Hope R.

Oh Chas... where do I start? Like you, I hate being told what to do or how I should behave. Even if it comes from someone I love - my defenses go up like a brick wall. I'm leery of anyone who is too cheerful or positive - even if it is sincere. I was never a very upbeat person when I was in TWI, had to work hard on that positive believing thing. Now that I'm not in TWI anymore, I've become much more negative, suspicious and cynical. Renewed mind is no longer an option. Oh, and I've pretty much lost my faith. We tried church about a year after our escape from TWI, and as much as I wanted to be moved by the whole experience, or perhaps feel God's call again, it left me empty. Please don't offer to pray for me because I don't think it will do any good! I was in too long - any good TWI 1 did for me in the early years was made null and void by TWI 2.

Pat - a spell checker isn't all it's cracked up to be... Spell Check Poem (Read it out loud!) Eye halve a spelling chequer It came with my pea sea, It plainly marques four my revue Miss steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a key and type a word And weight for it two say, Weather eye and wring oar write It shows me strait a weigh. As soon as a mist ache is maid It nose bee fore two long, And eye can put the error rite Its rare lea ever wrong. Eye have run this poem threw it I am shore your pleased two no, Its letter perfect awl the weigh My chequer tolled me sew. -Sauce unknown

I don't remember if they had uniforms in the 70's - but it was called the Safety Department, not Way Police! Kevlar is right, though. I know that some of the teenaged "townies" used to shoot up the big TWI sign at the end of Wierwille road. Sometimes they'd speed down the road yelling nasty stuff. I think in a closed society like TWI, there needed to be some sense of security - "they're out to get us but we'll stop them" attitude. But could "Bless Patrol" at the Rock really do anything??? Naw, not really. Whatcha gonna do with a yellow hat and a flashlight???

Yup - it's better - but not the "I wonder where this is going" better I'm used to with this show. Claire's gonna do it with Edie for sure. Rico is gonna get caught. George's son is going to move out of his hotel and in with the Fishers... I like Joe - Brenda's new beau. I like him better than Nate. But - since he seems so likable, I'm sure something is going to happen to him. Nathaniel Sr. hasn't been around much. Maybe he and Lisa will pay a visit....

If window cleaning was in their future it wouldn't be so bad. At least they'd have a real job! (from the wife of a window cleaner - check it out...)

I recall going to see JAL shortly after his departure from TWI - maybe in 1986 or 87(?). He was recruiting (for lack of a better word) for his new ministry -- going around teaching in different areas. I had heard his tape(s) regarding PoP, Geer, LCM and other things, and was curious to hear what else he had to say. I will say that the first part of his teaching on "the law of believing" changed my whole way of thinking - and I will always be grateful for that. I was still in TWI, and stayed in for many more years - but the teaching that night began my questioning of all things PFAL. I spoke to him during the break and he had nothing good to say about VPW. NOTHING! He lambasted him for everything from adultery to wrong teaching. He was downright nasty, IMO. It turned me off to whatever else he had to say that night, and I went home and told hegotout that I'd stick with TWI a bit longer to see if it would get better - because I sure didn't want to be a part of JAL's mission to tear TWI down. To me, it seemed that even if TWI ever taught anything right, JAL was going to prove it wrong. Like I said - that's how I felt at the time. So when I read what he wrote about VP being proud of what he is doing - I have to shake my head in wonder. It's probably one of the most dishonest things I've ever read after hearing JAL's opinion of VP's life and ministry. I would tend to think that there are some ulterior motives here. There are a lot of people still steeped in TWI's doctrines who haven't ventured to a church or spin-off group since leaving TWI. Perhaps his touting of VP's pride might attract those people who are still searching for a TWI-like ministry. Name-dropping was always one of John's long-suits - again, IMO. I wish him well - but wouldn't follow him unless I saw visable handwriting from God Almighty on my wall and heard angels singing telling me to do so.

Very good point Excath. I couldn't agree more.

I don't come around much anymore - not because I'm angry or anything - just busy. I remember when I started using Private Topics with another GSer - and they wondered why there were so many "hits" on a subject only two of us were supposed to be able to see. Well - duh - I didn't know I could receive notificatons when someone replied to a PT I had started, so I'd just check back 2, 3 or 4 times a day to see if I'd received a response. It was ME, O Lord - not some snoopy moderator! Duh, again. There have also been times when I turned off my notifications because I was getting too many emails - especially when I was posting a lot more. I rarely had PT's going, but did check some of the old ones every now and then to make sure no one had replied to them. So, there are reasons that there may be more hits on a PT than the number of posts they contain. Just my 2¢.

