WordWolf

This spun off the 1976 discussion, since I didn't want to derail the memories. It looks like some policies were the results of some things hippies were already doing in the late 60s/ early 70s. It looks like some policies were the results of some ideas conspiracy theorists were putting forth. It looks like some policies were just because they saved money or allowed pervs to satisfy their sexual jollies in any of a number of ways. So, a thread to discuss them all. What practices existed, and what were the most likely reasons FOR those practices?

In case it was missed, QT made this post a page back.

Technically correct, it was (almost always) a choice. You could choose to risk life and limb (and break the law) and hitchhike, or you could pack your bags and go home. But let's not oversimplify the situation.... IF you chose the second option- "pack your bags and go home", you were FIRST subjected to a face-melting session from AT LEAST ONE supposed "leader" of twi, who equated you with the scum at the bottom of the pond, for "turning your back on God" (refusing to risk your life and break the law by hitchhiking) and be given one more chance to avoid the disapproval of GOD ALMIGHTY, the entire leadership-especially lcm, vpw, etc, the entire staff-who will be told you were weak, scum, etc., and "your spiritual partners" (people like Oldiesman who would give you crap for not risking your life and breaking the law at their say-so) and to change your mind. If you elected NOT to do this even after the emotional abuse, then you better pack fast, because you're off the grounds immediately, and it's up to you to figure out how to get somewhere else, let alone where to go. Of course, people who were kicked out of the corps (because that amounts to being kicked out) suffer emotional trauma-which was the idea, after all, with the screaming session. At least one committed suicide for it. But the suicide, technically speaking, IS a choice. One is not forced to commit suicide just because one is made to feel like they've disappointed God Almighty and are fit only for death. That IS a choice. Nobody here, as far as I saw, ever said those were not choices. Pretending we DID say that is neither honest nor honorable. Not that this qualifies as news. Technically, that IS a choice. It's a horribly-slanted choice, and it's presented as if one means life, and one means a living DEATH- which is how they wanted it seen- but that IS a choice. You COULD choose to be made a pariah, an outcast, worthy to be trampled underfoot and not even worthy to eat dog food. That was ALWAYS a choice. For MOST people, anyway. Of course, T*m M NEVER had that choice for him and his wife- since lcm insisted on keeping HER on grounds because she made a dandy sex-slave. Small wonder why T*m M made the CHOICE to scream about it in public, how he could not "compete" with lcm, and why T*m M made the CHOICE to pick up a pistol and blow his brains out. All of those were choices, too.

Victim Mentality Propaganda has 2 meanings. 1) A process used to impede healing after one had been victimized by a perpetrator. 2) a label invoked to protect a perpetrator when someone's attempting to expose him- take the emphasis and the 'heat' off the criminal by blaming the victim. In this case, it's the label. Nobody's portrayed "everyone" as vpw's victims,and nobody's portrayed "everyone" as helpless. Therefore your label lacks merit. However, blanket terms like "everyone" are fairly reliable indicators that the speaker is busy making a blanket accusation rather than seeking to find the truth or convey the truth. Since I've never condemned "all that is twi", this claim lacks merit. Since I operate coldly and without hatred, the second claim lacks merit. And calling someone exposing crimes of twi "corrupt" while hiding the felonies of the criminals is more than mildly ironic.

Correct.

No, the concealment of evil thoughts and evil ways is intricately tied into your own defense mechanisms for that which you yourself saw and did, therefore you will NEVER see it because you work so hard at NOT seeing it. This is your own personal bias. Which means so much to the people who were leaned on into GOING corps....Some of them went in, some of them endured the squeeze. Even lcm had this pulled on him! (He documented it HIMSELF!) That rascal manufactured anything is DEFINITELY a lie. It's not a mistake due to misinformation- it was a deliberate attempt to change the subject by ADDING misinformation. Therefore, an INTENTIONAL lie.

The corps were REQUIRED to hitchhike. Even after vpw was aware that women were raped. Even after people DIED. vpw HIMSELF made people hitchhike. If you hadn't taken pfal, you were leaned on to take pfal.If you had taken pfal but not the intermediate, you were leaned on to take pfal. If you had taken the intermediate but not the advanced, you were leaned on to take the advanced. If you completed the advanced, you were leaned on to go wow. If you finished wow AND the advanced (either order), you were leaned on to go corps. What if you didn't go corps? Well, then the subject is dropped-today. Tomorrow it will come up again. And the next day. Some people were treated badly because they refused. Some were left alone after. Oldiesman refuses to admit some were treated badly because they refused. Did he NEVER see it, or was this "selective vision"? It happened either way-the only difference is in one case, OM was never around when it happened, and in other cases, he went out of his way to block it out of his mind when it happened right in front of his face. If that's true, then OM, in his own way, was just as much a victim as others- since his psyche was twisted into shapes it should not have taken, all as a coping mechanism to deal with evil men doing evil things. Of course, if that's true, he was a victim THEN, but now has chosen to perpetuate the cycle of abuse by inflicting inappropriate coping mechanisms on others. Then again, he just may have missed it all, and is using a different set of coping mechanisms to block CURRENT information ONLY. I don't know what VMP is, but I'm vehemently opposed to categorical whitewashing and excusing of vpw for what he did-and had others do.

