WordWolf

Around 1971, one of the participants gave this description. (TW:LiL, pg-43-44) "The Corps program is the best. To live here and have the Doctor work with us is extraordinary. He allows us to see the ministry through his eyes. He shares everything with us. And sometimes it's a bummer. But he lays it out. The idea of the Corps is to transmit the commitment and dedication of the ministry to us so that we can teach others where he can't be himself. It works by osmosis here. I can't quite express it in words, but I can feel it and see it and know it. It's learning to be keen and sensitive to the spirit of God anywhere and anytime. We are really privileged to be able to do this here. I'm not saying this is the only place it can be done. It's possible to reach that point of knowledge and zeal anywhere if people work the Word and renew their minds. But this, the Corps program, is the fastest way. What we learn here in two years would take ten to fifteen years in the outside world to learn." Far from an objective position, but it's exactly the impression vpw wanted broadcast at the time the book was written, so that's approximately the documentation of an advertisement made in that year. So, that's what he was SAYING it was at the time.

I almost linked back to Superman 3.... Now, how's THIS for a link? Pootie-tang Chris Rock Dogma

He also downgraded "sin" into "broken fellowship". As Raf has pointed out, "broken fellowship" is ONE CONSEQUENCE of sin, not the same as sin. Taken as an aggregate, the sum total of what he said on sin was FAR more in terms of encouraging permissiveness than mourning and refraining from sin. Not that beating people with a terror and complex over sin is a goal either, but most Christians have a much healthier position than the 2 extremes. We don't have to choose between "the leader can rape the women because he doesn't condemn himself in that which he alloweth" and "you can never, ever make the slightest mistake or you'll be a greasespot by midnight". We've been delivered from BOTH of those.

If you count a few people who don't post daily, he IS idolized, no qualifiers. Let's try to keep names off the threads of people who haven't consented to tell their stories here, though, 'kay? ======== Based on this recollection, that possible story sounds a lot more probable.... Dot: "When I laid out some word to VPW on adultery his response was "What so ever things are pure...think on those things" He said it was MY THINKING evil is what made it evil. He also told a small group at Emporia one night to teach their children about their bodies, "you can brush their nipple with your hand and show them how it hardens. You can show them not to be ashamed of their body reactions" Then he shared about the African Tribe where the Father broke the hymen of the daughters to get them experienced in sex to prepare them for marriage --he thought it to be beautiful. VPW had already let me see his dark side. Sitting there I thought OH MY GOD, this is subtle but he is teaching this group that it is beautiful to teach your daughters how to have sex, it is just not accepted in our culture! He was standing behind his sex problems and setting us up to have sex with our godly "family" as well as the earthly one."

[WordWolf responds in brackets and boldface, and trims down the original post.]

Adds spacing and punctuation to the post... Your choice what to go into and not, but if you can tell us some of it while leaving names and obvious identifiers out, it might be very useful to someone or other here. So, if you can be persuaded to share a bit more? (If not, hey, thanks for what you've shared so far.)

Tommy Flanagan, aka the Pathological Liar, aka the Liar. His most famous claim was his marriage to Morgan Fairchild.

You presented the "orthodox vpw" position on adultery and whether or not it's ok for us to commit it. That position follows up by dismissing all clear OT passages and all Gospel passages as "different administration." (And there's people here who would STILL say that-whether or not they would elect to POST it.) Therefore, the "obvious" response from the "orthodox vpw" position would have been dismissing the Proverbs acct, and then the Gospel acct, as invalid due to administration change. Rather than wait for someone to make what's the "standard" response before replying to it, I saved time and replied before the fact. (That makes it a general refutation of the "orthodox vpw" position.) Technically speaking, you personally had not posted that yet. When I was saying "you", I didn't mean "Tom", I meant "anyone holding this position"- a more general "you". I should have made that clearer-but most attempts would still have looked like I meant "Tom" no matter what I said. Please keep in mind- if you're going to use the same answers vpw gave, you're likely to get the same answers vpw would get if he were alive and posting them here. Healthy communication is a 2-way street-which means both of us need to be alert.

When you mentioned what was done to women, you made it clear you weren't condoning it. When you presented vpw's "argument", you made NO such distinction. Therefore, if you were not endorsing it, you gave the impression you were-so don't blame me for responding accordingly. If you want a more casual discussion as to whether a particular passage may or may not mean what vpw claimed it meant, we have those on separate threads in Doctrinal. And we phrase them more clearly. I myself had 2 different threads a few months back, examining 2 different bizarre claims of vpw, and I labelled them clearly-I wanted to know if there was Biblical justification for either. On each, we had an interesting discussion. Nobody thought I was holding forth either one.

