbada: Enjoyed your spoof, especially the revenge part. Hope you're feeling triumphant now that you put me in my place. :)-->

I just recently read the Quartets, too. That last Quartet is my favorite. I think Eliot once said it was the best of his poetry, so maybe that's why I tend to agree. He should know, right? Also, I think it's interesting that a failed religious community became his muse. I printed your book list, although I haven't been reading much lately. Looks interesting, though. Let me know what you think of Yeats when you're done. My favorite Auden is his elegy to Yeats.

Um, excuse me, are you lost? This topic doesn't belong here, bucko, now does it? A more intelligent person would have known to put it in Open. It definitely depends on who(m?) -- where's Zixar? -- it's coming from. It either annoys me, amuses me, puzzles me, infuriates me, surprises me (though rarely enlightens me), depending on all those things you mention: tone, source, content, intent, punctuation, repetition. Am I too quick to apologize when someone else takes offense? Well, if I am, nobody's pointed that out to me. Yet. I eagerly await their insight. Personally, I don't mind the "logical" reproof. The "emotional" reproof usually doesn't inspire me to look inward for ways to improve myself. I feel like I'm being manipulated. The "stealth" reproof (another form of "emotional" if you ask me) has the same effect. I dismiss it, eventually, with or without letting the person know what I think of his/her sage advice. Also, I think that whether or not something "sounds" like reproof to me sometimes reflects my own mood, rather than the other person's intent. Overall, though, the "reproof" has been good for me. Before GS, I had a knack for remembering every slight and was skilled in holding grudges. Over time here, I've learned it isn't worth it, if only because it's too much to try keep track of it all. There are too many insults and too many handles that are phonetically similar so I can't remember who it is I'm supposed to be indignant with, or why. If they leave enough of an impression, though, I'm tempted to get even. Truthfully, I think the "reproof" says more about the person delivering it than the recipient. For example, it often seems like the most stubborn people are the ones who complain that others are close-minded. And the most selfish complain that others aren't "loving." And on and on. I think Jesus said something about taking the mote out of our own eye first. It's good advice. I occasionally manage to follow it. Are you planning to answer any of your questions? How about you? Are you a "stealth," "emotional," or "logical" reprover? Are you embarrassed, ashamed, angry, when you're on the receiving end? How about when you're on the giving end? What are your thoughts?

Hey Plot. This is from the last of T.S. Eliot's Four Quartets, a section he calls Little Gidding, named after an ancient religious community in England. Parts (or maybe the whole thing) will be familiar to you. Peace to you and yours, Plot.

See, George, this is the part that I don't get: "And so when you come along and claim that there was a lot of good that still came about by TWI, you nullify the experiences of those who got ....ed on." Really? Why would that be? I had two really bad experiences in TWI that I would put in the category of trauma, or at least some sort of psychological distress, and I don't feel "nullified" in the least when an oldiesman (or whomever) comes along and tells their tales of deliverance. They got healed? Great. Good for them. It doesn't change my experience. It just gives me another lens to look through. Sometimes, when the poster who is recounting his "healing" isn't too obnoxious about it, it even reminds me that there were a few times that I got "healed", too. Honestly, do you feel "nullified"? s.a.t.o.r.i,: This is a "bum's rush".

But, oldiesman, you're the mirror image of those same posters. Don't you see that? You'll take someone's painful experience and put a "harmless" spin on it, despite the fact that the person is sitting right in front of you telling you she was hurt. If she feels pain, then she feels pain. Who are you to say she ought to feel otherwise?

I think if I were Pawtucket (hint, hint), I would only have one rule: Speak for yourself. Unfortunately, that rule can't be enforced, so here we are often recounting "atrocities" that none of us witnessed or participated in. I can think of a half a dozen posters (maybe more) who came on these boards with an openness, and an innocence, who, during their introductions, admitted that they never met and didn't know Wierwille, barely knew Martindale, wouldn't recognize the rest of the trustees in a line-up, yet within a couple of months they are speaking authoritatively about Stalin, the WOW program, and suspected genocides, as if an evening spent at a night-owl is all anyone needs to understand first hand the horror of Auschwitz. For me, it's a disappointment, if only because I really enjoy the authenticity of those initial posts, before the cynicism sets in. A few pages back, you made a comment about how people interpret stories beyond the writer’s intent. Of course they do, and they should. Weighing your experience against mine, your conclusions against mine, is what storytelling is all about. That’s often how moral choices are formed and decided, through processing stories. I can accept your story and your experience without accepting your conclusions, just like you can accept mine. I hope you find a place here, HCW. I really do. Is satori giving you the bum’s rush? It doesn’t seem so to me. I think you two are more in agreement than you think you are. And, even if you aren't, so what?