Radar - Polish up that name tag and dust off that diploma! Then put your sweats on and do a 12 minute test - don't forget to count your CO3 points! After you do that - eat some familia with fig pep and chickory coffee. Then fill out your "redeemed-time analysis" sheet to see what the hell happened to the last 19 years. xoxoxox

I haven't seen the film yet - been away on vacation with the family. I'll make my two points that have nothing to do with the movie's content. I heard much criticism of this movie not being a very good example of a "documentary" as it is defined. (factual movie or TV program: a movie or TV program presenting facts and information, especially about a political, historical, or social issue). Then I heard Moore say it is an Op-ed piece more than it is a documentary. An Opposite editorial - one that expresses opinion, not just the facts about a patricular subject. To define the movie that way makes more sense - and to go see it based on that definition makes it easier for either those on the left or right to digest. It's Moore's opinion - his outlook - his "take" on the topic that he decided to make into a film. Okay - Christopher Hitchens. Anyone ever read his Op-Ed pieces in Vanity Fair? How about his flaming book on Mother Teresa called "The Missionary Position"? I hate to name call anyone - but IMO - this guy is an intellectual snob. He's brilliant, but smarmy. He's scathing and condescending. I've never read a piece by him that didn't have a nasty tone. I've never seen him on any program (he's been on with Bill Mahar a few times) when he didn't sneer at the other panelists' opinions. Okay - I don't like him. I don't disagree with him all the time either - I just don't like the guy's presentation, attitude and "Snape-like" sense of superiority (you Harry Potter fans understand that one). Look at some more of his articles and op-ed pieces. When I read something by him now, I take it in the context of who Mr. Hitchens believes he is.

Tommy - I couldn't agree more. I used to enjoy this show so much I'd watch it twice the same night on HBO & HBOW - 3 hours later! Once was enough for the last installment. Last night was a jumble of different vignettes all leading up to the "Burn the Chaff" closing. I didn't like it at all. I don't like Brenda being so normal - she's much more interesting when she's crazy. I don't like Nate being such an incredible wuss. Didn't that scene in the bedroom with the rich woman make you cringe - and not in a good way. Ugh. I think getting rid of Arthur was a big mistake. He was still quirky. Guess quirky isn't working this season. Oh - and I don't think he's the one sending Ruth & George the poop - which needs to be explained pretty soon or it won't be interesting anymore. Don't know if I like George or not. Love the actor -James Cromwell(I think he should have taken Richard Harris' place as Dumbledore). He's getting a bit condescending towards Ruth, isn't he? And Claire? What's up there? Her character has become so blah. David & Keith are still David and Keith - and I sorta like the "Security to the Stars" story line. But that was about all I liked. I could care less about Rico and Vanessa and the stripper. Guess Federico Diaz wanted more to do this season. I did get the metaphor that the bonfire represented a cleansing - a new beginning - which became more evident when Nate tossed his and Lisa's bedding out the window into the fire. I won't give up on it yet. There's nothing else on Sunday nights anyway. Gosh - I miss Tony and the gang...

There is one profit in Mark & Avoid (and my tounge is only half-way in my cheek when I say this...) - Some of us were on the fence - questioning - wondering - disillusioned - not very happy with the turn TWI had taken over the years. When we got the boot,it actually helped us take that final step into leaving for good. I'd been in TWI for many years and most of my friends were gone, so that wasn't holding me there, neither were the teachings or the former MOG's leadership. It was easy for me to leave, but some people need that extra push to get out the door. M&A helped them break the tie that bound them to TWI. For some folks - it was a relief!

