Charity

Thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts on my posts in both the Christian and atheist forums.  The challenge I have of respecting the boundary between the two shows how counter-productive it is for me to continue trying to do so.  It's time to make a clean break from all things biblical.  

33 minutes ago, Rocky said:

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Did God prove his existence in the garden of Eden to Adam and Eve?  Will he prove his existence to those in the afterlife?  So why couldn't/can't he prove his existence during the period between those two times in order to directly give us his word?

If I still haven't answered your question, perhaps you could state what point you are trying to make.  Thank you Rocky..

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

1) Men wrote the scriptures, not God.

2) How would the scenario you suggest God should/could have used have proven his existence?

Considering the forum this thread is under, the serious point I was making relates to all the different doctrines there are around the same topic that theologians have come up with, all of which are supposedly based on scriptures.  It can be exhausting dealing with them all when one is wanting to find out what is the truth which Jesus himself spoke of in John 8:32, "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

My rhetorical question is why didn't God make himself and his true word known directly without any middlemen and then prevent it from being changed, suggesting in a fantastical way the threat of a lightning strike upon anyone who tried to do.  

Jeremiah 32:17 says "Oh, Lord GOD! Behold, You Yourself have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and by Your outstretched arm! Nothing is too difficult for You," 
 

6 hours ago, Raf said:

Charity,

I think you can get a pass on calling the idea of punishment by immolation "abhorrent." I don't think that's an atheist conclusion and I do think a significant number of Christians share it.

I suggest in the future you could add a qualifier to make it clear that you're interjecting your feelings, ("abhorrent to me") to make the statement a little more diplomatic.

I will leave it to the page's Christians to determine whether you crossed a line in their view. In mine, you did not. But I will yield to our brethren of faith ...

Thanks - I agree.  

7 hours ago, WordWolf said:

*reads the 9 verses*

Even in his own version, it says people will be judged according to their works, and that's all they say.  He went from those words to "they'll suffer for some time, and then they'll be annihilated."  That was a heck of a jump on his part. It said they would be "judged" (HOW?)  and they would be judged "according to their works" (WHAT'S THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S AT STAKE, AND WHAT ARE THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES?)   With no other verses, JS inserted his own ideas into the subject. -He footnoted and cross-referenced all sorts of things....but not when it came to that.  So, it seems that his ideas were more important than being truthful on this subject.   It speaks of vanity.  It's the kind of thing that you would expect of a man who would publish his own version of the Bible. 

I suspect many people will have made that "jump" right along with JS without noticing what you have pointed out above.

So, you have what JS believes about end time punishment and on the other end of the spectrum, you have what Sean Finnegan from Living Hope (Vince Finnegan's ministry) believes.  In his video The Lost Suffer Eternal Torment in Hell (after the 41:00 mark), he teaches that the lake of fire is simply the symbol for the second death and later says, “Now, you may ask the question...what about proportional justice.  What if God wants somebody to experience pain for so long before they’re executed?  I don’t know.  I don’t have a verse on that.  So maybe God is going to do that, maybe he’s just going to be merciful."  

Rhetorical question:  Why didn't the almighty God (who is not the author of confusion) not make the one topic of end time punishment clear and concise in one piece of writing (necessarily in different languages) and preserve it forever (without any changes on the threat of a lightning bolt immediately striking anyone who tried)?  That would definitely prove his existence! 

IMO, we have too many cooks spoiling the broth.

3 hours ago, Charity said:

If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible.  It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.  

His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.

2 hours ago, oldiesman said:

I appreciate and have no dispute what John is teaching, only adding an opposite opinion above.    Put in legal terms, for me; let's say I'm still in the "discovery" phase of the argument...

My mistake - the thread is in the Matters of Faith forum.

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

I appreciate and have no dispute what John is teaching, only adding an opposite opinion above.    Put in legal terms, for me; let's say I'm still in the "discovery" phase of the argument...

That's cool.

I'm thinking that I may have crossed the line by sharing my atheistic idea on a doctrinal forum by calling God's torment in the lake of fire of the unsaved/wicked (whether temporary or eternal) as being abhorrent.  My biblical critique of the doctrine would be whether the word "fire" used in Schoenheit's Appendix 4 is figurative or literal or a mixture of both.  That I do not know.

43 minutes ago, oldiesman said:

After watching the tape, I have to say his argument is a good one.   But I need to pray about and further study his teaching but must also include St. Thomas Aquinas' opposite take that the soul is immoral.   In sum, Aquinas has argued that the soul (a spiritual entity) cannot be destroyed by fire (a physical entity).    Here's some of what Aquinas argued:

AI Overview

St. Thomas Aquinas' most renowned work, the 

Summa Theologica, contains his arguments concerning the soul as a spiritual, simple, and indivisible entity, which cannot be destroyed in the same way that material substances can. 

