LG

The simple solution is not to click on the ad. Such promises are ALWAYS designed to lure gullible people into buying things they would not otherwise buy.

Hmmm... I still believe three words of the premise. I'm very confident that "the Bible is."

I never heard anything like what you describe, Abigail, but I left TWI about 18 years ago. From what I've read here, there does seem to have been at least some teaching such as you describe in more recent years. "Was this teaching a form of sexual abuse against them men?" I would say not, but it could have provided justification, and possibly even motivation, for sexual and other abuse.

The difference between a non-abusive situation and an abusive one is the means of influence.

Coolwaters, In case you've missed it, I have been among the more vocal supporters of sexual abuse victims.

CoolWaters, My post directly related to your opening post. If it is not on topic, then nothing you have written in this thread is either.

IMO... Johnny Lingo's story is not one of sexual abuse. Promoting abortion is not sexual abuse, even if the tactics used to promote it are abusive. Knowing and loving a victim of sexual abuse is not being a victim of sexual abuse. I think that there is a tendency among some to include things in the "abuse" and "victim of abuse" categories that don't reasonably belong. Although I don't necessarily agree with all of simonzelotes' opinions about abuse and victimhood, I agree that using the words too loosely dilutes their meaning and reduces their impact.

George, I noticed the same thing, except that I qualified it slightly differently. The better people could think on their feet, and speak extemporaneously, the better they were at all the "worship manifestations."

Patricia Liberty?s essay is not a teaching, as oldiesman describes it. It is certainly not gospel truth. It is a statement of opinion. It is arguable that a minister and congregant can have a sexual relationship that is truly voluntary and non-abusive. It is pretty much a certainty that not all women (or men) who have sexual relations with a minister are blameless. That still doesn?t excuse the minister, who bears the greater responsibility, and therefore the greater blame. The abuse stories to which Linda referred in her opening post are not stories of voluntary, non-abusive relationships. All are stories of abuse, and most are stories of sexual assault. I believe the stories I?ve read here and will assume that they are true in what follows. In present-day Texas, what Wierwille did is punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 years, plus a fine of up to $10,000.00, for each offense. Someone with as many offenses as Wierwille could conceivably be put away for life. Whether or not drugged drinks were used wouldn't matter, except to raise time of imprisonment. All that is required is that ?the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser.? There?s no way around it. That describes Wierwille in every single one of the sexual abuse stories I?ve read. Lest anyone be tempted to go off on a sidetrack about laws, the law is not the major point. The seriousness of the abuse is. At the very best, Wierwille took advantage of vulnerable women who looked to him for spiritual guidance. Rather than helping them, he used them to satisfy his own lusts. He didn?t do that just once, or a few times. He did it repeatedly, over a period of years, and taught others to do the same. How anyone who claims to believe the Bible can honor the man is beyond me.

excathedra, I think you're very patient and kind in dealing with people who don't get the abuse stories. It shows a strength beyond what you may think you have.

Hi, early2it. I didn't think that you expected me to agree with you. I guess I was concerned that your "Amen brother" might be interpreted by some as an indication that we are "likeminded" instead of what it was, agreement with a few points. Just an overreaction on my part to the terminology, I'm sure.

early2it, I don't agree with your assessment of religion, your beliefs about God, or your opinions of humanity and human institutions.

I don't know much about Martindale, but from what I've read, he took several of Wierwille's more idiotic, unsupported, and possibly even unintentional statements, and tried to make some great truth of them. Other people did that too, though usually not to the same extent. Ol' Mike is not all that different from some Wayfers I recall. A Wierwille brain-fart was as good as God-breathed to them.

Sorry if I came off sounding mad, Grizz. I wasn't. I was just practicing truth in labeling. Suffixes like "ian", "ean", "ist", "an", etc. deal with origin of an idea, a person or philosopy people follow, or a group identity. "Christian" simply means of or from Christ, as in a follower of Christ or the doctrine of Christ. "American" means of or from America. As for Pythagoras, he was a Greek philosopher and mathematician. I goofed though. The correct spelling is "Pythagorean," not "Pythagorian."

Oakspear's thread had nothing to do with any existence Wierwille may or may not have after death.

And the proper response to that is, "BS!" Students of Pythagoras were Pythagorians. His best known theorem is "the Pythagorian theorem." Has nothing to do with "Pythagoras in you."

?I know it?s of God, because I was desperate, prayed, and [fill in the blank]? tales are common to all sorts of religions and religious groups. Plenty of ?Moonies? are convinced that the Unification Church is of God because of events similar to Johnny?s story. Heck, there were probably members of Jim Jones? group who prayed to God for help just before meeting one of Jones? followers. Maybe that kool-aid was God?s way of rescuing them from the desperation in their lives? Many people reach a point of desperation and cry out to God, or others, for help. Some get real help, but plenty of them get taken in, by religious groups, swindlers, abusers, and even murderers. Desperate, hungry people are the most likely to be attracted to any food offered, the least likely to see a hook in it, if one is present, and seemingly among the most likely to swear that any bait they went after was really good food, benevolently offered. I don?t know what Wierwille?s original intent was, but if fraud is evil, then The Way was evilly devised. It was founded on fraud, and set up without any of the checks and balances that humans have learned to incorporate into their institutions. I suspect that Wierwille intentionally set it up without them because he perceived such things as ruling him with a heavy hand. He defied normal morality, including that of the Bible, from at least the time he incorporated TWI in 1955. Both he and his organization seem to have gotten worse over time, but he founded TWI on corruption, and it bore fruit accordingly.

