LG

Garth, Rafael asked about the doctrine, not the show.

Chapter 13 of Karl's book, The Cult That Snapped, discusses Martindale's teaching in some detail. As he records, Wierwille put his stamp of approval on it and Walter Cummins offered some rather feeble support for it.

I don't remember exactly when that teaching came out but I do remember that Wierwille's and Cummins' support of it was what finally convinced me that TWI cared little about "the integrity and accuracy of God's Word."

Mike,

Most folks here have considered a lot more than you think they have. "All this" is nothing new.

Your whole spiel is premised on Wierwille's tale of God speaking to him audibly in 1942. If that happened as Wierwille described, then what you say could have some merit. If it didn't, then Wierwille was not only a lier and a fraud, but also A FALSE PROPHET, which is a pretty big deal to anyone who believes the Bible. Even if the tale were true, that would not mean that Wierwille didn't become a fraud and a false prophet afterwards.

You haven't offered a single reason for anyone to think that Wierwille's tale was true. The Bible offers a lot of reasons for Bible believers to think that Wierwille was a false prophet.

RG: "I did say those things that someone quoted from the website. .... I cannot change them now even though I have learned much since about vpw."

You could say whether or not you still think the same things. You could just come right out and say whether or not you think of VPW as an apostle and "our father in the Word." You haven't. I think that's pretty telling.

RG: "However, one thing that I think we need to realize is we need to separate the doctrine from the practice."

I think it would be wise to realize that you can't separate corrupt practice from the corrupt doctrine that facilitates it. The practice is the fruit of the doctrine.

RG: "Of all the heart-cries in this thread, I think that the statement of Long Gone is the most poignant."

That was no heart-cry. That was a statement of opinion, worded in the most diplomatic way I could manage. I'll be more straightforward.

My opinion of Wierwille as a person is that he was corrupt at least as far back as the fifties and that he became quite evil over time. The evidence of his personal corruption in the form of repeated plagiarism is overwhelming and undeniable. The evidence of other forms of corruption and evil is more than convincing, in my opinion.

More importantly, I think that Wierwille's doctrinal system was designed from the beginning, at least in part, to facilitate the satisfying of his personal lusts (not only sexual). Even where it was not specifically designed for that purpose, I think that his personal corruption corrupted his teachings, on a foundational level.

None of that extends, by default, to his former followers. However, if they are using Wierwille's teachings as the foundation of their doctrinal system, the corruption that interlaced those teachings will interlace their system as well. Just as corrupt doctrine facilitated Wierwille's corrupt practice, their corrupt doctrine will also facilitate corrupt practice, whether that is intended or not.

Satori, I didn't say give it a chance. I said that I think the foundation is faulty. I said that the splinter group leaders have no business setting themselves up as teachers. I said that I think that people would be wise to look elsewhere.

I have no more regard for Wierwille, his teachings, or his legacy that is carried on in various splinter groups than you do. I just don't have to be ugly all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zixar:

What better test to see if there actually was a baby in all that bathwater we threw out when we left TWI?

---

Since you asked...

I think that what TWI became is a natural result of the foundation on which it was built. I think that people whose "spiritual perception and awareness" was dull enough that they couldn't see the manifestations of TWI's problems until the late nineties have no business setting themselves up as teachers of classes on how to walk by the spirit. I think that people who want to "see if there was a baby in all that bathwater" would be wise to look elsewhere than to people who supported TWI for years, even during the Martindale years, apparently unable to tell that the bathwater was filthy or unwilling to pull the stopper for fear they'd go down the drain with the filth.

I also think that people can do what they want.

[This message was edited by Long Gone on August 07, 2002 at 13:51.]

I can't speak for anyone else but I wasn't on a witch-hunt when I went to CFF's web site. I was simply curious. I didn't quote from "Paul's Foundational Class" in order to tear at anyone. I quoted what I did because it tells the foundation on which CFF is building.

It isn't necessary to attend a CFF function to have a pretty good idea about it. It is obvious that it is patterned after pre-LCM TWI and that its leaders think that VPW was an apostle and their father in the Word. They are patterning their ministries after his. They are building on his foundation, or a recreation of it.

In my opinion, the primary issue shouldn't be Wierwille's personal life, corrupt as I think it was. The main issue should be the foundation he built. If it was a good foundation and TWI was a good and godly work brought down by Martindale and the successors to the original BOT, then building a Christian work on a similar foundation is a good idea. If the problems of TWI were natural outgrowths of the foundation that Wierwille laid, then building a Christian work on a similar foundation is a bad idea.

This thread roused my curiosity enough to go look at CFF's web site. I titled this post "WOW" because I noticed that CFF has a WOW training and commissioning in Venezuala later this month.

It appears to me that CFF is attempting to recreate TWI of the seventies and early eighties. Much of their "about CFF" material is so close to being exact quotes of "About the Way" material I remember that I'm surprised they haven't been sued by TWI for copyright violations.

From what I read, it appears that anyone who would have liked pre-LCM TWI might find CFF appealing.

I think that the following two paragraphs are very telling.

From "Paul?s Foundational Class" by Jon Nessle (aka Research Geek):

"Now some might say that this entire study is superfluous in light of the fact that we are all familiar with and have all partaken of a wonderful example of a foundational class: the Power for Abundant Living class taught by our Father in the Word, Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille. But I, as my manner is, like to go back to the primary evidence and re-inspect it and now I can better understand and appreciate that great example.

Perhaps we allowed Doctor's original class to be too easily dismissed in favor of the promise of something new but untested. Its replacement despite the yes-men's accolades did not turn out to be the quality of the former. And that, perhaps was, in part, a reason why we lost access to it and now have to build one anew. I pray that when we are done rebuilding our foundation, we'll have something to shout about as the builders of the second temple's foundation did in Ezra!"

Sudo, if you could limit your practice to "preferred" patients, that would be a lot better than sticking your hands in their mouths, wouldn't it?

PMJI,

I don't know nearly about astronomy as Zixar but I do know a great site for some pics, NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/). There are some wonderful pictures in the archive, which is accessible from a link at the bottom of the page.

Two of my favorites:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020127.html (Zixar's pic, with description)

and http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001127.html (composite of the Earth at night)

Just kidding with you about your inclusiveness, Hopefull.

In this case I find it amusing. Sometimes it bothers me, like when almost every post on Memorial Day was about veterans in general. What's the purpose of a special occasion to honor one person or group if we throw in all sorts of other people because of the feeling that honoring one person or group somehow slights or dishonors people that aren't included in that particular celebration?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hopefull:

Happy Fathers day to all you dad's, moms, and moms who are dads also!

---

What about dads who are moms also?

As a participant, I don't have strong feelings about this one way or another. If I were administering a Web forum, I would probably allow one hour for edits after posting. After that, changes or deletions would have to be done by a moderator. Corrections or clarifications by forum participants could be done through follow-up posts. The primary reason for this would be to maintain continuity in the threads.

I don't think it's fair to accuse people who favor time limits on editing of being out to control others or to otherwise attack their character. I think the specific personal attacks are particularly inappropriate, especially the remarks accusing a person who has not even posted to this thread of being two-faced.

JBM, formerly long gone 2