WordWolf

Seems that being a female member of the cult may be a matter of being "carefully taught." Here's one woman's story. A few women here may be reminded that vpw selected women who were already sexually-abused before deciding who to rape or molest because they're easier to victimize if they survived the earlier sexual abuse, because their sense of self is ALREADY broken. (For those who forgot, those "From Birth to the Corps" papers were used for that- one of vpw's attempts began, according to one poster, with him summoning her to him privately WHILE HE HAD HER PAPER IN HIS HAND.) http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Health/sto...7099&page=1 "As a member of an isolated polygamous sect in Arizona, Laurene Jessop says she was sexually abused by her father, who had four wives and 56 children, and mistreated by her husband, who was already married to Laurene's sister. After enduring a lifetime of desperation, she fled her home in Colorado City, Ariz., a town dominated by the group, called the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints." "From a very young age, everyone in Colorado City is taught that outsiders are evil. They wear old-fashioned clothes, and they fervently submit to the rules of Warren Jeffs, a man they call "The Prophet." Young girls are destined to be married off in their teen years to older men, who keep several wives. The girls are expected to bear many children and obey the sect's strict patriarchal rules. The FLDS split from the mainstream Mormon church in 1890 when it disavowed polygamy. Laurene returned to Colorado City to reconcile with not only the damage caused to her life by polygamy -- but her lost childhood." "As a teen, Laurene was married to an older man chosen by the sect named Val Jessop. He had already married Laurene's sister, so Laurene says she knew him "a bit." But she adds, "I always felt like I was an intruder." ""I was trapped. I felt like I had done my very best in trying to live my religion," she said. "I was taught that, the only rights a woman has is to be obedient to her husband."" "Val told Quiñones he wants the kids back -- and denied he is a polygamist. Even though he has two wives, he says it's "plural marriage."" "However, Laurene says her wounds from Colorado City run much deeper than her marriage to Val Jessop. She says her father sexually abused her. It started when she was in puberty, she said. "There would be several of us girls in the room. And he would come into the house and go around and kiss each one of the girls -- put his hand down your blouse -- say, 'Oh, looks like you're getting bigger, you know -- you're developing, you're coming along very well here,' " she said. "Then he would go to the next girl and give her a kiss, do the same thing, the next and on around the room." Laurene and 12 of her sisters reported they'd been molested, she says -- though the abuse stopped short of actual intercourse. In 1983, her father, Jack Cooke, pleaded guilty to sexual assault and went to prison for five years." "He said at the time he didn't view his fondling of his daughters as abuse. It wasn't sexual, he said, claiming it was "on the same premise as our religion." "I had the idea that I was the big boss," he said. "I believed those children were mine." He compared his position to a farmer with his animals. But he also said "every intimacy which I had with them, they understood perfectly that if I did anything they didn't like, to tell me and I would not do it." Laurene denies this. She says he told his daughters they "weren't normal if we didn't like it. And, that all men do that to their daughters." Cooke continued: "I'd say it was consensual, whatever we were doing. I was not imposing on them." When Laurene finally confronted Cooke, he greeted her by saying, "Hello. I want to feast my eyes on you, beautiful lady." She ignored his remark, and instead, asked him several questions she had carefully prepared for the moment. "Can you tell me in your own words what you did to me sexually?" she asked. He replied, "You know that you're one of those few, that I don't remember hardly touching at all." When she told him the explicit details, he responded, "I did?" But he didn't challenge her. "I won't call you a liar," he said. She continued: "I was a very tender age. I remember every smell. I remember every detail of it." The memories of her fear came back to her. "We weren't safe at home. We weren't safe at school. We weren't safe anywhere," she said." ========== "Meanwhile, the sect's iron grip on Colorado City may be beginning to loosen. A year ago, the county attorney sent special investigator Gary Engels there in search of criminal activity. He recently got eight men to surrender to face allegations they married underage girls. (All have pleaded not guilty.) He now has a warrant for the arrest of the sect leader, Warren Jeffs, on charges of forcing underage girls to marry. But he says he doesn't know where Jeffs is right now. "He travels with bodyguards and I'm sure they're probably armed. And, what their directive is -- and how they'll protect him, we don't know," Engels said."

I'd have to review this before knowing for sure if he used the term "possesso" or not. (I haven't had a chance yet.) "Like the rest of them" is an opinion. Nobody said they believed he was a "MOG who teaches 'The Word' and the way of peace." You just invented that claim, then objected to it. I object to it too-why did you invent it? You could have skipped it and given us ALL a break....