That's the guy, Grizz. I'm not saying he's the first, but he's the first I remember.

That wasn't the original, Grizz. There was a thread on Waydale about the passing of the skunk pelt. I'm thinking that thread was started by someone with a screen name starting with "rev."

That's a pretty generic confession. It's not any sort of repentence, by either the Bible's standards, or anyone elses. Telling the truth that he'd plagiarized nearly everything he'd taught since The Way was incorporated would have been a good start. Admitting that he'd harmed people and sinned against them would have been a good next step. Attempting to right his wrongs, as much as possible, would have been a good follow-through. If he sought repentence, in the way some have suggested he might have, it could only make a difference to him and God. It sure didn't address anything that has been discussed at GreaseSpot.

Oldiesman, You mentioned it being hard to believe evil things about someone you love. I can understand that. But I suggest that you didn?t really love Wierwille, because you never knew him. Sure, you loved the image Wierwille put forth, but that image was a lie. The evidence is incontrovertible, and doesn?t depend on anything anyone has said about his behavior towards others. Just what?s mentioned in the thread about the PFAL class being stolen is more than enough proof. (I realize that it?s not fully documented on that thread, but the documentation exists, and is accessible.) You didn?t love Wierwille. You loved an illusion fostered by his long-term, intentional, evil deception. That you believed the illusion when you were not confronted with facts is understandable. That you continue to hold onto it in the face of all the facts of which you are now aware is not. What was once Wierwille?s lie seems to have become your delusion. [This message was edited by Long Gone on December 31, 2003 at 12:27.]

Not all of us are Christians, and the issue is not copyright laws. It?s not occasionally failing to give credit. It?s intentional, rampant, long term deception. Wierwille was not what he represented himself to be. His works were not what he represented them to be. He was a fraud. If so many had not believed him to be a great man of God, and followed his doctrines and practices, it wouldn?t matter much to most of us. But because many did believe his claims, followed his example, and structured their lives and ways of thinking according to his words and example, it matters a lot. That so many are willing to dismiss wholesale fraud as just a shortcoming is indicative, in part, of the corruption he promoted and taught, by both word and example. He didn?t live up to even the most liberal of generally-accepted moral standards, much less those of the Bible. Does God not believe in honesty?It seems rather odd to me for people who profess to be Christians to promote the idea that Christian morals should be of a lower standard than ?the world?s.?

There you go again, twisting things in order to shift blame away from your precious "man of God."Nobody has suggested that "those who are complicit and initiate adultery and fornication" should be given a pass. That has never been the issue. There have been two basic issues. The one that is of general concern is "knowing them [self-styled "men of God"] by their fruits. The one that is of concern to many is dealing with the consequences of being duped and used by someone who represented himself as, and who they believed was, God's minister.

First of all, nobody has suggested that anyone should take someone else?s experience personally or have personal animosity toward Wierwille, or anyone else. Secondly, Wierwille did not do right by you. He lied to you. Whether or not that bothers you is your business. I never thought of him that way, either. Doesn?t matter. Wierwille claimed that God Himself taught him His Word like it hadn?t been known for almost two thousand years. He claimed to teach the Word of God like it hadn?t been known for almost two thousand years. Wierwille called himself ?the man of God? and ?The Teacher? in the PFAL class, but he didn?t say that people who stand on God?s Word and hold it forth ARE men of God. He said they are LIKE men of God. (You have the class. Listen closely to that section.) You are wrong. I was on my way out when LCM took over, and left completely shortly afterwards. I?d heard many people call Wierwille THE Man of God, including on the main stage of ROA. What a hard-hearted thing to say! (I originally wrote quite a bit stronger reply.) And how hypocritical, too! You go on about not using ?alleged?, then you imply that every teenage WOW and young Corps girl he sexually assaulted, every other person he abused in other ways, and even everyone who knew him personally was a ?boot-licking leader-wanna-be.?

As long as you?ve been around, if you had half a grain of honesty, you?d quit this crap. You constantly distort what others say, both their words and their meaning. Nobody has attempted to discuss ?every sin and bad habit? of anyone. Also, No GreaseSpot posters have made claims about themselves anything like the claims Wierwille made about himself. I?m confident in saying that none have harmed anywhere near the number of people that Wierwille harmed, and that few have come close to harming any people to the degree that Wierwille harmed many. If someone holds himself up to be one of the great men of God of the past two thousand years*, and if some people believed that, it is more than fair to examine both his life and his works. *Anyone who claims that God Himself taught him His Word like it hadn?t been known since the first century is claiming to be one of the great men of God of the past two thousand years.