"These were the times of "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" "GOD'S Smuggler" ,"Thirteenth Tribe", etc. It seemed as though we had moved on from seeing spirituality on a personal level (PFAL, Challenging Counterfeit, CF&S,etc. ) to seeing it on a national and even global level. Of course this sure made us all feel somewhat smug because we thought we were really seeing "The BIG Picture"." " We also had a food co-op which was mandatory . We bought in bulk, Made alot of our own items such as yogurt, mayo., familia and so on. we cooked the same preplanned meals in each house and ate as a whole group every day. These were the same communal living, survivalist type activities that were being experimented with in many other groups beside twi." Good questions. In fact, I'm spinning off a new thread....

Probably the obvious one. I Peter 2:13. 12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. 13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: 16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.

vpw himself was well aware it was dangerous. He knew this and blew it off. Don't believe me, I'm sure. I'm not sure I'd believe me either. Except I have him on tape volunteering his opinion on the subject. It's in the "Heart of the Way Corps" series. 7 tapes-he's the speaker on 2 of them. He brought up objections to hitchhiking in the program. He stressed that the hitchhiking is mandatory. Then he addressed concerns that had already been brought to his attention-he himself mentions that people had said that hitchhikers could be raped. (He specifies rape.) He blows it off completely-saying that they could be raped down in the valley near the program site (Green Valley? I'd need to check for the name he gave), and used that as an excuse to blow off concerns that they were being exposed to unacceptable risk. When I have time, I'll fetch out the tape and type out his exact words. As for LEAD, I'll accept that mandatory rock-climbing is a good idea right after ALL the top ministry people go thru the program. Anyone want to try to convince me that vpw himself climbed the rocks and hitchhiked? How about Howard Allen?

That would explain why he's so busy. Hasn't blown a trumpet in front of himself to be seen of men about it either. (Must not be why he's doing it.) Seemed ok a few days ago when I dashed him off a note. AFAIK, he is still READING here, even if he's not REPLYING here. Then again, he may just feel anything he was GOING to say in any thread was already SAID. Happens to me all the time.

I'll say what little I know-out of what little I'm willing to share. :) On the PLUS side, you have the chance to get to know about a person's attitudes and personality, with little or no consideration of looks, when beginning any friendship. Also on the plus side, those people who can be trusted are more likely to be more up-front and candid about themselves, for good or ill, when they don't have to look you in the eye. (Face-saving is almost instinctive in person, and harder to suppress.) So, you can learn early on what will NOT work, and what would be an "insurmountable obstacle." On the MINUS side, I'll add that-just because you've communicated with someone online for several months, AND met in person, is no guarantee that some devastating "secret" isn't lurking off-stage, ready to torpedo everything that looked unassailable. (Titanic, meet iceberg.) That's true of relationships and friendships both. And I'd say I've a fair number of friends I've met online, and a number of acquaintances, and a greater number I've never met face-to-face yet. In conclusion, I'm reminded of something Aerosmith said concerning relationships: "'Falling' in love is hard on the knees."

I admire the way you jumped in and directly addressed the question, with no hint of evasion, nor attempt to confuse, deceive, or otherwise obfuscate the issue. That having been said, I wanted to make sure there was a record of the post, in case you had a second thought and edited. NOT that you known for doing this sort of thing-quite the opposite, IIRC. However, I wanted to eliminate any later possibility of "he said, she said". Having said that, I'll be leaving this alone for now. (Partly to allow others to speak first, partly because I like to encourage people being candid.)

Clicking this to the top again...

Johniam, since you joined the discussion (kinda, since your reminiscances weren't of twi), you're free to answer this one as well. "IS IT TEMPTING GOD TO PUT YOURSELF IN A DANGEROUS OR COMPROMISING POSITION WHEN IT WAS THE POLICY OF THE CORPS PROGRAM?" I believe TOTW is entitled to a simple or direct answer-one that actually addresses the question. (Something like a 'yes' or 'no', for example.) From either of you, whichever checks in first. Alternately, you may try the following answers. A) "I don't think hitchhiking qualifies as 'dangerous or compromising'." or B) "I think the dangerous hitchhiking was not vpw's idea, so don't blame him!" or C) "I think vpw decided upon the dangerous hitchhiking, but he was unaware it was dangerous, so don't blame him!" Or you can pretend you didn't see the question. Or you can admit you saw it but refuse to answer it. Or you can obfuscate then pretend you answered it. You have plenty of options, there.

Great. The reason I asked is because you read it back in the early 1970s. I wanted to recommend reading it again now, with your current perspective. We discussed it here before, and I wanted to give you a fair chance to judge its contents again on your own, before recommending the thread where we dissected it. I think it would be more useful that way.

Any other recollections concerning 1976?

One question, alleycat- do you currently own a copy of TW:LiL? There's a reason I ask. And it's not the one you're thinking.

