Charity

In that video I half watched about "What is the Destiny of the Unsaved?" JS claimed twice that you need to have "the right translation" in order to get to the truth about hell, the second death, etc. I can't remember if he mentions his bible by name, but any verses he puts up show they come from the REV.

Danger, sin, egregious sin, ungodly lifestyle, commands of God, hardened hearts, salvation maintenance, suffering, hell, ... Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to believe. (tangled web = a complex, difficult, and confusing situation or thing) Yeah, decided not to go down this rabbit hole again (rabbit hole = a bizarre, confusing, or nonsensical situation or environment, typically one from which it is difficult to extricate oneself) "What has been seen cannot be unseen, what has been learned cannot be unknown." Cynthia Woolf. Entangle me once, shame on you...entangle me no more, shame be gone. I'll stop now.

Some fine print on what you shared is that the code of canon states 1) the abuse must cause grave mental or physical danger and 2) while separation is allowed, divorce is not which means the woman is still sacramentally bound to her abuser. Her only option is to seek an annulment which involves Church officials deciding whether the marriage was invalid from the beginning.”

I did send a message to JS on this website. I finished by asking, "Also, if someone is wanting to know the truth about what was going on with Wierwille, knowing how his doctrine and practices concerning sexual sin were passed on and then followed by many leaders, are you willing to talk openly about it now?"

I just found out that John Schoenheit also no longer teaches once saved/always saved. In his REV bible, he writes a commentary for Ephesians 5:5 saying, "We must be careful to understand the relationship between sin, the ungodly lifestyle, and abandoning Christ to the extent that one forfeits their everlasting life. Everyone sins, and some people sin egregiously, but sin does not cause a person to forfeit their salvation. However, if a person ignores the commands of God and defies Him and lives an ungodly lifestyle, they are in danger of having their heart so hardened by sin that they go so far as to renounce their trust and belief in Christ, and at that point, they forfeit their everlasting life. A person gets born again by trusting Christ (Rom. 10:9), and they maintain their salvation by trusting in Christ (1 Pet. 1:5)." Ephesians 5:5 I find his complete commentary on this verse to be questionable. He also does not believe "the orthodox depiction of a hell ruled by the devil where people suffer eternally" is based on Scripture. I'm about to listen to a video where he "explores what the Bible has to say about the destiny of the unsaved and explains the biblical depiction of 'hell.'" What is the Destiny of the Unsaved? If I get into either of these topics any further, it will be in the Doctrinal sub forum.

"Avoid it at all costs" AI Overview "The idiom "avoid it at all costs" means to make every effort to prevent something from happening, regardless of the difficulty or expense involved. It emphasizes the importance of preventing a particular outcome, action, or situation." How confident can one be that their "every effort" is actually enough? The point of my earlier post was to question how the all-loving God of the Bible could 1) send people to eternal torment and now, 2) cause his people to live in fearful obedience their entire life to avoid said eternal torment not knowing if it was enough to ease his wrath towards them. This is a rhetorical question. A non-rhetorical question is whether a believer, such as yourself, sees living with this fear and uncertainty as a demonstration of being devoutly religious - something which God expects and honors? I'll never forget when a priest (over five decades ago) told my mother she had to stay with her abusive husband as a show of her pious suffering which later would be rewarded in heaven.

"An eternity of torture" I think about the reality of this. Since God is all knowing, he would always be aware of their suffering. What would he be thinking? Would he even make his presence known to them? Would he talk to them? What would he say? Day 1 - "This hurts me more than it hurts you." Or the opposite, "It sucks to be you." Day 100 - "It's waaay too late to say you're sorry." Day 1000 - "Stop complaining, a millennia of torture isn't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to all eternity." Day 10000 - "If you can't handle the eternal time, you shouldn't have done the finite crime." Day 100000 - "No, for the hundred thousandth time, I cannot parole you. My righteous justice will not allow it." Any humour set aside, when you seriously consider the logistics of people actually being tortured for eternity, it is completely without reason or logic. It's a man made concept simply designed to put "the fear of God" in people like it has in you.