Explanation:

Aquinas elaborates on the nature of the soul and its relation to the body in the Summa Theologica, particularly in the First Part. He argues that the soul is the substantial form of the body, meaning it is the principle by which a human being is animated and unified. He maintains that because the soul is immaterial, it is not composed of parts and thus cannot be broken down or corrupted like material substances. 

Key Points in the Summa Theologica concerning the Soul:

• Simplicity and Indivisibility: The soul is considered simple because it is a spiritual substance, unlike material objects which are composed of matter and form. This simplicity makes it indivisible, meaning it cannot be broken down into smaller parts.
• Immateriality: The soul's spiritual nature allows it to know universal truths, which cannot be contained within the limitations of material organs. This immateriality makes the soul incorruptible, as it is not subject to physical decay.
• Incorruptibility: Because the soul is not composed of parts and is not dependent on matter for its existence, it cannot be destroyed through the decomposition of the body. 

Note: Aquinas also explores the relationship between the soul and the body in his Commentary on Aristotle's Treatise on the soul and the Quaestiones Disputatae de Anima. These works provide further insight into his understanding of the human soul. 

If you go over to the doctrinal subforum, there is the thread "Salvation Universal or Not?" where I shared John Schoenheit's Appendix 4 from his REV bible.  It's basically the written form of the doctrine he teaches in the tape.  

His point #6 is called "The 'immortal soul' is not biblical; the Bible never says the soul is immortal," if you are interested in reading it.

JS never once says in his Appendix that "fire" is used figuratively when it comes to the lake of fire.

So, what he is teaching in his point #10 is that the torture in the Lake of Fire, before one actually dies, is similar in nature to how garbage actually burns up - some things take longer than others before they are nothing but ashes.  This idea of actually burning for any length of time is simply abhorrent.  I think it shows how deceitful his opening paragraphs are when he wants to defend that God is love. 

In those paragraphs, he only refers to how unloving, unrighteous and coldhearted eternal torment would be and does not even mention temporary torment, only the unsaved being "annihilated."  So, by the time you get to point #10, the God of Love now appears to see temporary torment as loving and righteous.  He writes (underlining is mine):

"One of the most powerful truths about God in the Bible is “God is love,” but some Christians teach that God tortures the unsaved in the flames of hell for all eternity. How could that be love? Thankfully, God does not do that. The Bible says that the saved will live forever and the unsaved will be annihilated in the Lake of Fire. There is no “eternal torment” in the Bible.

There are a number of important reasons why many people have had difficulty believing that God would torture people eternally. One reason that we have just seen is that God is love and torturing people forever is not love. Another reason is that God is righteous, it is not logical that someone could commit sin in one short lifetime that would be justly recompensed by being tormented forever. How could everlasting torture be just or righteous? Also, the doctrine of eternal torture makes saved people seem very cold-hearted. Could it really be that the saved are rejoicing forever while hearing the screams of people being tortured forever? And frankly, even if the saved could not hear the cries of the damned, would that make such a big difference? Just knowing that people were being tortured forever would seem to make everlasting life hard to enjoy. Civilized people will not even torture their worst enemies here on earth; does that change when the saved are perfected? Unsaved people are not tortured forever, and the teaching that they are contradicts many clear and simple scriptures."

2 hours ago, WordWolf said:

*reads the Appendix* 

So, he re-invented Purgatory, a name that does not appear in the Bible!   I noticed he made an extensive case for everything EXCEPT the Purgatory. For that, he had EXACTLY ONE VERSE.  (Matthew 18: 35.)   One thing my twi experience taught me, was that, whenever I saw a doctrine based on EXACTLY ONE VERSE, to look at that verse a lot more carefully, because it was being misunderstood or misinterpreted.  (Even its proponent couldn't find another verse that said that. He had to go to Romans 2:5- which doesn't say that- and add a word salad and then claim it DOES say that.)   Matthew 18 ended with a proverb whose purpose was explaining forgiveness.  I notice he was rather selective in reading into the Parable. He didn't read into the slave throwing the other slave in prison over 100 denarii owed himself here, just the last verse.  I'd be a lot slower on the draw than to make either a glib comment, or worse, an entire doctrine, over a single verse like that.    JS should know better.   But then, if one's "education" is limited to twi and ex-twi, one can be hampered with problems like this for life.  vpw hinged doctrines on a single verse all the time.  

Matthew 18 does show that without forgiveness, the debt must be paid.  Once it is paid, the person is released.  If it is not paid, the person remains in prison. 