*checks* So it is. July 28 and everything. Almost New Moon.

MOST of us can.

Whether a rational, reasonable, fair person would call them twi policies is a DIFFERENT question. Board member A teaches everyone must be out of debt-mortgages included. No exceptions. Period. Local Leader B tells his local peons they must get out of all debt including mortgages. Local Peon C struggles and manages to sell off their mortgaged house, and rents a local house for slightly more than the monthly mortgage, and builds no equity. Local Peon D struggles and concludes they'll be driven into abject poverty (they're barely making it NOW) if they sell off their mortgaged house, which still has 5 years left on the mortgage-they can't pay it all off now. Local Peon D is subjected to lectures and face-melting sessions by Local Leader B. Local Peon D elects to not go into poverty, and retains the house. Local Leader B kicks out Local Peon D, declaring them "mark-and-avoid". Local Peon D-now "mark-and-avoid" appeals to Board Member A, explaining the situation. Board Member A lets the situation stand and sends a vague (non-responsive) answer, since if you obey leadership, "GOD WILL COVER". (Now, THAT was policy all the 90s people heard- except maybe Oldies.) So, Local Peon D has been kicked out for owning a mortgage. No written policy has been found specifying those with mortgages should be kicked out. Would a reasonable, logical person claim that Local Peon D was kicked out for violating an unwritten policy?

"Where the Word of God remains silent, he that speaks is a fool." -victor paul wierwille. In the absolute absence of ANY reference to him tithing, what is your basis for saying he DID? You're asserting- or more accurately, going out of your way to IMPLY BUT FAIL TO ASSERT that Abraham tithed. Burden of Proof is on you to show any case for him tithing. Otherwise, you're as sensible as the people who claim space-aliens keep kidnapping people and demand proof they are NOT.

Since Oldies hasn't the time or inclination (or both) to answer, I'll fill in the blanks for you. If you think a moment, the answer will be crystal-clear. Oldiesman left twi in the early 90s. He claims his PARTICULAR twig/branch was pristine and he never had ANY of the problems we saw. He claims the way things were in the 70s were always that way until the day they kicked him out. He claims having his family in and all together had no effect on any of that. He claims everything he ever got in writing represented 100% truth on matters, no matter what happened later. (Like the loy-alty letter.) In fact, all the draconian policies-except for Oldies leaving-never happened, no matter how many eyewitness accounts and audio clips say otherwise. Now, then, Bowling for Soup covered an SR-71 song which I feel is relevant. Here's the lyrics. "Debbie just hit the wall, She never had it all One prozac a day, Husband's a C.P.A. Here dreams went out the door, Once she turned 24 Only been with one man. What happened to her plans? She was gonna be an actress, She was gonna be a star She was gonna shake that foot On the hood of Whitesnake's car Now her SUV has become the enemy. Looks at her average life Nothing has been alright... since Bruce Springsteen, Madonna Way before Nirvana there was U2 And Blondie and music still on MTV Her 2 kids in high school They tell her that she's uncool Cause she's still preoccupied With 19, 19, 1985. She's seen all the classics at least a hundred times Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Fast Times At Ridgemont She rocks out to Wham! Not a big Limp Bizkit fan Never knew George was gay, Hoped they'd hook up one day Where's her fairy tale, where's her dream? Where's the quarterback From her high school football team? Where's her fairy tale, where's her dream? How many times will she ask herself What happened to me? (the rubber broke) ... When Bruce Springsteen, Madonna Way before Nirvana there was U2 And Blondie and music still on MTV Her 2 kids in high school They tell her that she's uncool Cause she's still preoccupied With 19, 19, 1985. She hates time / make it stop When did Motley Crue become classic rock She hates time / make it stop Bruce Springsteen, Madonna Way before Nirvana there was U2 And Blondie and music still on MTV Her 2 kids in high school They tell her that she's uncool Cause she's still preoccupied With 19, 19, 1985." The relevance, I trust, is not lost on you.

It wasn't in the Orange or White Books, therefore Oldies can claim it was NEVER taught by twi that SIT is required for salvation. "I didn't see it, it didn't happen!" Oldies is not aware that there WERE people who were very insistent. God help you if you flubbed Session 12 and the class coordinator was one of those "gung-ho" corps people! Then you were screwed! Off you get whisked off for 30 minutes to an hour and you will have LITTLE CHOICE about speaking in tongues or not! I'm sure he's never heard jokes like "Is this seat saved?" "Well, I've never heard it speak in tongues..." It was a short hop from "only saved people can speak in tongues" to "if you're never heard to speak in tongues, you're not saved", and LOTS of people crossed that line in the 80s, and MORE crossed it in the 90s. As for questioning that type of thing, that's "questioning leadership", and lots of people were subjected to screaming matches for that. Since Oldies never got one from leadership for anything stupid (neither did I), he concludes THOSE didn't happen either. Oldies didn't see them put the squeeze on him. You don't have this unwritten policy in writing. Therefore, it didn't happen. They didn't make your brother sell his house. Your brother didn't sell his house. In fact, you don't have a brother. [/sarcasm]