Rocky

Brilliant analysis in that linked thread.

How right you are. This thread and its thesis is really fundamental to understanding this particular cult. Hell, Wierwille wasn't even trying to hide it. Perhaps we just weren't mature enough in understanding of life 35-40 years ago to be able to effectively articulate this point. From a wiki article on self-ownership: Like it or not, this issue/question plays out in societal power realms these days not exclusively limited to abusive cults. How many times did Wierwille "teach" about the word "doulos?" Especially for the way corpse, It was ALL about delegating to him, and those to whom the "mantle of leadership" would pass after him, your responsibility to make choices about your own life.

SMH... btw, MRAP, have you read Undertow yet?

Now you're inside the minds and hearts of people you've never seen? Why so your words sound so bitter?

Cummins often would state that March 4th was the only day of the year that's a command. So, every year on 03/04, or March Forth, we remember Walter's silly pun. Hopefully it's entirely innocuous.

More politely stated than I would have... but I was thinking along those lines too.

Interesting points. However, I'm of the opinion that he was mostly disingenuous yet feigned sincerity to sell his con game... of course, he seems to have conned himself too.

I disagree with much of what you posted, but I appreciate very much that you are candid about your intention to come here solely to be argumentative. Peace.

Indeed... yet, easier said than done.

This 18 minute (audio only) interview with Maria Konnikova, author of The Confidence Game, provides keen insight into the human psyche including how we fell for Wierwille's con game. http://blogs.wgbh.org/innovation-hub/2017/3/3/konnikova-cons/ I first heard the interview on my local NPR radio station this evening.

Bump! Happy Walter Cummins Day, Today is March Fo(u)rth!

Speaking of extreme religions, I just read this news story about Word of Faith in North Carolina ... LOTS of PTSD among the congregants and escapees there.

"It is being assumed..." by whom? Just asked for clarification.

By whom?

More from the sample text available for Mastermind: "One of the things that characterizes Holmes's thinking -- and the scientific ideal -- is a natural skepticism and inquisitiveness toward the world. Nothing is taken at face value. Everything is scrutinized and considered, and only then accepted (or not, as the case may be). Unfortunately, our minds are, in their default state, averse to such an approach."

A topic I find most fascinating and have for years. Earlier Wednesday evening, I read an article about The 14 Fake Olive Oil Companies. The lede: "It was found that even 7 of the biggest olive oil makers in the USA, mix their items with cheap oils to get more profits. Namely, one of the products we regard as healthiest and a remedy for longevity has been corrupted." The good news -- at the bottom of the page, a source for the data and the claims was cited. The bad news -- at the linked page, there was NO source cited for the data or the claims. No scientific or academic analysis or study was given to provide credibility for the claims. About 15 years ago, I took a newswriting class. The veteran journalist who instructed the class drove home to me that I must never (when writing a news story) use the passive voice. So, I now always ask, when I read "It was found that..." BY WHOM? And how did they find it? The source website, Natural Cures House, apparently makes all sorts of health and diet related claims but I didn't find ANY source citations for any of them that I read. (Note that I did not claim they never include citations. I didn't read all of the articles they have, so I don't know if they ever cite their sources) Harry Frankfurt, a retired Princeton professor, a few years ago wrote an essay "On Bull*hit" Natural Cures House struck me as a classic example of the kind of thing Prof Frankfurt wrote. NCH doesn't seem to care at all whether what they publish is true or false. Then, as I browsed on Amazon, a link came up to a book by Maria Konnikova titled Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes. I read some of the sample content. Konnikova begins with the story of a man convicted of mutilating livestock in England in 1903 and how later (after the man was out of prison) author Arthur Conan Doyle figured out that the guy could not have committed the crime. Then Konnikova writes, "What Sherlock Holmes offers is not just a way of solving a crime. It is an entire way of thinking, a mindset that can be applied to countless enterprises far removed from the foggy streets of the London underworld. ... Holmes recommends that we start with the basics. As he says in our first meeting with him, "Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems." The scientific method begins with the most mundane seeming of things: observation..." It's been roughly 40 years since I took Wierwille's Advance Class on PFLAP. And I long ago got rid of the syllabus. So, details are not razor sharp in my mind. But I seem to recall Wierwille, in that class labeling Conan Doyle as a spiritualist. Would it be any wonder that a cult programmer like Wierwille would have an interest in discouraging his students from developing critical thinking skill by reading and emulating Sherlock Holmes? It's also not surprising at all (to me) that we have a political figure in a position of power today who is discouraging people from exercising critical thinking, which is what happens when he laments "fake news" that seeks to hold him to account for his words and actions.

Nope. But I have found value in self-examination and thought maybe you would too.

Those statements reveal much about you, but very little about anything else.

Somehow that makes you feel entitled to come to GSC, a place maintained (time and $) by others, to proselytize to an unreceptive audience?

I wonder, ImLikeSoConfused, if this article resonates with you regarding the questions you've posed to us here at GSC (not just this thread). The title is "59 Percent of Millennials Raised in a Church Have Dropped Out—And They’re Trying to Tell Us Why."

I do NOT believe (have faith) the same way I did when I was a child (young adult being led around by wierwille and wierwillites). I very much believe there is a higher power than us. I believe the bible gives clues about there being something/someone far bigger than our human minds and imaginations can comprehend. I believe organized religion... including cults... aren't about truth. They are about ways people interact and rules subcultures put in place to provide some semblance of order to those "micro-societies." They are about "belonging." And belonging is a fundamental need of humans. You can get a sense of belonging from a religious group, or from many other kinds of groups. It's about finding common interests. I believe T-Bone's insight on this thread is tremendously valuable... and Waysider's is too. I don't believe there is one right way to believe. Long ago, I realized that the more I know (learn), the more I realize I don't know. I encourage you to continue exploring the questions you've posed at GSC.

I appreciate the clarification of your request. I can't answer about whether John S "is still living the delusional "the way" mindset or whether he is in too deep to ever get out. I do think you pose serious and reasonable questions. T-Bone gave a reasonable suggestion (about pursuing discussions in the Doctrinal forum). But even that will likely not be satisfying if you're searching for academically credible assessment of what John S teaches. Stepping back and giving my two cents worth of advice, a lot of us (I count myself in that group) who spent years associating with TWI have no use for any of it. I'm no longer convinced that seeking in-depth biblical knowledge/understanding can lead to the kind of relationship with God that young adults tend to crave. There are too many con men and women in the world. Humans are all susceptible to being conned. For more understanding of that issue, I recommend Maria Konnikova's book on the subject. I also recommend Thomas Paine's pamphlet/essay The Age of Reason. There will be others who do not share my perspective on the subject who may be reasonable to consider.

Perhaps a more objective definition of "legit" would be helpful. I have no doubt that Mr. Schoenheit is sincere and well meaning. But whether or not anyone should believe his teachings on the Bible is an entirely different matter. Further, I don't think niceness matters. All Bible teachers, and for that matter, all public speakers, put on a show. They have to get an audience's attention in order to sell their ideas.

Nice try. Again, it's a matter of the purpose of this website and these forums. Love to you to, sir... and I hope your discussion of the REV in the doctrinal forum is more personally satisfying to you.