The whole "Household vs. Family" teaching is one that made my skin crawl from the first time I heard it. It was never really strongly emphasized until LCM took over, eliminating songs like "Family of God" or any other song or teaching that referred to God's people as the "family". I knew something had to be wrong. So I did a very, very simple word study and found that it is wrong! IMO, their teaching is nothing more than private interpretation according to usage in TWI - in other words, whatever makes them look like they have the only truth! The fact is that a household can be any group of people living under the same roof. A mom, a dad, a child, a servant, a wierd uncle, a guest, a freeloader, the dog, the cat, etc. Some are related by blood, others aren't. Some have rights to the car keys, the bank account, the food in the fridge - others don't. Those people need permission to participate or share the things that the family has because they're related by blood! Think of the prodigal son - it's a great example of the difference between the household and family. The son takes his inheritance - part of his right as a family member - and goes and ....es it away. He ends up on Skid Row hanging out with the pigs. He's miserable. He decides that he'd be better off if he goes and asks his dad to take him back as a servant because at least he'd be under his dad's roof and be fed and cared for in that household. He distinguishes the difference between household and family: Luke 15:17 - 19: And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. We all know the story - his dad saw him coming - told the brother to have a big party because his son - a member of his family was coming back! He wasn't a servant - someone merely living under his roof - in his household. He was related by blood - therefore had the rights and privileges that a blood relative has. He hadn't been living there as a "functioning part of the household". He hadn't been contributing. He'd been off hangin' with the hogs. BUT HE WAS STILL IN HIS DAD'S FAMILY! And nothing can change that. So being in a household isn't really anything all that great. When we have company staying with us, they're in our household. I'm not going to give them my credit card and tell them to go shopping. They'd probably be a bit uncomfortable raiding my fridge! But they're here - under my roof - in my air space. So what? They may leave and I'll never see them again. But my kids? Hey - they can have anything they want (within reason). If they leave and I never see them again (God forbid) - they'll always be my kids - my flesh and blood - my FAMILY. They don't have to be under my roof - they're still mine (whether they like it or not!). That teaching is BS. I believe it was designed to make little TWI feel more important, superior to other Christians who were merely in "the family". It's an ego trip - being in a small group of the elite "household" is much better... there are so few of us who are qualified to be here, we're sooooooo spay-shull! What bunk. I'd rather be a part of a big, diverse family with loads of brothers and sisters than an itty bitty, snobby, isolated household that restricts my freedom to believe and thrive. Who wouldn't?

Actually, Rowling felt that all the important parts were there - and thought that her readers would be pleased. I saw it a 2nd time with my youngin' - we both enjoyed it more - and were able to watch more carefully. Yes - a lot of explanations were missing (The Marauder's Map was just one). But I think the film-makers have decided that 99% of their viewers have read the books. I'm not sure whether that's a good or bad assumption - but I believe that's their point of view.

This is the 2nd of the last 2 episodes I haven't enjoyed. I feel no relationship to the characters anymore - no empathy at all for any of them. Three months have supposedly passed since last week's episode - yet some of the dialog referred back to last week as if it had just happened. Oh - and if it really is 3 months - then what was the 90 day thing with Brenda and the neighbor all about? I must have missed something. I guess I'm just not getting into it. I miss "Deadwood". In spite of the bad language and grizzly violence - I developed a real interest in the people and the story line. Right now, I could care less about the Fishers and their friends....

True, true, oldies - turning your back on the household is just about the worst sin a man can commit in TWI-land. I thought about the fact they don't have anything better than LCM's teachings to offer - sad, isn't it? Now, don't jump all over me folks, but for those who haven't taken WAP - PFAL might be a just bit more easy to swallow than Craigger's class. If I were in charge down on the farm - I'd somehow figure out how to correct the obvious errors in PFAL and teach that class live. I know you're lurking out there Mr. F & Mr. L - maybe you could suggest that to Rosary. Touting LCM's teachings aren't a good idea, IMO. First of all - they don't make much sense (Eve was a what??). Second - the man has been weighed in the balances - and on the internet - and in the ex-way community - and in the current TWI household - and has been found quite wanting. And third - dead men are easier to defend. Why I'll bet there are still plenty of Wierville worshippers out there who would be very supportive if you promoted VP's stuff as a "back to basics" revival. You might even win some cop-outs back who left after PoP. I'm really not trying to help - just trying to show how illogical it is for the powers in TWI to show so much enthusiasm for a class that left most people dazed and confused - and was taught by someone who no longer "stands in the gap" for them or anyone else.

Pat - I have issues of The Way Magazine from 1971 until 2000, and John has a few really old ones from the 50's & 60's that he found at a garage sale in NK a long time ago. I skimmed through all of them and did not find the article you mentioned. I am missing a few from each year - so it might be in one of them. Wish I could help you out...

