My3Cents

Very true. What they call the "corporate culture" is started, and maintained by the attitude of folks at the top. Not only by what they do and say but by who they reward, promote and praise (and why) and who they do the opposite to. There are some key differences between a business and a cult (or other type of ministry). A business exists to serve customers who are outsiders, not employees or insiders. Success is measured in dollars. So the measurement of success is not as open to re-definition by the leaders. And because of that you see businesses with all range of cultures showing success. There is evidence to suggest that a more open, flexible and supportive culture generates more financial success than a closed, authoritarian culture - but you'll find many who disagree. Since cults exist for "the truth" (whatever that means) it's a lot harder for them to seem successful with anything but a top-down authoritarian culture. And how success is measured is changeable. We saw that with the way - when numbers were increasing it was touted as a sign of success. When numbers decreased that was shown as success too - which was now defined as the remnant who were staying true to the truth. Crazy if you ask me.

VPW worked that way when he was alive. Anything was OK for him to do - but not others. He never set up a system to explain why something was OK one day and wrong another or OK for him but not for others. If asked he would explain it in vague terms like "being spiritual" or "doing the word". But he never really wanted others to have the power to make decisions the way he did - only to make decisions that served him. So when craig don and howard started feeling their oats, it doesn't surprize me they felt guilty when geer nailed them. As for the idea that the BOT could have salvaged something if they'd only .... done something different? I don't buy it. The whole thing from the get go was set up to serve vpw's ego and pocket book. It grew a lot in the early '70s because of 2 things (in my never humble opinon) one is it hadn't gotten to the point where the legalism and serving of VPW was so obvious - rather it seemed like a free love and free spirit trip back to the bible and two it was the right time for that kind of thing. Young people didn't care about making a lot of money, they cared about making a difference, and were looking to "new" and anti-establishment ways to do so. And they (by they I mean we) were too naive and unschooled to realize that what we thought was a new thing was actually an old rip-off. The growth rate of the way stopped after a while - even though the membership remained steady for a bit because both those things were changing. It wasn't so fashionable to be a hippy on a spiritual quest and the legalism and flow of $$, obedience and sex toward the top were becoming more widespread. Then as things got worse in that area, the membership started to decline. When Geer read the POP and for a few years later it gave a lot of folks the emotional cover they needed to make the break. That was my story anyway.

Disclaimer - I was there for much if this but not in the back rooms. What follows is my opinion from my experiences 20 years ago. Take it as such. The BOT didn't do much. The organization was never run with any degree of efficiency, but becaus of loyal drones it didn't need much oversight. They basically made up whatever work they wanted to make themselves feel important. VPW did the same. He (VPW) was always blasting people for not doing what he expected and calling them not spiritual enough because they didn't figure it out in time or because what he wanted kept changing (this is a pattern with alcoholics) or because he spoke in such vague spiritual-sounding generalities that when it came to specifics he was unhappy. Wasted a TON of money re-doing many construction projects because of this kind of poor planning. When he had given over the presidency to martindale, it soon began to bother him that he wasn't the center of attention and didn't in fact have a lot of power (because he'd given it away and then he got sick) and toward the end of his life he couldn't say this to anyone but Chris Geer (and I think Ralph Dubofsky as a back up). Geer was psychotic in his devotion and also in his ability to use vauge spiritual sounding language and that's where the POP came from. For some reason, it hit a guilt nerve with the BOT and they signed it, and said they'd try to change. But because what they were supposed to change TO was pretty vague and because they were pretty stupid individuals with not much imagination, they were not able to please Geer any more than they pleased VPW. So he dicked with them a while then came back and had a big meeting with all the clergy (Nov 1986) he installed 2 more people on the board and eventually pulled the plug of his involvement. As for it being a power grab - yes and no. Geer wanted to blow things up but he had several opportunities to grab power and he never did. The first was when he first read the POP - those guys would have been happy not just to sign his letter, but also let him lead them - but he didnt'. Same thing after the clergy meeting. He could have lead a following then - but instead he went back to Gartmore and said basically 'You guys figure it out, but I'll be watching and tell you everytime you screw up" He did, early on in this process, grab power in the form of ownership of the copyrights to VPW's material in Europe (or perhaps everywhere outside the US) but he could have been annointed king of the whole enchalada and for reasons I don't understand, he neglected to do it. If he had done it, I think he would have been so extreme that the blow ups which happened later would have happened sooner but just my opinion. As for what he accused the BOT of and they agreed to - it was basically very vague stuff like "Foresaking our father in the word" and similar descriptions that are open to so much interpretation as to be useless. That's my 2 cents and one for inflation.