Well, Plot, I should probably know the answer to that. In an earlier poem, she wrote: I never lost as much but twice, And that was in the sod. Twice have I stood a beggar Before the door of God! Angels -- twice descending Reimbursed my store -- Burglar! Banker -- Father! I am poor once more! From what I remember (if I remember), the two people referred to in this poem are her father, and her first love interest, who was an employee of her father's, but died when she was still a teenager, not too long after she met him. I think. Don't quote me on that. But if I'm right, that second poem probably refers to the same two losses. Maybe. But then there was that other guy -- the minister who moved away -- so I don't know. I'll look it up. I don't remember a thing about her mother. Do you? Here's one that satori posted awhile back. It may be more appropos to Sally's state right now, even though it doesn't address her question. At the End He was so old his bones seemed to swim in his skin. And when I took his hand to feel his pulse I felt myself drawn in. It was as faint as the steps of a child padding across the floor in slippers, and yet he was smiling. I could almost hear a river running beneath his breath. The water clear and cold and deep. He was ready and willing to wade on in. Ed Meek

Hey, Plot. I'm sorry for what you and Sally and, especially, Josie, are facing right now, but I'm glad to see you around GreaseSpot. I have no idea what happens to people when they die. I would have expected you to invoke Emily Dickinson for the answer. My life closed twice before its close -- It yet remains to see If Immortality unveil A third event to me So huge, so hopeless to conceive As these that twice befell, Parting is all we know of heaven, And all we need of hell.

Abigail: Here's the link.http://www.familytables.net/forum My password doesn't get me in anymore. This is the message I get: So either it's now "by invitationn only," or he is in the process of revamping, although I tend to agree with Cherished Child.

Probing? Yes. Serious? Hardly. You can comment on anything you want, but your comments suggest to me a lack of comprehension. You NEVER ignore a "red flag" yet you say I'm the serious one. That's just funny. Maybe you took that swipe at socks so you could get the last word in. That's my guess. Anyway, my "unqualified" support only illustrates that I've read your posts and I've read socks's posts. He has more credibility with me than you do. It has nothing to do with hierarchy. Anyway, probing for flaws is in my nature, qualified or not. I think I'll continue doing it because I enjoy it so much. And you provide such an interesting case study. My diagnosis is eye strain. By the way, I'd talk to you about the books, if I had the least indication that we would be having a conversation rather than you subjecting me to a lecture. Otherwise, I'd just as soon stick with the armchair psychology, thanks anyway. P.S. Just got your socks message. Okay, that makes more sense. Couldn't figure out why you were dragging him into it. We have a foot of snow here, so I'm housebound for the moment. You'll be off the hook soon enough, when I find something else of interest. :)-->

Of course. Did I say otherwise? Of course. Did I say otherwise? Of course. Did I say otherwise? Mike, you're stating the obvious. Maybe this is another avoidance technique. Rather than get to the issues (whatever they may be -- I don't even know), you fabricate disagreement where there is none. Yeah, sort of. But, for some inexplicable reason, you feel validated by that. Since everyone thinks you're wrong, you must be right. What's up with this? Are you envious of his popularity? Otherwise, this attack makes no sense. I hadn't noticed that at all. Quoting Kenyon, or Bullinger, or Leonard, or Graham, or socks (how did you make this list and Rafael didn't?) does not equal worship. It only acknowledges the contributions others have made.

Socks? Condescending and mocking? I like socks. I think he's one of the friendliest posters at GS, if not the friendliest. Whatever he said to you, you likely deserved it. Anyway, yes, you are self-promoting. Maybe you don't understand the definition of the term. Just because what you're promoting isn't original (although, in your case, even though you refer back to PFAL, I think your take on it is very unique), it doesn't mean you aren't promoting it for personal gain. Not necessarily monetary gain. More like ego-validation. I think you cite PFAL to give yourself credibility. Without attaching your work to Wierwille's, you wouldn't have an audience. If Rafael were to comment, I think he'd place you somewhere in Dante's 8th circle of Hell with all the other panderers, and seducers, and hypocrites. Just a guess. I don't understand you, Mike. You talk, but don't listen, as if you've heard it all. Years ago, as a WOW, we had a local pastor who used to visit our fellowships. He used to annoy me because he was often probing for some sort of trauma in our lives that might explain our attraction to The Way. He thought we spent so much time "in the word" to cover up and alleviate some unresolved pain. When I read your posts, I read them through the eyes of that pastor. Fixing typos

What are you saying? -- that if you were the one who wrote PFAL you would have cited your sources? I don't think I'm following you. Regardless, whether or not you wrote PFAL, you've definitely re-written it. Amazingly, you're capable of citing your own sources. I noticed that you don't post your conclusions or make your point without quoting from PFAL books. Do you think it is a "distraction" for me to wade through your citations and quotations? If not, then why hold Wierwille to a different standard?