I get your point about JS conflating his two reasons for beginning the study for his paper. The first reason occurred during JS’s last year of residency (which being in the 6th corps would have been in 1976/77.) His words regarding this initial study were, “I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery.” It was around 5 years later, in 1982 or 1983, when RD and VF came to him. He then specifically says, “This paper is the result of those years of study." (In it, he includes his study of adultery in all the administrations [Patriarchal, Law, Christ and Grace]). If he was conflating these two reasons, “those years” would have included going back to 1976/77. In his Forward, he gives his reason for the paper as being, “I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong.” Everybody seems to mean Christians in general as he immediately writes after the Forward, "Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication." _________________________ Now, comparing the above with what JS wrote six or seven years later in his Additional Comments on WayDale's Forums in May 2000, new information is given. He exposes adultery within twi’s leadership, including weirwille, which he most likely was not aware of before 1986 when he wrote the paper. - I wrote in (sic) through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986. - As it is here in WayDale it is missing the preface and the footnotes. The preface gives some of the history of the paper and how it came to be. - Unfortunately, and history bears this out, some pretty high-powered churchmen throught (sic) the years have not really gotten the impact of what the Bible plainly says, and in this case the research seemed necessary. - My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. (This appears to be a third impetus to investigate adultery happening specifically in twi which finally motivated JS to actually write the paper months later (while leaving out the new information about said leadership being involved.) - I started asking around to girls...Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. - Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine (started by whom was not mentioned)--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. - On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years (since 1986), and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, So, in conclusion, JS either did not know about the drugging and raping by vp as of 2000, or he deliberately decided not to mention it in his update since according to him, “The thesis is pretty simple: adultery is a sin.” Overall, WordWolf, I think we seem to agree on most points.

Well said WordWolf.

By saying "the rest of us," you seem to be excluding JS from those who knew about vpw's crimes. Unless you know this for sure, JS is the only one who can reveal all he knew then and all he knows now - but will he? Again, only one way to find out. In 2000, his perspective was what he wrote, "On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years, and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, it is just that it has not been that profitable to share them. People are still so angry and hurt over things that happened years ago. We all need to come to Christ, and let him teach us how to get healed and move on. There is a world out there that needs the Truth. " (Underlining is mine) Scriptures say the following (NASB): Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 2 Cor 4:2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in trickery nor distorting the word of God, but by the open proclamation of the truth commending ourselves to every person’s conscience in the sight of God. Paul did expose serious sexual immorality and also wasn't afraid to openly confront the apostle Peter (Gal 2:11-13) 1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. James 4:17 So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, for him it is sin. Having an invested interest in any organization so that one is not willing to expose the deep problems within that are (or were) hurting people happens all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but doing such a thing in a religious organization for the greater good of "moving God's word" is just as, if not more, egregious.

