My3Cents

COOL! I just did a bit of googling on Symbolic Convergence Theory and read about how a group coheres when it shares fantasies. I don't think folks in the way were even allowed to have fantasies - everything like that was told to them (us). No wonder they (we) "shared" so much. And no wonder the sharing was so devoid of real heart.

Congrats. Can you tell us what course and what school this was for? I wish I'd been taught this stuff when I was in school - might not have spent as much time in the way.

JM, If you're still checking. One thing you have to come to grips with is do you believe there is a god and do you believe the bible is his word? Many who are out of the way still accept these ideas and have problems with how the way handles "the word" or their practical application of it. This Article may give you some insight into whether you even want to accept those basic ideas.

Interesting point of view. I do think the culture had a lot to do with it - at least in the 70's. I came out of the hippie anti-establisment thing and the anit-religion stance of the way fit right into that. I don't know about culture in the 80s since I was so involved in the way. Also at that time - at least early 70's - it was culturally cool for young people to be poor, to live together in cheap housing, to hitch hike and to move around a lot. The way corps and especially the wow program expoited this quite heavily. But as cultural norms changed the way did not. Very few in their late teens, early twenties thinks it's cool now to hitch hike, to be itinerant, to live in a crash pad. Poverty and being grubby are no longer as appealing. Plus they never were appealing to older folks so as the way people aged, there was no way for them to live in nice houses, make some money etc and still be in the good graces of the way. So I agree that the cultural piece was important in the rise and also fall of the numbers. Also you have various levels of involvement in the way (at least in the 70's that was permitted) and also during that time the way got more and more controling. I'll amend my opinion about psychological needs being the only reason for involvement, but I do believe that there's a correlation between those with deeper problem and a deeper level of involvement - especially as the way got more and more controling and more out of step with cultural norms.

True believers will probably not like this. The rest of us may find it eerily reminiscient of our previous life. Click Here

This is not a legal document but discusses the things they cover as well as many of the little things that may not be talked about by lawyers. Things like what about the pets - their food, their vet etc. The Benificiary Book

I'm not qualified to answer in any kind of general sense. It would be like asking my what I think is the major cause of air pollution, or divorce or any number of things that need to be studied based on scientific methods. One of the problems in the way was that the leaders thought their personal experience could be extrapolated to everyone with out bothering to apply any actual research.

I'm not so sure about that. Pathology is a continuum - not a yes or no thing. I don't think any really healthy person would be attracted to what attracted us, or would ignore the violations of personal boundaries and integrity like way followers did. There has been lots of research on this. I suggest making that part of your background on your thesis.

To actually becoming the rear end of a horse

In my experience you always need 2 computers (at least) that can access the internet. That way when you have problems with one, you can do research, download files etc. from the other. God help you if you have a dead machine and the only help you can access is through a telephone to tech support.

I know the idea of debt being ungodly was started when vpw was running the show. I remember having discussions about it in what would have been 1977 or 78. But this is an example (and you'll find lots) where he said something that had little relation to how he lived his life - he may not have even believed it. It wasn't anything soundly researched (even according to vpw's dubious standards of the term) yet it was taken by him and others and used to enslave people. Much of this happened after he died but there was enough of it going on while he was still running the joint - and then for a while after he stepped down but hadn't died yet. So he could have very well stepped in and said "Hey, this is getting out of hand, this isn't what I meant, this needs more study" but he never did. Just never cared to do anything about how his words didn't match us with his own life, or how they were used to hurt others.

When I was in, most of our "relationships" were so colored by what we thought was the word that we never really saw people for who they were. So many people I know were in love with their own fantasy of what people were like.

Parsley, Good luck with your work. I think you need to deal with this on two levels - the conscious and the non conscious. As with any abusive relationships, there are needs and psychological factors that keep the victim in the relationship and usually the victim is not aware of these. So when you ask this question you're most likely to get the conscious stories we tell ourselves about why we stay - stuff like the word, the fellowhship, the friends. In my case the non-conscious stuff was a need for a father figure, the feeling of saftey from having many of my decisions made for me, the ease of having my identity and my standing in the group be determined by factors that I could easily control such as attendance at meetings, loyalty and leading other drones. Hope that helps.

Good observation. The way leadership during that time did not encourage people to just live godly lives and be part of a twig. They did not exault that kind of lifestyle. They exaulted the all out "dog soldier" we're here to MOVE the word. SO what tended to happen is to "be someone" in the organization meant you had to be on a leadership track. This and the excessive demands of loyalty attracted people who had some emotional or psychological need. So it's no wonder that the folks at a place like Greasespot were mostly leaders who hung around at the top. The more "normal" folk who just wanted to live a nice life and have it augmented by a nice bible study were not given much credence by many way corps or other leaders (at least while I was in this was my experience). And I bet a lot of them just excused themselves when stuff go too weird. Galen and the few like him were/are, I believe the exceptions.