The parable does not support his doctrine though which is "The wicked are annihilated after a period of suffering, and that period of suffering fulfills the Word of God and the justice of God."  In that sense, he is not talking about purgatory where Catholics go from there only to heaven.

He does list 9 verses that talk about being judged "according to one's works."  Do you think these verses support there is suffering according to one's works before one is destroyed in the Lake of Fire?

Appendix 4. Annihilation in the Lake of Fire

I think John Schoenheit's doctrine above is a different viewpoint from what I've read above.  It's all BS to me, but it might be of interest to someone.  It's a long appendix so I'll quote what I think is the most pertinent part (underlining is mine).

"10. People will be punished in proportion to their sin.

Scripture says people will receive punishment for what they have done, and that the punishment will be in proportion to the sin they have committed. Romans 2:5 says of stubborn people, “you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath.” Just as godly people by their good works store up treasure for the life to come, wicked people store up wrath for themselves. It would make no sense to say that a person “stored up wrath for themselves” if every person got the same “wrath,” that is, eternal torment.

Jesus taught that people would be tortured “until” they paid back what they owed for their sin (Matt. 18:32-35). Theologians who believe in eternal torment claim that no one can ever pay for their sin, but no Scripture says that. In fact, Scripture is clear that sin can be paid for, and that is exactly what Jesus taught in Matthew 18:34 and what verses such as Romans 2:5 indicate.

The clear message of Scripture is that unless people get forgiveness for their sins they will receive punishment for the evil they have done, but never does Scripture say the people deserve being punished forever (Ps. 62:12; Eccl. 11:9; Jer. 17:10; 32:19; Ezek. 33:20; Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 2:23). Beings such as the Devil and his demons have stored up much wrath for themselves and will be punished for a very long time before they are destroyed. God metes out two different types of justice: corrective justice and retributive justice. Corrective justice is punishment that is meant to correct a behavior, while retributive justice is retribution, or repayment, for something that the person did (see commentary on 2 Thess. 1:8). Torment and then destruction in the Lake of Fire is not corrective, it is retributive; it is a righteous repayment for harm done. The demons knew this justice was coming, and so they said to Jesus, “Have you come to destroy us?” (Mark 1:24).

Some theologians have argued against annihilation because they say it would not make sense for God to resurrect someone from the dead only to kill them again. That misses the fact that God’s annihilation in the Lake of Fire is a judgment, a retribution, a fulfillment of a promise, and a lesson to those still living. We can assume many evil people, the Pharisees are a good example, have died in complete confidence that they will be saved, and as rich and powerful people, often died in the comfort of their own homes, well-fed and cared for. Not only do wicked people such as those Pharisees need to be judged and fulfill the promise that “every knee will bow,” but their annihilation is not immediate. The wicked are annihilated after a period of suffering, and that period of suffering fulfills the Word of God and the justice of God. It seems clear that not every sinner spends equal time suffering, but the more wicked a person is, the more severe the punishment, fulfilling the Scripture that they have stored up wrath for the Day of Wrath. It is God’s just retribution that those who have ignored God and caused pain and suffering on earth will suffer in proportion to the evil they have done.

Also, the suffering of the wicked before they are annihilated will show those who have everlasting life that God is truly just. God, through Jesus Christ, offered to pay for the sins of anyone who wished to accept that payment. Those people who rejected God’s offer, and thereby decided by default to pay for their own sins, had to make good their decision, and pay for their sins with suffering and death, just as Scripture said: “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23).

On 6/24/2025 at 5:16 PM, Charity said:

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.

I need to correct the above post.  After listening to the tape again, John Schoenheit did not use the phrase "right" translation, he said a "good" translation.  

49 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Want to know what the glove looks like, what it’s made of, how it fits? Want to know where in your imagination to look for that yet undiscovered manuscript? Want to know how to MAKE something fit that doesn’t fit?

There’s a Bible version for that.

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.

16 hours ago, Charity said:

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.  

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.  

12 hours ago, oldiesman said:

I don't know about that...   so I did a quick AI search:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has clearly stated that no woman is expected to stay in an abusive marriage and encourages these women to seek an annulment. However, studies on the experiences of battered, Christian women indicate that this is not always enough to free women from abusive marriages.May 23, 2024

       

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.”  

On 6/21/2025 at 8:15 AM, penworks said:

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization:

Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

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.  

3 hours ago, oldiesman said:

And if it's true, someone has done me a great service warning me to avoid it at all costs.    It's been said that in the beatific vision, "we'll understand it all by and by".      I certainly don't right now.  

"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.  

On 6/19/2025 at 7:25 AM, oldiesman said:

I don't get that it's comforting but I think you are brave.   I can't imagine an eternity of nothingness, or even worse an eternity of torture.     Both scare the hell out of me.   

