Rocky

I think a more fair characterization would be concerted effort to debunk Wierwille's teachings, which contain a LOT of bunk. Eradicate what value?

Very funny... thanks for posting.

True. Whether or not there's anything to be afraid of depends on how you respond to people disagreeing with you. But disagreement really isn't a bad thing. At minimum, it provides a framework on which those nuances Spectrum mentioned can be expounded on or expanded. And it really takes more than one person and at least a little bit of disagreement to come to greater understanding... that's how I look at it anyway.

Fear is... Fear is a state induced by perceived danger or threat that occurs in certain types of organisms, which causes a change in metabolic and organ functions and ultimately a change in behavior, such as fleeing, hiding or freezing from perceived traumatic events. Fear in human beings may occur in response to a specific stimulus occurring in the present, or in anticipation or expectation of a future threat perceived as a risk to body or life. The fear response arises from the perception of danger leading to confrontation with or escape from/avoiding the threat (also known as the fight-or-flight response), which in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) can be a freeze response or paralysis. In humans and animals, fear is modulated by the process of cognition and learning. Thus fear is judged as rational or appropriate and irrational or inappropriate. An irrational fear is called a phobia. But yes, one of the main themes of the FLAP class (besides establishing Wierwille as the only authority for all things spiritual) was to get people to block that warning system. Btw, I realize what you mean when saying "everything is GOD'S." That's the rationalization for plagiarism. But really, everything was V-Pee's. He forbade anyone from having a name on any of the "research" publications... except his name, that is. It all belonged to him.

You nailed it quite well. Reading the book, it sheds tremendous light on how I bought into the con. Reflecting back on a Bolshevik thread, how to prevent cults... it seems one of the best things we can do is teach our children how to recognize cons and give them a clear sense of meaning in this life. Of course that's not to stifle curiosity and exploration. But perhaps if we are successful in giving a child confidence in an emotional framework, it can prevent some of the same mishaps we stumbled through. For the record, in Feb 2015, I flew to Washington, DC (and boy were my arms tired) to observe oral arguments at the Supreme Court. I landed at Reagan Int'l Airport and waited 40 minutes for luggage. But I got conned into a cab ride that probably cost me twice as much to get to the hotel as I should have had to pay. The guy grabbed my bag and quickly headed to the parking garage, NOT to the cab stand. But it was too late, if I wanted to not lose my bag, I felt I had to follow. The cab ride cost me $45, but should have cost $20. I got conned. In this case because I was a novice traveler to DC.

It was all a big con game. Wierwille was a masterful con artist. If he had one iota of empathy, his organization would have been much different. No, it was all about him. The Word of Wierwille is the Will of Wierwille. And if you "went corpse" and didn't make your life into serving his purpose, what did that make you? Not a good doulos, that's for sure. Yeah, part of the con was to teach indoctrinate the sheep that to be honored by God with rewards on judgment day , you had to be a slave.

Not only is plagiarism fraud, but what does it reveal (once you realize it's in play in the situation you're considering) about a man who built a subculture around other people's research, teaching and "fellowship?" Do (or did) you know, from your history and experience, anyone who exhibited the "dark triad" of psychological traits? "Lurking beneath the surface of people who use others to their own advantage is psychology’s “Dark Triad.” Defined as a set of traits that include the tendency to seek admiration and special treatment (otherwise known as narcissism), to be callous and insensitive (psychopathy) and to manipulate others (Machiavellianism), the Dark Triad is rapidly becoming a new focus of personality psychology." We all (who followed Wierwille and those who arose in his wake) fell for one of the biggest and oldest confidence games. For the last 15 years, people have speculated on the degree to which Wierwille was sincere or whether he knew from the start of his ministry that is was all BS. This thread, and the very succinct opening post to it, boil down all of those discussions to the very essence.

That's a pretty vague question. At minimum, wouldn't you need to define your terms?

Well, when you put it that way, of course massive amounts of new information, before people process and organize it for themselves, can be very confusing.

Well, I can't speculate as to degrees of control... but I think the research forensic psychologist Maria Konnikova set forth in The Confidence Game: why we fall for it... every time might provide some key insight. A compelling investigation into the minds, motives, and methods of con artists—and the people who fall for their cons over and over again. While cheats and swindlers may be a dime a dozen, true conmen—the Bernie Madoffs, the Jim Bakkers [and I will add the Victor Wierwilles and Craig Martindales, and their successors], the Lance Armstrongs—are elegant, outsized personalities, artists of persuasion and exploiters of trust. How do they do it? Why are they successful? And what keeps us falling for it, over and over again? These are the questions that journalist and psychologist Maria Konnikova tackles in her mesmerizing new book. For some reason, the link to Amazon.com for The Confidence Game doesn't seem to want to take. But if you go to Amazon and search for the book, it's very insightful.

I've been here from the start. My understanding is that GSC isn't really about any groups of people being accepted (belonging) other than to validate one's reasons for leaving TWI madness. We're not a clique or even a fellowship. It's a place to speak your mind. Those who rationalize and justify TWI dogmas and practices generally experience something other than validation. Facebook, OTOH, is a place where people can share as a group of likeminded individuals in a community, by choice. Do people sometimes have unrealistic expectations here at GSC? Perhaps. What do those people do about their unrealistic expectations? Other than self-justification, that is. We ALL self-justify.