I never had any experience being lead by these people. But it seems the current US administration values likemindedness too.

In the olden days (like arely 1900's) music was almost always a personal activity. People played and sang at home, in their local church or town. And talent levels varied (same was true for furniture making, cooking and many other crafts). Very few were ever exposed to real professional level talent. As technology changed and travel became more affordable more and more people could experience real professionals to the point where today we can hear and see them any time on our mobile phones. In the 60's and 70's the folk and rock movements encouraged a bit of return to enjoying that personal level of music. It has since dissappeared. But early days of Way music was like that. Some skill and talent and lots of excitement and enjoyment. As the way got more legalistic, they crowded out raw excitement in favor of people who would succumb to the rules. And this they preferred much more than talent. That's my 2 cents (and one for inflation)

Thanks Sunesis, That kind of detail about what folks did or are doing is what I come to Greasespot for. I've been showing up a lot less frequently because there's been a lot less of that kind of thing on the board. Thanks again.

Just a small addition to Catcup's post: When VPW was purchasing the Way College he had hoped to do it in a way that kept the accreditation. That didn't work. One of the motivations was that if it were accredited, then students could get money from the GI bill and other government programs to attend. I don't know how high up on the list of motivations that was, but it was on the list. I heard him talk about it several times.

The analogy to fire is a complete red herring. Why three things. Why not 1 or 7? And who says sex needs love, pleasure and reproduction to be morally right? Who says it needs even one of them? Belle, You got snookered accepting his premise. If someone says "A is true therefore B so prove it to me" I think you should take it back to them, and say "prove your premise [that A is true] and make them do the hard work.

It's much easier to control your plan than to actually get results in life. The way was all about control

In a few weeks I'll celebrate my 3rd wedding anniversary (should say the 3rd anniversary of my [2nd] wedding). But we were seriously together for 5 years before that. We met on the internet. Here's my story/advice. Your mileage may vary. To be successful in any relationship, you have to know certain things about yourself. When I left my first marriage it was not because my ex was crazy - though she was/is. She has a diagnosable personality disorder. But I left because I started to learn why I had been attracted to someone like that. And I learned I no longer wanted to be that kind of person. I realized that all my serious relationships in the past had been with people similar to my ex. What's the common denominator here? Me. My current wife is very different and that's a sign to me how much I've changed. So my first advice is learn why you got in the way. If you still in a similar group, with similar beliefs (though of course only the good ones) you'll probably find yourself attracted to similar people. Also learn about personality disorders - they were rampant in the way. Learn about the ones that you were attracted to and how to spot them. Being divorced in my 40's, living in an isolate suburban community, and working for myself did not bring me around very many eligible women. I started to meet people through the internet and personal ads. Most went like this - we'd email for a while then graduate to a phone call. Then finally to a "date". But these turned out more like job interviews than two people who liked each other having a good time and getting to know each other better. I had also been involved in a profession (business coaching) that does a lot of work over the phone. I was aware of some of the dynamics that happen when you develop a relationship without face to face meetings. You almost always "invent" what the person sounds like, looks like, smells like, how their body moves, how their face reacts to things etc. You are always wrong. It wasn't planned this way, but my wife and I did it differently. Her profile said she had kids and was kidless every other weekend. (We lived about an hour apart). I emailed and said so was I - how about getting together this weekend? She emailed back with her phone number. I called, offered to cook dinner and said we'd figure out something to do after. It turned out we went to a free, outdoor bagpipe concert. The good news is that since they all sound similar, it's real easy to hear a bagpipe playing "our song". After that our schedules didn't allow for us to get together for another 2 weeks - during that time we emailed and talked on the phone at least once a day. In that context, email was a great way to get to know each other. You get to talk without being interrupted, and you get to sort our your emotions and thoughts before you respond. So I'm a big fan of getting together in person before a lot of inventing clogs up the works. But that's just me. I don't recommend it, if you haven't learned a lot about yourself. Good luck.