"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.  
 

6 hours ago, WordWolf said:

 

However,  I think you misunderstood me about the timeline of events with JS and the Adultery paper.  He gave 2 different accounts as to why he did the research, and 2 different time-frames as to how long it took.   

1) He did it for his own knowledge because he realized he didn't know any verses offhand to recite to counter thoughts of fornication

2) No, he researched it because RD and VF told him that vpw requested a paper on the subject. 

A) So, it took him 3 years to research the paper. 

B) No, it was done in a few months. 

 

I doubt JS was INTENTIONALLY lying to us. I think he CONFLATED two different events, and each thing he said happened, happened.   The order I see them happening and not contradicting each other nor common sense is 

1A, then 2B.

So, here's how I think the sequence of events went. 

1) JS had the incident he mentioned, where he said "no" and sent the woman on her way, and realized he didn't have any verses in his "retemories" to recite on this subject.  On his own time, and only as he felt like it, he spent the next 3 years on and off doing the research.  He finished it to his own satisfaction, and went on his way. 

2) Some time later, RD and VF approach him. "We were told the Grand Poobah wants you to research this. Let us know when you're done."  JS now has an actual paper to write, an actual request to do so, and a request from the Grand Poobah.  So, on his own time and in between everything else, he revisits old ground (it's old ground to him because he's researched it before), and in a few months during his down time, he's got a full paper on the subject. 

While he was writing it, he may easily have talked to a few people, sounding them out, asking what they were taught, and so on.  That would account for having all the relevant "Appendices" with the "arguments" that JS had to address to be thorough and address twi's issues.   He was honest, so he did so.  Even when he finished it, he still had no idea it was the tip of the iceberg-  or that vpw was the biggest offender-  after all, if vpw ordered it written, why would he do so if it would expose him?   So, JS didn't see it coming- although I think RD and VF did. 

So, that's how I reconcile JS's accounts. He wasn't lying, he was mistaken and conflated 2 different things.  Of course, I could easily be wrong and one of those was a lie.  You'll have to decide what you think was more likely. I really don't know the man.  I know it's more common for the average person to be honestly mistaken than to go around lying. (In that respect, vpw wasn't "an average person." As a liar, he was an EXCEPTIONAL liar.)

 

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.

4 hours ago, WordWolf said:

 

 

You are correct that they didn't immediately connect all the dots. vpw had intentionally designed a tight, secretive cadre.  He knew it was a crime and knew any sane person would say it was wrong, so he surrounded himself with a blackout of news on the subject, and maintained a cover story saying the opposite.  So, by reputation on the field, people would think such a claim was ridiculous.  That having been said, he did sometimes let a passing comment go that gave something away.   Also, as you got closer to the cadre, you started to get exposed to sex stuff- like on-grounds people and pornography "so they could minister to people better after watching the pornography."   So, these guys knew about "consensual" sex, but not outright rapes or drugging where she was unconscious and he molested her.  I put "consensual" in quotes because, with a power imbalance, exactly how much "consent" is there is a matter for disagreement and discussion.   Miles away from anywhere else, thousands of miles from family, friends and home, and surrounded by people as indoctrinated as you, you're told this man has a direct link with God and are indoctrinated that he can do no wrong, nor would he want to.  Then he starts telling you lies, like God wants you to commit adultery or fornication, and rationalizes it.   In an absolute sense, she can say "No", but vpw set his little "consensual sex" game up rather cleverly.  And those women likely to say something were never invited, and those women likely to be better victims- those with histories of sexual assault- were invited, and they were still monitored in case they looked ready to spill the beans.   So, no,  JS and RD had heard about some "consensual" sex, but not about druggings and rapes.  What they did manage to hear was bad enough, and was not easy to hear due to the cadre doing their best to cover vpw's tracks. 

 

Well said WordWolf.

3 hours ago, WordWolf said:

In 1985, JS wrote his Adultery paper.  In 1988, JAL wrote about how this ruined marriages and damaged people. A lot of things had come to light in 3 years. 

 

When JS wrote again in 2000 with ces/stfi,  the rest of us all knew about vpw raping and drugging women since so many of them had come forth.   The young, idealistic guy who JS had been 15 years before now had an organization to promote where he was a top dog, and a vested interest in not looking any closer any more, even if it was dishonest. Plenty of people who have been determined to maintain the fiction that vpw wasn't a plagiarizing rapist and have made it a point to avoid all of their accounts. It makes things easier when they pretend there were never women who came forward.  I'll call them like I see them- I have no organization to promote. It's not like you're buying a book I wrote at a table in the back of the theater or anything.  

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.