Correct! For those who don't know the movie in their sleep... that was when they went to rescue Morpheus. They were wearing long jackets and carrying bags over their shoulders. Weighed down with machineguns and machinepistols and stuff. So when he reached the security checkpoint, Neo opened his jacket and showed a BUNCH of guns as he drew. Go, Ca D!

New movie. "Could you please remove any metallic items you may be carrying, keys, loose change... ..Holy sh*!"

I'd say that factors in less than you're describing. I myself agree with the some of the material in "his" teachings. Very few people would place me on the "pro-vpw" side of discussions. (I'd say harming me figures into the fantasies of a few "pro-vpw"ers by now...) I believe that was the answer that was given. I believe that this is unBiblical, and was NOT the main reason. (Oil and falafels...) It was an immoral and unethical doctrine. It was unBiblical and unChristian. Therefore, it could NOT stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, hide it. Proverbs 6:20-33. 20My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother: 21Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck. 22When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee. 23For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life: 24To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman. 25Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. 26For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life. 27Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? 28Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? 29So he that goeth in to his neighbour's wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent. 30Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; 31But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. 32But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. 33A wound and dishonour shall he get; and his reproach shall not be wiped away. ====== They didn't "handle" it because it's not "handle-able". Next you're going to say "that's Old Testament". So I'll check in with my Lord. John 8:2-4, 10-11. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. ==== He called it a SIN and said to stop. Next you're going to say that-although it was our personal Lord that said this, there was an administration change and now it's ok. Romans 2:1-23 1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. 2But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. 3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? 5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there is no respect of persons with God. 12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. 17Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? Adultery dishonours God in ANY "administration." Galatians 5:16-21, 25 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. ==== That's the first 4 works of the flesh right there-including adultery AND fornication. The diametric opposite of the fruit of the spirit. II Peter 2:13-15 13And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; 14Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: 15Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; ===== There's the "adultery-sin" connection again. How about the word "fornication?" I'll skip the before-Pentecost references to save time. Acts 15:19-20. 19Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. Acts 15:28-29 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication[/b]: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Romans 1:28-30 28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, "Reprobate mind": Greek for "void of judgement", couldn't find the right thing with a GPS locator. "convenient": Greek for "proper". Quite a list of evil things fornication is listed with... and they're all the result of a mind void of judgement. I Corinthians 6:9a 9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Funny how God keeps adultery and fornication in the lists of sins.... I Corinthians 6:13-19 13Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. 14And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. 15Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? ========= Seems pretty clear that fornication is a sin-and a sin against his own body. Complete picture AFTER Pentecost on adultery and fornication? "Bad things. Do not do them." Actually, YES-talking ONLY about meat. Behold the context! I Corinthians 8:1-13 (the entire chapter) 1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 7Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. ========= Looks like it's a chapter about our liberty in EATING FOODS OFFERED TO IDOLS. And why we shouldn't anyway. What else is it about? NOTHING ELSE. Obviously going to have to get really tricky- we saw a mighty list of after-Pentecost against adultery AND fornication. It's a "plausible case" only when you're willing to discard the MANY CLEAR verses for the few unclear verses. Bullinger (and thus vpw) said that was a big no-no. And it should be self-evident that Bullinger was correct. That would be the wording used by them. However, it's incorrect, as we can all see. This was not a "plausible explanation." The inner circle was "conditioned to believe anything that Wierwille told us." And those who might look this stuff up were told not to. At least one person got kicked FROM the corps for making a corps paper on adultery. Ever see this? http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm Schoenheit got canned over this. There was an EXCUSE, a PRETEXT, but it was NOT going to stand up to scrutiny- thus the HIDING. I think he believed it long before he taught it to staff and corps. After all, he believed it when he went to the House of Acts, since he let it slip to J1m D**p that God was ok with orgies. Some believe he was specifically trolling for Biblical answers at the time, and others may say he specifically brought it up because he was trying to find PARTICIPANTS. I believe he believed it before ever introducing the Bible, and singled out verses that could be made to suggest he was right. Then he hid that from the majority of people, and taught it to the most loyal of the loyal. (He winnowed them out of the corps-which meant he was sifting from among the loyal.) People believed him because he had "an understanding of the Bible unequalled since the first Century Christian church." Bingo. 20 points. He still had the strength. Doesn't mean he "was still in fellowship with the true God." He was in violation of the Mosaic Law at the time. You almost lost me, but I think I agree.

*sends Bluez a pm*

Calling for memories in the 1977-1980 bracket now...