Yep... that can be fun. :)

Disagree all you want. But you cannot objectively know whether it's elitism or not. People have cited their experience to put their comments in context. Nothing more, nothing less. If someone is commenting on ordination in twi, there's a good chance that having graduated from the corpse will have given them more insight on it than they would otherwise have. Btw, I didn't graduate from the corpse, though I did spend one year in residence. I'm GLAD I didn't put any more time into it than that. I certainly don't think it gives me any status.

It's from the standard GSC style sheet. ;) Elitism? Hardly. Rather, confidence in ourselves and our own experiences. Nothing more, nothing less.

Classic projecting. You have no real, legitimate way of knowing that to be the case. All you can know is what each says on this forum. Reading anything into those words other than those words can only come from how you imagine that person with whom you take issue to be. Bottom line is that you can only know that people disagree with you here. Unless any of them state that they believe they "have more truth than you" or are "he's more spiritual than you" all you really have (that comes from anyone other than yourself) is that they disagree with you. Does that make them right and you wrong? Or you right and them wrong? The way I look at it is that we really can't know which is factually true. Yes, I disagree with you. I also don't care whether you're right or wrong. When I asked you to define "spiritual knowledge," all I know is that you didn't really answer the question. That doesn't mean I know more than you. It might mean that I'm more confident in my own understanding of life that I'm willing to even entertain the question myself. I certainly don't have all of the answers.

Whether subtle or not, it appears TLC's deflections (and they are plenty), seem to give insight into perceptions of gaslighting in twi in the 1970s/1980s. And yes, Oakspear, TLC has every right to express his opinion and have a voice. That doesn't mean others are to be forbidden to pick them apart, does it?

You asked me a question? I thought that I had asked you questions that you decided you weren't going to answer.

Not to mention his pseudo-intellectualist efforts to make sense of "spiritual knowledge." He also did a nice sidestep when challenged on the premise of the entire twit theology. :) You nailed that one.

Now, I can relate to that. All of that. Thanks Steve.

Alas and alak, we get to the roots of the thing. Btw, this might also be the roots/foundation of the concept of gaslighting as we've experienced it in twi. It is inherently human to be curious. To explore. How can that be a bad thing? I gave Wierwille's organization 12 years in which I built my mental framework around his version of the Judeo-Christian origin story and world view. And several more years in which that framework kept me prisoner after I rejected the subculture. It was all a sham. As Twinky suggested, this seems like a tangent from the original question at the top of the thread. But really, I see it as getting to one answer to that original question. Twi isn't as big now as it was in the 1970s because so many people who experienced twi in the 1970s realized, for whatever reason, that Wierwille's flavor of Christianity (or maybe Christianity itself) doesn't provide a fulfilling, satisfying spiritual or otherwise experience. It also brings to life what so many people throughout the last few centuries have observed about religion. Here's one that speaks to me: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." ― Albert Einstein

Well, the first time, you appeared to assume one thing. This time, you seem to assume something a little bit different, that I don't care to know, or that somehow I don't have "the spirit of God" and therefore cannot know. But I do appreciate you seeking clarification this time. I'm not sure you and I could get to a common understanding of what is genuine spiritual knowledge, especially by way of posts on an internet forum. Where I'm coming from is that it has become abundantly obvious that Wierwille was, first and foremost, a self-promoter, a con man. His class was all about, first and foremost, establishing himself as the foremost authority on any and all things spiritual. He built an organization to provide him with an abundant living and plenty of adulation. It was far more about him than about either the Bible or God or Jesus Christ. Discerning whether or to what degree his doctrines and private interpretations -- and they very much were private interpretations -- of the Bible were true and genuine godly spiritual knowledge is a conundrum that perhaps nobody really is capable of achieving. We had to "take it on faith" that the claims he made to set himself up as the only legitimate authority were legitimate. But do you know how many other charlatans make the same claim? Snow on the gas pumps? Never happened. But believing that story was fundamental to taking Wierwille as a spiritual and biblical authority. So, what really is spiritual knowledge... as opposed to utter nonsense ("utter nonsense" being a euphemism)?

You're apparently assuming things not in evidence... like what I do or do not understand. Also, you didn't define spiritual knowledge, or even what you understand it to mean. A reasonable response to not understanding a question (if one is aware the s/he doesn't understand it) is to ask for clarification.

I bet you'd have a hard time getting a job as a joke writer. :) Just because you think it, or are grinning when you write it, doesn't mean the words you write convey the comedy. Btw, what IS "spiritual knowledge?"

From one of your links, "The person being gaslighted will eventually become so insecure that they will fail to trust their own judgment, their intuition and find themselves unable to make decisions." That's a key factor in cults. I don't need examples from actual experience, besides remembering personally dealing with this issue in twi, it's written all over the pages/forums and threads of GSC. It happens. In TWI. As an aside, another book you might find interesting, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), has tremendous insight that everybody who reads this forum will recognize... in themselves, in politicians, in preachers of all flavors, but especially in TWI. From Amazon, "In this terrifically insightful, engaging new book, renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right— a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong. Backed by years of research, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it. Turn the page, but be advised: You will never be able to shun blame quite so casually again." I've written about Wierwille having developed a set of doctrines/dogmas/beliefs that specifically were "self-justifying rationalizations." For example, the "lockbox." The concept is universally human. We ALL engage in self-justification to cope with our mistakes and misjudgments, small or large.

No. There are more young people now than there were then. And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood), it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young. But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW, so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations. Some do and some don't, just as some stayed in twi and most of us left it when we matured intellectually and emotionally. The same holds for any religious cult, I suspect.