You are entitled to your opinion. Others consider RD to be a huge exception to the usual rules, since his responses were completely different, even then (he's not running an offshoot, nor fronting for one, nor advertising for one, and hasn't been.) But, you're entitled to disagree.

Got it in one! The quotes were from early on, when he pretended he'd studied the ship in history, how the bridge looked, wondered where Worf sat in meetings, etc. Go, George!

"Ah... this is wonderful. Actually, quite a bit larger than I thought." "Do you always sit there, on that side of the table?" "Usually. Why?" "It's not important."

Next movie.... "It is far easier to whisper advice from behind the scenes rather than risk its merit at the point of attack." "D*, I KNEW I was getting hosed."

Master Control Program! Abbreviated MCP, of course. I haven't seen this movie in a long time! Would you believe someone gave this movie a bad review simply because they overheard a small child come out of the theater, wishing aloud they could live in the world inside the computer? (I thought kids were allowed to use their imagination....) This has to be TRON. If he'd capitalized 'User', I might have gotten it sooner.....

George Orwell????

The episode is "the Arsenal of Freedom", one of my personal favorites. It's got Vincent Schiavelli as a computerized arms dealer, and it's one of those "this lesson has a moral" episodes- "the arms race is wrong!" but is fun despite that. One saucer separation, one "the Captain is on the Away Team! WHY!" and so on. One of my favorite scenes was Riker looking for Captain Paul Rice of the USS Drake. When a holographic impostor of Rice appears, and tries to question Riker, Riker starts giving him useless "information." When Rice asks him about the ship he's on- "The Enterprise, isn't it?" Riker says he's serving on a different ship, "the Lollipop." The impostor's never heard of it, so Riker gives him more information. "It's been recently commissioned. It's a Good Ship." How many OTHER chances do you get to hear a Star Trek crewman claim to be serving on The Good Ship Lollipop?

I think we all can understand this can feel like a thankless job. "Why don't I do something simpler, like carry water uphill in a sieve?" However, I think this is a tremendously good thing, and I'm hoping it can continue much longer. If you don't find that in your heart, however, I think we could understand.

Drake!

Actually, since it was about a supposed remark disparaging vpw, it applies. Any vpw apologist would jump in right where you did. (You're a grown adult-you can see this.) Of course, EVERY apologist claims they are "an apologist for truth." And, saying it "had NOTHING to do with Wierwille AT ALL" is not true. Are we supposed to consider it an astonishing coincidence that your posts of apologetics all just happen to arrive when vpw or his doctrines enter the room?

Actually, I prefer actually seeing what the Blue Book says, and what the Orange Book says, then seeing what Juedes said and seeing if they agree. First of all, vpw made it clear that his so-called "law of believing" worked just as well for the Christian as the non-Christian, and worked equally well for things there were no promises of God connected to. vpw's theology of the so-called "law of believing" made God either irrelevant- since either he was FORCED to bring to pass the results of any person's believing- Christian or non-Christian, or the results were equally effective without God, which meant God was superfluous. Thus, as vpw taught and wrote his so-called "law of believing", God wasn't needed- the "LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE" were forced to give people what they believed for. So, that part about Juedes is correct- vpw's system said God wasn't needed to receive- since the "believing" worked equally well without him. That means the system is independent of God, that no God, or god, is needed in the system. (Juedes explained that himself, but Oldies was too busy filibustering him to even CONSIDER whether or not it was correct.) Thus, the system is, technically, "atheistic." It matches other "belief" systems that don't require a God-or a god- to operate. As for working "like voodoo", I think that's an inaccurate representation of what Juedes said- feel free to prove me wrong on that, but be very specific if you claim it. Since Juedes was correct, shame on Oldiesman for continually LYING about it and refusing to admit that Juedes was right. I don't think it's bad for Oldies to have been wrong. His dysfunctional response- HIDE THE ERROR, SHOOT THE MESSENGER, and CLAIM TRUTH for KNOWN ERROR is just plain bad. I wouldn't bring it up, but he's trying to invent errors on Juedes' behalf again. He seems to have convinced someone it's true just through repeating it. That's sad. Oldiesman SHOULD know better, but when it comes to someone correcting vpw's theology, he REFUSES to see it. WD should be able to see the differences, too. However, he's too busy with his apologetics to see it- or possibly he DOES see it and refuses to acknowledge it. I don't think that's healthy for him.