I appreciate you wanting civility in discourse. I prefer it as well. However, I think you're putting the emphases where they don't belong-if you REALLY want to know what's drawing up the "sides" here. See, this moment, no one's lining up to defend rape or rapists- but they HAVE done so previously here. Some people may occasionally SAY they think vpw's comments were appropriate- but those comments aren't actually germane to the discussion, because they're not the reason to "defend vpw" they are presented as being. Further, I never HEARD the secret sex doctrine back then because I was not part of the privileged few who was deemed able to keep the secret. So, I heard the PUBLIC comments, the press release-which was "marry so you don't end up having sex outside of marriage." Not a problematic answer-but also a misrepresentative answer. vpw was telling people very different messages in PRIVATE- and telling them to keep them SECRET-inventing the term "the lockbox" to describe hiding his secret doctrines. So, first of all, I find SECRET doctrines highly suspect. WHY keep it secret? Second of all, their message contradicts the PUBLIC message. That's completely independent of finding NO PLACE in the Bible that actually justifies the secret doctrine. Are we conflicted and think vpw was actually right in the secret stuff? Doubtful-is someone here really thinking that God Almighty gives us permission to attend orgies? Or commit adultery? Or have sex outside of marriage? A number may think that God isn't going to drop on them like a falling safe for doing what he disapproves of- but that's a long way from "God's ok with it." ========== I think that focusing on whether or not vpw was justified in saying it was fine (SECRETLY) to cheat on one's spouse and have orgies or casual sex is a lot like focusing on the affects of the amount of oil that Hezbollah uses on their falafels has on their policies. That is, compared to the REAL sources of things, it's really a non-issue. People aren't "defending wierwille" because they agree with his doctrine- they're "defending wierwille" because they don't want their precious memories tarnished. They're not stupid enough to say (mostly) that everything he said was actually RIGHT- so they redirect the conversations. vpw's rapes are no longer about a minister of God using premeditation, selecting rape targets, raping women, and covering his tracks. The discussion becomes [sarcasm] about why women didn't shoot him when he did anything-and not owning a gun is just an 'excuse'. Since they didn't shoot him, they must have wanted to be raped, they must have been complicit-unless they're all lying, which of course they all are. [/sarcasm] Another acceptable gambit is to portray vpw as a hero for standing up against sexual mores of our time-which, incidentally, fairly represent Biblical morals. Thus, a moral relativism is pushed. Is that because they approve of moral relativism? NO- on everything ELSE they're "fundamentalist." The moral relativism is an EXCUSE, a PLOY. The reason is "defend wierwille at all costs." The reason for THAT reason is "defend my precious memories at all costs." Is it a fear of facing the reality behind the good old days, or is it a defense mechanism hiding actual events they're hiding from? Each "vpw defender" would have their own reason. But this "I want vpw treated fairly" is a conversational PLOY. They want vpw to have carte blanche to have done all he did and have it be ok- because then everything THEY did in response is ok. Personally, I prefer it when they can just come right out and admit that- which hasn't been lately.

I wondered that, too. (The "yes-no" phrasing, anyway.) I also wonder if you considered that nowadays some people will get offended that you presumed all the answers would either be male or female, with no other options. Not me, and maybe not any particular posters here at the moment, but it's possible.

Unmistakeably "Lost Boys". Got their hopes up when he mentioned getting a TV Guide, since they figured there was a tv SOMEPLACE. Me, I loved that "his" drawer in the refrigerator was clearly labelled. "Old Fart". :)

Figures someone would beat me to it. Happy birthday, dude.

There are a few different answers to that, and they depend on a few variables. Do you mean in the 70s, 80s or 90s? Do you mean "grew up in the home of members", or "grew up living near a 'Root locale' at home", or "grew up AT a Root locale as Family Corps or staff or whatever" ? The answers varied depending on those.

That's attributed to Edmund Burke. However, I can't prove he actually said it. Your point, however, was made.

Raf and I used to trade stories. (While we were in twi, of course.) I was raised Roman Catholic, he was raised Watchtower Society. Fun for us at the time, but if you'd overheard us, you'd have sworn that between the two of them, they were going to destroy Christianity AND Western Civilization. But we both picked up a lot about the other group. I had the unfair "advantage" of copies of "Babylon Mystery Religion" and "The Two Babylons" on hand. So, yes, he told me back then that this is how the tracts get financed.

That's "Babylon Mystery Religion." Ralph Woodrow's followup "the Babylon Connection?" is a must-read-- it's the same writer explaining why "Babylon Mystery Religion" was full of error. And "Babylon Mystery Religion" is the user-friendly version of Alexander Hislop's "the Two Babylons", which it properly footnotes and endnotes. lcm probably never learned all the errors were errors. Yes, AFAIK, their salvation is dependent upon works, and is in hazard of revocation if they stop. Further, they buy the tracts and occasionally get a donation to recoup the expense.

No, vpw did not rip that one off of the Watchtower Society. He ripped it off Bullinger, who wrote books like "the Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" (Compare to "Are the Dead Alive Now?" which even uses the same question-format in the title.) http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/ I don't know who Armstrong stole it from. As for JCING, it's been suggested that was from Leonard.

Your avatar is FINE. If you want a DIFFERENT avatar, though, there's nothing wrong with getting a new one.