I think the concept of soul winning is a problem and feeds into the stuff the way taught us. It presumes that: 1. Some people are saved/won/righteous whatever and some aren't. 2. And that the ones that are know it and know how the others can be. 3. And that the ones that aren't SHOULD be. I think those are dangerous beliefs and logically consistent with the worst kinds of fundamentalism. Most belief systems don't take their beliefs as far as say people who murder doctors for performing abortions, or the Jews who murder other Jews for not being radical enough or the muslims who murder people for being US citizens. But the foundations of justifying those actions are in the concept of "we are god's people, you're not and you should be." I think it's a sign of your mental health that you noticed how you were feeling and realized it's a problem.

I think Robes has some good points. Here's what I learned from taking my ex to court. (Our case had nothing to do with the way). 1. Be the best parent you can be - loving and supporting. Enjoy your time with your kids as if your ex wasn't in the picture. Don't do anything out of spite or revenge - it's not worth it. If you do this, eventually your kids will understand and see the light, or else they won't. They do after all have minds of their own. But there's a better chance they will if you're loving, supportive and not vengeful. 2. Laws differ in each state. Get a good lawyer who's familiar with cults and psychological damage. But be aware that courts don't see their job as determining who is the better parent. And thank god they don't. They will try to determine if the kid is in grave danger, and prevent that. However they see danger in the starkest and most physical terms. Psychological danger has to be really really severe to be acted on by most courts. 3. The point about a guardian ad leitum is a good one - your lawyer should be able to recommend. A GAL is a lawyer who represents the children's best interests. This is different from the children having their own attorney who would be required to represent their wishes rather than their best interests. GALs are usually used for younger children. When I hired one, my kids were 11 and 12 and people were surprised that someone that age needed a GAL but those that understood the situation and my ex's emotional problems realized it was a good thing. Good luck.

There's been several debates on other threads about if the way has changed. There's a debeate on this thread it Freud is actually a way troll trying to gain sympathy for Craig. If the second is true, then the first is also. The old way would never have been as subtle and as slow to get to the point. They would not have cared what unbelievers thought, hence would not have invested the time and effort to speak to them/us in a method that wasn't blistering. So if Freud is really a high placed troll working for the way officially, then I think you'd have say they have changed. I doubt either one. I think George was right in his analysis of Craig. Just my 2 cents and one for inflation.

You might enjoy reading "How to Speak Dog" by Stanley Coren. Some things they do don't make sense from a human point of view.

I guess it depends on what your definition of biblical research is. I knew several people in the "research department" - this was back when Wierwille was still alive. We discussed several situations where it was obvious to them that the biblical texts did not support Weirwille's teachings, but that he was not open to even hearing about it. Others in the past had been publically denounced and kicked out for stuff like that. One of these people told me they were "researching" under the assumption that what VPW taught was right even if there were no texts to prove it, but that there must have been a text that said that (or a way of understanding it to mean thus) back in "the original" because VPW had such spiritual insight he must have been right. One man I know of got a degree at a real university, and still worked at the way. He would not, however, put his name to any way articles for fear of being discredited by the academic community. You can call that biblical research if you want, I don't think there's a law against it. People will tell you some of the work the way did with the Aramaic interlinear and other things were cutting edge and respected outside the way. I don't doubt that, but that work was pretty technical - basically just spending the time and money to do a compilation of stuff. It wasn't about uncovering new insight.

Wrong Question. A more useful question might be: Why do people continue to believe that there is any connection between BEING good (or bad) and the kinds of things that HAPPEN to them? Another question might be: When people have a belief about what should happen to them and that believe is repeatedly at odds with their experience, why do they hold to their belief and not form another one that fits more closely with their experience? I don't claim to know the answers to any of these questions.

Speaking as an ex way clergy I can give you my perspective. Here's how it worked. I was in the 5th corps. By the time I graduated, there were ordination services at every corps week. VPW sent out a letter asking if you'd like to be ordained. This happened about a year after corps graduation. If you said yes, then you got ordained at corps week. I heard (but can't confirm) that every corps grad who was still standing a year after they graduated got a letter. I'm not sure how it worked for earlier corps nor how long it worked like that. In our case there was a meeting before the ordination of all the existing clergy and all the newbies. We paired up and that's how it was determined who laid hands on us. There were so many new recruits that we almost had to double up. Some (for example myself) got prophesied over by somone we had almost know relationship with. Does this make one ordained of god? Beats me. I no longer claim to speak on behalf of the almighty and I ask the same constraint of him/her/it/them. Was it "real" from a legal perspective? In this country, every religious group gets to set their own standards for ordination. Most states accept that - but the only activity an ordained clergy does with any legal standing is perform marriages - the other stuff: funerals, communion, baptism are just church things. Clergy can't perform divorces. Hope that helps.