Hey Goey - you were probably long gone by the time PoP was read and LCM came out of his "fog" - so you may not be aware of what happened after that time. Every song written by people who left TWI was removed from the "Sing Along The Way" song book (with the exception of those that were copyright by TWI). All the books and collaterals that were written by clergy who left TWI (like Walter C., JAL and others), were removed from TWI's book store. Any music that was written and performed by Way Prod. who were no longer standing was no longer sold at any ministry function - and those of us who had the old tapes were instructed not to play them as background music before or after fellowships. Why? Because they were all written and/or performed by "cop-outs" and were considered "old wine skins" - or worse, a dog returning to its own vomit. Even VPW's teachings and classes were included in that category for a while, unless they were cited in a Way Rag or STS Teaching. We were not to listen to the old tapes we may have had in our closets - and were actually told that it was best to throw them out all together. IMO, the fact that they haven't gotten rid of LCM's books, teachings and "present truth" tells me that they still consider his words to be the words of the MOG. To my knowledge, they haven't refuted anything he's taught. I don't even think they've even come out and said simply and succinctly that adultery is always wrong in any situation (some innie please correct me if I'm wrong - it's been 4 years since wegotout). So - again, IMO, if they got rid of all the other cop-out authored teachings and sharings because these people had "turned their backs on God and the household", why haven't they ditched the works of the man who not only committed adultery multiple times, but lied about it for years and years as well? IMO - because I think they still consider what he taught to be THEEEEE word of God from the Man of God - the present truth, the new light, and therefore, this man is still respected and revered because of his words. He's still in charge spiritually because the powers-that-be at TWI have allowed his classes to be taught, his book to be read and his old teachings to be regurgitated again and again in Way Magazine articles and Sunday services. IMO (and it will continue to be my opinion, WayGB), until they get rid of all of LCM's trappings - they'll be beholden to him and he will continue to be their MOG.

Great film! Very funny! Not going to give anything away - but any of us who were in TWI will appreciate this movie more than most people.

"The Price He Paid" and "It's Gotta Be God" - both by Dean Ellenwood. IMO, both those songs could be played on any Christian radio station and no one would know they came from a cult environment. I always liked just about anything that Dean, Joe Fair or Dan Moran wrote. They were (and still are, I guess) excellent songwriters. Sure, some of their songs were propaganda, but you could always tell the difference between those and the ones that came from the heart.

As you said, this is nothing new. This was a teaching that LCM initiated in the late 70's called The Four D's of Doulous Doings. I think I might even still have the original tape, unless it melted up in my attic. In my opinion, this statement once again shows that LCM is still the spiritual head of TWI. I'm almost surprised that the author didn't give him credit or at least footnote the article. I wonder how many people know that that this was originally LCM's teaching? IMO, again, the author has taken credit for work that was not originally written by him. And insurgent - it's not just a matter of them teaching something old or new, to me - it's the fact that they're still using LCM's old teaching as "the present truth" long after his departure. They can't seem to let him go.

Well, someone had to start the discussion. I guess after all the action in "The Sopranos" and "Deadwood", the first episode of SFU was a bit disappointing. But I realized that it wasn't really the first episode of the new season - it was more like the last episode of last season - wrapping up Lisa's death (drowned? how? with help?); Brenda's return (think she's going to get it on with the neighbor - old habits die hard); Claire's abortion (I can't believe that Russell was so freaked out - personally, I thought it was bad acting); David and Keith's reunion (how long with that last?), and the ousting of Rico and Vanessa's house guest (knew that would happen, too). All in all - the episode was predictable. Didn't you know the minute that Nate said he was going to take care of the cremation that he was going to give the Kimmel's some old ashes and bury Lisa the way she wanted to be buried? It was so obvious. The only "catch" was that the ashes were from the kid who flew away in 1972. That was the "aha" at the end. I hope it gets better.

When I heard it was being made into a comedy - I was sort of disappointed. It was a great thriller back in the 70's - I have the DVD of the original - IMO, it was high camp. I haven't watched it for a few years - I'll have to blow the dust off it and watch it again before I venture into the comedic version.

I think I'll miss Deadwood as much as I missed Six Feet Under. Regardless of the language - the acting was some of the best I've ever seen anywhere. Wasn't the Dr's scene amazing? When he was praying? He blew me away. All of it was spectacular last night (with the exception of the magistrate getting his throat cut - ugh - I couldn't watch). They wrapped up the season nicely. I sorta knew Bullock was going to end up being the Sheriff because he'd been one before. He's also so frikkin' righteous - in a good way - that he had to be the Sheriff. Wonder how he's going to be able to work with Al? Anyway - I really enjoyed that series - better than Carnivale for sure. You're right, Zix - the only good thing about TV right now is that Six Feet Under is back - and the Fishers are as dysfunctional as ever!

The old Waydale archives are filled with wonderful editorials. When we first left, this advice was given to us from the author and it really helped. How to Extracate Yourself from TWI