Did I pretend he didn't say it, or was misinterpreted and was correct all along? I said he changed the meaning. I said shame on him. Are you holding out for a tarring and feathering? A) "Peanut gallery" is name-calling.B) I didn't say it, but you're mentioning it in response to MY post, as if I had something to do with it. C) That post began with admitting wc probably never said it, which WAS your point. D) You ARE engaging in "apologetics" for vpw. I don't see how that qualifies as an insult. If someone sees someone use their left-hand, and calls them a left-hander, is that an insult? I still haven't called YOU anything. You may or may not have called me "peanut gallery" or "second grade"- this post certainly suggests you are. Is misrepresenting my posts-and others posts, accusing them and me of insulting you, and calling US names the best YOU have? I adjust my opinion to match the facts, when the facts contradict the opinion. I've been doing that a long time.Even when I don't LIKE the facts. Because they are the facts. It gets tiresome to keep hearing the fiction that I keep trying to have "all things TWI" called "bad." Since I've pointed out, many times, I was glad I got IN AND glad I got OUT, I can't tell if that's someone skipping MANY of my posts, someone rewriting my posts in their mind (like adding comments from another person's post into mine) or someone intentionally distorting my posts (like adding comments from another person's post into mine.) BTW, I STILL don't see "name-calling"- except "like a grade-schooler" IS one. What are YOU trying to take the spotlight off at the moment? Oh, and what the books state do a fine job of discrediting what the books state.

"WHO'S 'scruffy-looking'?"

Your Honor, I am outraged! This court has not even considered the possibility that Nicole killed OJ! ====== A) Bullinger died in 1913. vpw was born in 1916. Bullinger could not have "borrowed" (or plagiarized) work that wasn't in existence while he was alive. B) Leonard had never heard of vpw. According to vpw's OWN accounts, vpw heard of him and took his class. Later in the same year, vpw FIRST taught "his" class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" (later renamed pfal.) According to Mrs W's own accounts, the classes were virtually identical- graduates of Leonard's class were AUTOMATICALLY considered graduates of vpw's class. This agrees with Leonard's account, by the way. C) Stiles had never heard of vpw. Supposedly, vpw met with him, and-according to vpw's OWN account- Stiles worked with him for a few hours. Later in the same year, vpw's book "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" is written, with material straight from Stiles' already-in-print book, complete with all Stiles' own phrasings. In the beginning of the first edition of "his" book, vpw alludes to Stiles without naming him, saying he found a man who made the Scriptures on that subject fit together. (Later editions drop the reference, and say vpw made the Scriptures on that subject fit together.) etc. Those reading our posts can tell we're concerned with the TRUTH being reflected-that vpw was a STUDENT of Leonard for a time, and a STUDENT of Stiles for a time, and bought all Bullinger's books, and then produced classes and books that were amalgams of the works of those Christians. We're not "pitting" anyone against anything. The plagiarism vpw did from the works of the other men has been demonstrated beyond any REASONABLE doubt. The only thing "pseudo" here is the idea that there's any REASONABLE question otherwise. And there's no "rivalry" when one person plagiarizes another-the plagiarizer is a "thief", the plagiarized is a "victim of a crime." They were never in the same room at the same time.vpw never stood as an equal with any of them when he interacted with Leonard and Stiles- he was purely a student. In the case of Stiles, he was a REMEDIAL student. vpw never met Bullinger and never met Kenyon-he just read their books. So, this meeting around a table is imaginary. As for the characters, there's no confusion. Leonard's class was taught for years before vpw heard of it OR took it. Leonard's class had Henry, Maggie and Johnny. Leonard mentioned them in the class vpw took. vpw retaught Leonard's class and told the students it was vpw's class, and used the same names. Is this in and of itself the most offensive thing? No, the entire criminal action is offensive. That he stole the names needlessly shows a lack of CARING about the CRIME he knew he was committing. (He'd been taught that in high school, college, and in Princeton Theological Seminary.) There's no argument, confusion, or disagreement when REASONABLE people look at what happened. It's EASY to follow the timeline. When a man can't understand that a man who died before a second man was born can't plagiarize the second man, I don't see the point in even TRYING to educate him on copyright and trademarks, or even "common knowledge."

Shame on John. He should have known that taking something, and changing its meaning to match your theology and say "this is what it really meant" is the exclusive domain of vpw. Even as an innie, I thought he was saying things the verses didn't say when he provided his "literal according to usage" things. Small wonder people would make up things and call them "translation according to misusage." Of course, lcm did it. I wonder if lcm STARTED it or just jumped on the bandwagon. In its own way, when he did it, it was a bit more honest, since it was obvious he was just saying whatever he wanted. One of lcm's examples: Galatians 5:9 (King James Version) 9A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. lcm's self-identified "translation according to misusage:" "A little leaven lumpeth you up good. He then went on directly to talk about when "you get your lumps." There was no smokescreen of "I wish you could see it in the original."

It is indeed!