True. And they weren't always used safely. I was on staff at HQ living in one of the trailers -I think it was 1977or 78 so VPW was still alive. Geer was not his dirver then - but the guy who was (who later ran off with the wife of a corps grad - but that's another story) lived in the same trailer as me as did a guy on the safety patrol and another guy who worked around the cars and busses. All three of them were very into guns. One day we were all hanging out in our various rooms and all of a sudden a shot went off. It went through the wall into the bathroom where someone was washing his face. From the location of the hole, it probably went 6 inches from the guy's head. Someone had been in their bedroom cleaning, playing with or just looking at his gun and it went off by accident. For the life of me I can't remember who was almost killed and who did the shooting but since no one was actually hurt not much was said about it. At the time I didn't realize how screwed up the gun play was. For the record, at the clergy meeting I was sitting too far back to have noticed a gun under a jacket. I don't recall it being mentioned or taken out. HOWEVER I know Geer was armed most of time and took great pride in it. And the fact that I don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen - just that my mind set was such that it wouldn't have seemed memorable or unusuall.

Thanks for the kind words. Actually layman terms are the only kind I understand these days. I think you've got it backwards about the power of the right and the left. Most studies have shown that the press actually goes out of it's way NOT to be biased toward the left, even though the majority of reporters etc have a personal belief that is more supportive of the left, they are professional in what they do so their bias does not come across. I suspect more hollywood folks are more liberal in their beliefs than say Mel Gibson, but they don't have what I'd call "direct power" when it comes to politics. Any power they have at all is because people buy what they produce so their popularity is dependent on the public. I don't know about professors and teachers, but as for "powerful senators" I'd say most of them have had their gonads removed (probably by self-infliction). Take for example Bill Clinton - regardless of what you think of his sex life, under his watch the military was strengthened (look how strong it was when Bush went to use it) the economy was strong and the budget ran a surplus for the first time in decades. Those are all more "conservative" accomplishments - things that we have since left behind due to a president who thinks god talks to him. Even moderates in his own party are afraid to chastise his abuse of power.

I've never had a real job so I haven't had much problem with it. My bio is posted on the web here if anyone cares http://thesmallbusinesscoach.com/blog/articles/about-2/ I've been out for 20 years so it really doesn't matter anymore. But I did go looking around back then. I can't remember what I put on the resume, but I'm sure I didn't mention the way by name or even the bible stuff. I think it helped that I never actually worked for the way (except one year). But I was in the corps and had to explain that time. Also had a degree from a real college so I didn't have to use my pretend one from the campus of the holy blood or whatever it was. So many years later I'm very comfortable telling (most) people I was in a cult. But I'm not sure I would be if I'd just gotten out - one because it's weirder when it's recent and two because things seem to have gotten real strange at the way in the last decade. I've even put my cult story on someone else's web site. Click Here then scroll down.