With the possible criticism that I am opening up a can of worms that may not matter anymore, here is a thread about John Lynn's letters where in one of them he mentions, in part, weirwille's leading women and others astray. Once again, no mention is made of any rapes or clergy sexual abuse. (Highlighting is mine) I think it still matters today because the coverup of the "darker side" is still ongoing in twi and possibly with other ex-leaders of the ministry. John Lynn's Letters Here's a quote: "Third, sex. Now this is perhaps more sensational than the other points, but keep in mind that again the root of the problem is doctrinal error, not human weakness. More than one woman has personally told me that Dr. Wierwille taught her, verbally and by example, that sex outside of marriage is not only permissible, but profitable. Ralph Dubofsky told me that in September 1986, after a woman had come to him, he confronted Craig Martindale about having sex with her. Craig admitted it, and told Ralph that Dr. Wierwille had told him that unless he "loosened up in this category of life, he would never be a great leader or lover of God’s people." I know this sounds unbelievable, but it is true. Dr. Wierwille told people that without broadening their sexual activities beyond marriage, they’d never be able to handle the things of God." A friend of mine told me Dr. Wierwille told her he thought that "a woman gets eternal rewards for blessing a man of God like this." Craig told Ralph that there have been "thousands of times it has been done in the love of God and ministered God’s healing wholeness and deliverance to people." And I have a copy of a phone conversation on this past November 24 between Craig and a Corps grad in which he told her that there is not a straight answer from the Word on adultery, and that sex is in the category of need, like food on the table, and God supplies our needs. Where did he learn this? Not in the Baptist Church, I dare say. This esoteric doctrine has permeated the leadership structure of The Way to the end that believers all over the country know about it. This is the real reason why John Schoenheit and the others were fired. Chris Geer and the Trustees are trying to cover up for Dr. Wierwille and themselves. Here’s a good question: If it is spiritually beneficial, why isn’t it being taught publicly? If you want to, you can look up the definitions of "allegation," "accusation," "rumor," and then "fact." These statements are facts and what I have just told you about this issue is "the tip of the iceberg." I have another 3 hour tape titled "Overview of Events: 4/85-10/87" in which I do my best to chronicle the key events from the time Dr. Wierwille stopped to see Ralph in Boston en route to Scotland, up until this past fall. In it I go into more detail about the adultery issue. I believe it is important because this wrong doctrine strikes at the very heart of the Mystery, and it has ruined countless Way marriages and wreaked havoc on hundreds of other men and women." At least this last sentence of Lynn's is more than what Schoenheit admits to in his paper.

Does it matter anymore? So your perspective was asking if my questions about the adultery paper mattered anymore which obviously implies that it did at one point. My questions were the result of the discussion WordWolf started when he began this thread about the adultery paper. You didn't ask him at that time "if it mattered anymore?" My perspective is that it is important that the truth, from beginning to end, around the doctrine and practice of what happened sexually within twi and the eventual exposure of it is fully made known by the leaders. Both John Schoenheit and John Lynn wrote about the adultery and "fornication" but didn't always (if at all) include the facts about vp's rapes and drugging of some of his victims as well as the abortions and the hurt that the clergy sexual abuse by leaders towards those they were responsible to oversee had caused. Why was that? John Lynn has passed away, but John Schoenheit continues to be active in his biblical ministry. Will he ever talk about what he knew or didn't know about the darker side of what was going on back then? One way to find out. I'll send his website an email asking about this and see if he replies back.

Thank you for your post. I find your speculation that RD and VF had been untruthful to JS about weirwille wanting them to study adultery more likely to be the case than weirwille actually having asked them to do so. It does seem unlikely, though, that JS (believing weirwille wanted to know more about the topic) never communicated directly with him concerning his study at some point during those 3 years. If he had, RD and VF’s dishonesty would most likely have been exposed. Who knows, but the story still doesn't seem to make complete sense. The other thing is that you mentioned RD hearing about “rapes.” The paper, however, was only about adultery apparently happening between consenting adults – not on rape or clergy sexual abuse. The Additional Comments told of a woman having had sexual intercourse with wierwille and of “many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.” The girls he had spoken to who he knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1 and get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, apparently never claimed their experiences were not consensual. JS wrote that what he learned during those months of interviewing women was that “many of the people involved thought it was okay with God.” Near the end, he does mention a female who had been hurt by the “sex stuff .” From the context of the article, this minimizing term would only have been about adultery – not rape or abuse. By 2000, Schoenheit, who knew plenty about the problem with adultery within the leadership, still seemed to have known nothing about the rape and abuse by vp since he wrote, “The Way International and Dr. Wierwille did a lot for me, and I will always be thankful for that. Yes, they caused me some pain and heartache, but the foundation of the Word that was built in my life in The Way has an inestimable value.” But then again, he was promoting in his Additional Comments the "really great stuff" he, Lynn and Graeser were doing with CES. Also, he did say that people who were angry and hurt over things that happened years ago needed to...move on. Again, would he have said this if he knew about the rapes and CSA?

Are you questioning my right to ask the questions? If it doesn't matter to you Rocky, then just say so.

What are you talking about "Birth Death Certificate?" That would be silly.