When he said that, he was not being entirely deceptive. He was STILL deceptive, because we ALL learn a little here and a little there, which is what he said. What he DID was to take entire chapters, paragraphs and sentences, and reprint them with his name on them. That's not "learning" from others. And saying "lots of stuff I teach is not original" is so vague it conveys no information. ANY teacher teaches lots of stuff that's not original. The idea that he told us he lifted Leonard's class, Stiles' book, and nearly everything he taught fromthe book or class of another Christian- which IS what he did- rather than just say he learned a little from this person but had to add the Bible to it, and that one, but take out all the error is, simply, a fairy tale. He'll say it every chance he gets for life. vpw said different, contradictory, things to different people. He didn't think he'd get caught. And, during his lifetime, he wasn't caught to any real degree.

Of course I am. The claim was about THAT avenue of learning-that it came from the works of other people. If it did NOT come from the work of other people, there would be no plagiarism. I stayed on topic when answering that post. Exactly what the rest of the sentence said-by revelation. He didn't plagiarize the books of others and say "I wrote this." You're making some progress now, Sherlock! We all knew this, didn't dispute this, and considered this "common knowledge" around here. I'll give you another one for free: triangles have 3 sides. Well, since he was proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt to have gotten it from the books of other people, books whose authors all had the information before 1942, and most were in print by 1942, the supposed 1942 promise (scroll up a few posts for it again) was proven to be invalid. All the information was KNOWN since the first century-they were known in the 20th if not sooner. I'll give you another one for free. If you'd read a little more, you'd see I'd actually "run the numbers" on how divine revelation would have figured in on this one- and said the most LIKELY approach- IF-and ONLY IF- God Almighty was running the vpw show directly- then the easiest answer that accounts for what God tells man to do, would be to give text by revelation.

"You were the apple of the public's eye as you cut the ribbon at the local mall A mirage for both you and us. How can it be real?"

I'm reasonably sure this is the original series, but I'm not the best person to pick out most of the episodes.

This was one example where vpw redefined a word. In pfal, he said outright that in "apologetics" you "apologize" for being Christian. In actuality, the only one who took that phrase there was vpw. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics "Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics "Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity. The term "apologetic" comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), which means in defense of. Therefore, a skilled person involved in Christian or Bible Apologetics is a defender of Christianity. Those who engage in Christian apologetics are called "Christian apologists". Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defense of Christianity on favoring interpretations of historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines. This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (that is, common) Greek of the New Testament. The apostle Paul employed the term "apologia" in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he said, "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2)" http://www.carm.org/apologetics/intro.htm "The word "apologetics" comes from the Greek word "apologia," pronounced, "ap-ol-og-ee’-ah." It means, "a verbal defense." It is used eight times in the New Testament: Acts 22:1; 25:16; 1 Cor. 9:3; 2 Cor. 7:11; Phil. 1;7; 2 Tim. 4:16, and 1 Pet. 3:15. But it is the last verse that is most commonly associated with Christian apologetics. "....but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB). Therefore, Christian apologetics is that branch of Christianity that deals with answering any and all critics who oppose or question the revelation of God in Christ and the Bible. It can include studying such subjects as biblical manuscript transmission, philosophy, biology, mathematics, evolution, and logic. But it can also consist of simply giving an answer to a question about Jesus or a Bible passage. " =================== Did vpw not know that there was a specific meaning to "apologetics"? He graduated from Princeton Theological Seminary, a respectable school, for his Masters. Am I supposed to believe they NEVER taught him what "Christian Apologetics" is? Am I supposed to believe he graduated but didn't understand what "Christian Apologetics" is anyway? That's like getting a Masters in Psychology and being unable to explain the difference between Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. Is it more likely that vpw was educated in Christian Apologetics-at least the basics, knew what the word meant, and decided to claim it meant something else, in order to convince people that places like Princeton Theological Seminary (he called seminaries "cemetaries", remember) didn't have the answers they wanted, but HE had them instead?

WhatTheHey, Apr 17 2008, 3:39 PM (pg-6) vpw, "The Way, Living in Love", pg-177. "I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." Waysider: WTH: Actually, if you UNDERSTAND what he says, that IS one of the things he says. I shall explain. If you're learning something that is UNKNOWN, then you until you learn it, ZERO people on the Earth know it. We can all count to zero. If there are people who ALREADY know it, even ONE person, then it is not UNKNOWN. Therefore, if he claimed to learn something "as it had not been known since the first century", then he's saying that no person alive knows it, which means there's no authors WITH BOOKS IN PRINT for him to learn from (alongside the other readers of the books, alongside the people the authors taught personally....) Some people consider legitimate issues, and pretend they're not.

"You were the apple of the public's eye"