Mike: The bottom line is that your theology is all about you. It's about your personality, your preferences, your attitudes, your convictions. Then you further flatter yourself by pretending that man's greatest spiritual problem is that he doesn't think like you do. You say citations don't matter. Fine. To you, they don't matter. To others, they do. Rather than acknowledge that, you create a god who conveniently sees things your way and thinks exactly like you do. At least Wierwille had a product. According to him, if you follow his formulas, you'll have life more than abundantly; you'll have something outside of yourself that gives your life meaning. You have no product, except yourself. According to you, if you think like I do, you'll be like me! Well, hallelujah! Where do I sign up? Perhaps you should ponder the question asked by Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?" Or, paraphrased, "If not me, Who? If not now, When?"

On some level, you must realize how truly silly these statements are (at least I hope you do). It's purely and ridiculously subjective. You're saying that God likes you more than he likes the rest of us, and is more willing to accommodate your preferences, at the expense of ours. What did you do to rate so highly? From Power for Abundant Living by Victor Paul Wierwille: From Eats Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss: I fail to see how the second quotation might prove to be a “distraction.” I think Wierwille intended to dazzle, not inform. To me, the second is much more helpful and informative. I wonder why God didn’t keep in mind that I would feel that way when he was giving revelation to Doctor. Didn’t God know that I would have preferred citations?

Hi Belle, What is obvious to you isn't so obvious to me. I don't see evidence for your above claims: VPW worshipper; without compassion or "natural affection" (what is that?); an incompetant (even harmful) father. On the one hand, I do not know HCW. Never met him, never interacted with him here, there, or anywhere, so far as I know, so I can't speak to your accusations with any knowledge or history. But . . . are you getting all that from his posts here? I'm not. He told the story of his daughters as a way to identify with the victims; to demonstrate that he does understand; that he does care; that he wishes for better. HCW is writing a narrative. It is not your narrative. It doesn't tell the story of your time in The Way. It tells the story of his sojourn there. I don't see where he is asking anyone else to adopt his experience or his conclusions. Right now he has 20 (twenty) posts to his credit. Long posts, for sure, but it doesn't rival the thousands from the people he is up against. What is the fight about? That's what I want to know.

Tom, I'm not looking for any sort of fight either, but I wonder about a couple of things you said. "If a person is not responsible for what someone does TO them while they are there, why would you then ask that question of them?" HCW isn't asking that of anyone. He's saying that it is a question we must all ask ourselves. He's right, isn't he? Do we contribute to our own unhappiness? Maybe so. Maybe not. But the question needs to be asked if we want a way out of the misery. "they mentioned that they thought an apology was due, not a defense of what or why you said it... and then a simple suggestion of an apology turns into all this crap..." I can think of two occasions only recently where an apology was demanded of another poster because of "hurtful" remarks, but the repeated apologies weren't accepted, and it turned into "all this crap" anyway. Is the issue really an apology? HCW didn't mean what some of you are making it sound like he meant, so what is he apologizing for?

My advice (not that you asked, but, hey, everyone else is offering theirs) is to stay who you are, otherwise you risk getting lost in the drama and the angst. At any rate, I'm enjoying your story. It's well-written, and absorbing, although I do take issue with your interpretation of Othello. I think you missed an important paradox, but invoking Shakespeare did make you sound smart. Anyway, welcome to GreaseSpot, except you've been here for a long time, from what you've said. Welcome anyway. Hope you enjoy your stay, however brief it turns out to be.

What did HCW say that was so reprehensible, so unforgivable, so unconscionable that you guys are piling up on him? Is it just because he hasn't learned the GreaseSpot jargon yet? Doesn't he have the correct terminology down? Seems to me he's paying dues for a sin he didn't commit. He's telling HIS story, not YOURS. Can't he have a little space here?

HCW: I'm glad you stopped in. I agree with you that there isn't one (and only one) experience (or conclusion) that now, in hindsight, everyone should accept as universally true. It may seem that that is what others at GS expect from you, and maybe a few do. For the most part, though, I think people are just arguing their points, from their own perspectives, which is what a discussion forum is all about. Right? My limited view of things (my own experience) is that things went from foolish to intolerable. Just my opinion. The Way was once attractive to me. Then it wasn't anymore; yet it's still attractive to some, which is something else I can't explain. We each went into it with a unique set of expectations, and, for a time, some of those expectations were met. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading your recollections. I hope you continue to post them.