Not really, not once you get used to it. Once you get used to it, even cr@p doesn't taste like cr@p. That's why we all stayed in the way as long as we did.

Weirwille came from a pretty well off family. I doubt if they were rich, but very comfortable. I don't think it would have been a problem back then to put him through college debt free - they probably didn't even have student loans back then. He inherited the farm so that was debt free. And at the peak of the way they were bringing in probably $50 million a year and didn't have much in the way of expenses because they didn't pay the staff very much. So they had plenty of cash do to what they wanted. I do remember when they bought Emporia, they took out a mortgage on "the farm." Weirwille made out like this was such a big deal to have this mortgage but worth it because of the opportunity to own the college. I don't think he was used to mortaging things. And when the mortgage was paid off - very shortly, like a couple years if not sooner - he cut up the document in the lunch room one day and we all got a piece to keep.

I don't mean to say this isn't sad, because it is. But it's also true that there's no such thing as a "normal family". This is true on an individual scale - the older I get the more I realize that all of the people I know, with "normal" mariages and families are all strange in some way or other. And it's true on a scale of society as a whole. The idea that a normal family had 2 parents, 4 grand-parents, 2.3 kids is a myth. I can't remember the name of the book that studied this but the author showed through research that throughout modern history the "norm" has always been ab-normal. In otherwords, you're in good company.

Belle, Yes. Someone died. It was you. The old you. And along with that death, you lost the hopes and dreams, and answers and aspirations the old you held near and dear. That's why it feels so sad. Unfortunately, those hopes and dreams etc were not real, and believing in them was not healthy. Moving on from them will give you a much better shot at the kind of life you want. It may not be fun or easy but it's more likely to be successful. The transition will go quicker and easier (to some degree) if you grieve what you lost as specifically as you can. If you try and deny there was any loss, that's it all now roses and honey, the old stuff will probably come back to bite you. Many find it helps to understand why they were attracted to that stuff in the first place. Why they allowed themselves to ignore the stuff they knew wasn't right. Therapy can be a big help for doing that. If you don't know what the original attraction was, you are at higher risk of getting in with a similar group (or way of thinking) in the future. Many here have moved out but not moved on. And divorce on top of that. Also not unusual but also painful - even if you were the one that left the marriage and even if it was for good reasons. Working through why you were attracted to that kind of marriage, and what you want next will be useful. I personally agree with you about the bible. I've been out since the mid-1980s (after being in for 15 years). Since I left I've never found the bible, or church of any kind at all appealing. But neither did I before I got in either. I think the biggest change for me is that I'm much more comfortable with questions and "mystery" when it comes to life's big questions than I am with answers or people who proport to know them. Keep on truckin as we used to say.

On the face of it, the idea that Practical Error Always Leads to Doctrinal Error is a ridiculous thing for someone who claims to be a christian to believe. Practical error would mean committing a sin. If it ALWAYS leads to doctrinal error that would mean that anyone who committs a sin is destined to teach or believe wrongly (depending how you define doctrinal error). That would seem to negate forgiveness and the ability to live a holy life in spite of being a sinner. Doesn't that go contrary to the fundamental idea of christianity?

Big difference between attitude affecting how you do what you do and assuming your attitude(Belief) can change things beyond your control without your intervention. Check out this interview with a scientist who studied "Luck" in Wired Mag

JM, Look at a thread called "The Political Dance of TWI" some of those Q&A are satirical but if you ask some of those questions of a twi follower, you'll be surprised which ones are not. The main thing is stay true to what you know in your gut is right. The problem is that there is a lot of emotion (or at least was when I got involved) and even sexual energy that makes it hard to separate what you want to be right from what you know is. Enjoy the journey.

I agree and would add one thing. Some people who do this know they are doing it and know what's going on. I think wierwille probably knew at some level (but he liked it so he didn't stop it.) Martindale was stupid. I don't think he even knew what games he or anyone else was playing. He just found a verse or a quote from the old man that felt good and hung on to it for dear life as his explanation.

WOW! there's a scary web site. The name "Liberating" with a logo of a sword. And the look in his eyes. Somebody is wound a bit too tight!

I agree completely. Add to that the fact that Martindale was (is) very unstable phsycologically. Not that the other players were healthy by any means, but he may have been the most unstable. Remember we look back at what happened and try to figure out some logic, reasons or motivation. But when it was happening these people were reacting from their inner emotional traumas - not playing out some methodical, logical plan. Regardless of what they said to justify it even to themselves.

You see this pattern all the time with leaders of every stripe - political leaders, moral leaders, business leaders. When someone is overly zealous instructing others the "right way" watch out.