I was there. I think I've posted about it before. I'll try to dredge up some memories. It was around thanksgiving in 1986. The POP had been read at Corps week, I believe that summer and we all were wondering where things were going. All clergy was invited. I even saw Mike Martin who I'd known years before but he hadn't been "standing" in a while. People weren't M&A'd back then they stood or not and usually could come back. Mike left at the first break I believe - too bad. I was hoping to connect with him some more. Would have really corrupted me I guess. We had to pay our way there but we were housed in the dormatory - I think by corps. We were assigned seats in the BRC - alphabetically. I remember 'cuz I couldn't sit with friends. I think it lasted over a weekend. Maybe all day saturday and sunday AM. My recollection gets a bit fuzzy -but I think it went something like this. First session Chris Geer spoke (taught I think was what we called it then) and yelled a bunch. Then next session we watched a bunch of clips from the advanced class - VPW teaching but they were a whole lot of short video clips - kinda spliced together. Next session it was announced that Geer had left to go back to England - but he had had the first session taped while he was speaking and he wanted us to hear it again. So we sat and listened again to what we'd just heard while he went back home. Then I remember we had some Q&A with the board of trustees. Can't remember if Johnnie Townsend and Ricardo Caballero had been put on the board yet or not. There were not a lot of specifics said about what the actual problems were or what was in place to correct them -it was all pretty vague like "not living up to the word" or "spiritually selling out" not concrete like stole $100,000 or killed someone. And of course the sex was not mentioned. I guess too many people in the room were guilty. There was not a huge split between Craig and Geer - it seemed to me Geer had put those guys down and they agreed but instead of stepping in and taking over he said "I'm going back home [with the rights to publish VPW's work in Europe] and you guys call me if you get your stuff together. " A lot of attendees were left wondering "how do we get back to the orginal? We want to stand on the word - who's got it?" stuff like that. Me, it made me wonder why I even thought the bible was ever was "the word". And I realized it was because some guy from Ohio (now dead) had told me it was. Other than that I had no evidence of same. So I decided to go back to my original (un)belief and reject the bible until I got more evidence. [update - to this day I never have]. I don't know how much it affected my decision that I went to high school with Chris Geer and got into the word with him. So I wasn't under any illusions about him walking on water or anything. All in all it was a pretty bizzare meeting. I was expecting a power grab and it was set up like one - but then the grabber went back home.

There's room for all of God's Creatures.... right next to the mashed potatoes.

I like the ebay example. A guy rented a house from me one time who made a full time living off ebay (about 60K) he left when he had enough to buy his own house. I've worked from home as a remote-control CEO running a company 1700 miles away. www.TheSmallBusinessCoach.com/blog for more details. At the other extreme I know people who've tried many home businesses and not made a dime. It's more about the business than the location. And a business depends on a customer. So it's nice to think of something you can do well, and do at home, but if you can't sell it to enough customers it won't be a business. Most of my experiences with home businesses that fail it's because people put more emphasis in doing something from home than doing something they can sell and customers value (that happens to be done from home). So think of what you can do for customers (at home) rather than the other way round. Good Luck

Brittle nails are one of the symptoms of thyroid problems. It's not to be ignored. Go to a physiscian as in MD.

You should have your parents read this thread and any others. They should talk with your sister about it. I think parents should ALWAYS discuss their estate plans with the kids and make sure their intention is communicated - intention can be misunderstood when people die. Then your parents should make their own decision - based not on what your sister says, but what they think. If they think she's too much under the control of the way or her husband to do what they want they'll have to act one way. If they don't think so, they may act another way. If they decide to put it in trust they have a lot of options. The trust can say the money is not touchable until your sister does something (like buy a house or leave the way) or for her kids until they reach a certain age, or for college or whatever. However, with a trust, there needs to be a trustee to administer it. That person will invest the funds according the rules of the trust and will determine if the rules have been met to dispurse the funds. Who should be the trustee? In my opinon NOT a family member. It will cause no end of grief between that person and the sister or her kids if they are in the way. The money is probably not worth that amount of family grief. If a bank or lawyer is the trustee, that is preferable - the rules will be stricktly enforced, but there will be a cost. Parents should ask around to see how much the cost is. A great book on this topic is BEYOND THE GRAVE by Gerald Condon. It's full of short chapters you can jump around in. You should have your parents read this thread and many others. They should talk with your sister about it. I think parents should ALWAYS discuss their estate plans with the kids and make sure their intention is communicated - intention can be misunderstood when people die. Then your parents should make their own decision - based not on what your sister says, but what they think. If they think she's too much under the control of the way or her husband to do what they want they'll have to act one way. If they don't think so, they may act another way. If they decide to put it in trust they have a lot of options. The trust can say the money is not touchable until your sister does something (like buy a house or leave the way) or for her kids until they reach a certain age, or for college or whatever. However, with a trust, there needs to be a trustee to administer it. That person will invest the funds according the rules of the trust and will determine if the rules have been met to dispurse the funds. Who should be the trustee? In my opinon NOT a family member. It will cause no end of grief between that person and the sister or her kids if they are in the way. The money is probably not worth that amount of family grief. If a bank or lawyer is the trustee, that is preferable - the rules will be stricktly enforced, but there will be a cost. Parents should ask around to see how much the cost is. A great book on this topic is BEYOND THE GRAVE by Gerald Condon. It's full of short chapters you can jump around in.