WordWolf

We were told to pack our bags if we had a problem

Hitchhiking!

Therefore, also being M&A in the process of leaving. So if that isn't cruel punishment for NOT

wanting to put yourself into danger doing what is expected of you, then your eyes are REALLY clouded over

of the cruelty of twi.

Correct.

Evil thoughts and ways are intricately part of your thoughts and emotions which is why that is all you see.

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.

This is your own personal bias. Ooodles of folks did fine without going corps and were thought of as God's best.

Some of them went in, some of them endured the squeeze.

Even lcm had this pulled on him!

(He documented it HIMSELF!)

You are off the wall ... manufacturing a supposed reality that didn't exist except in your own mind and perhaps some others.

Ooops I shouldn't think that was a lie should I. :o

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.

Folks who hitchhiked, freely availed themselves to hitchhike, dangerous or not.

TWI didn't make people hitchhike.

The corps were REQUIRED to hitchhike.

Even after vpw was aware that women were raped.

Even after people DIED.

vpw HIMSELF made people hitchhike.

TWI didn't force people to go corps.

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.

Good lawd, I am so vehemenently opposed to VMP.

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."

WordWolf,

When I read your response to my post a little light bulb lit up in my mind.

I had never really given much thought to how we may have been impacted by the communal living aspect of all this. True, there were many who never went WOW or WC, but they very likely interacted with people who did.

Was the "commune" experiance a plus or a minus? I don't know. Perhaps it is why so many of us feel the effects so many years later. Perhaps it is why we feel so compelled to band together and help each other.I know this may all sound like one "grande" derail but this communal thinking , I believe, may have something to do with how we thought and how we felt about what we thought in and around the bicentennial year.It may also explain why people will say"Geez Louise , why didn't you just walk away? and not understand the depth of commitment we felt toward each other.

Good questions.

In fact, I'm spinning off a new thread....

Did I mention it's also ILLEGAL? Didn't twi teach us somewhere that we are supposed to try to follow the laws of society? There was scriptural reference given I'm sure.

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?

Wusses?? WUSSES?? OMG John one of our posters here was abducted and raped repeatedly before she got away ...WHILE hitch hiking to lead.

I know of at least one corpes person who freaking DIED while hitchhiking to lead.

and those are just incidences that I have heard about...no doubt there were others :(

Good lord almighty ....what an ignorant thing to say about the people who suffered so grievously for following twi orders.

And I'm glad that your times were "without incident"... truly I am... BUT that doesn't mean that hitching isn't dangerous because IT IS... and I guaran-dam-tee you that those in authority knew it was as well...

It falls into the category of either tempting God (i.e. "let's see if everyone can believe to have safe trips") or they were too dang cheap to pay for transportation and they flat out didn't care if folks lives were endangered.

Either way, it sucks and it was wrong... it and a number of other things that were asked/expected of us at the time that had absolutely NOTHING to do with "moving God's Word over the world"...

It was arrogance and heartlessness on every plane of existence you can name...

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."

Today I think hitching is dangerous, but back then I hitched all over the country way before TWI. So did Evan, George, and probably several other GSers. By the way, the first recollection I posted was a TWI deal. I wasn't "ordered" to drive but c'mon. Emporia to someplace? That was while in TWI.

So NO, I don't think hitchhiking was "tempting God". Some of you are just wusses.

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...

WW---------Iwas in Fl of Ohio in 1976. If I stopped and thought for awhile I could probably recall several incidents. Mostly, though, what I do recall was the general tone of thinking at that time. We were really hellbent on the "urgency" of the times and the whole survivalist train of thought was rampant. In all fairness and honesty, I don't think this line of thought was unique to twi.

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 had a very large garden which we tended to every evening from about 6PM to 9PM and every saturday morning. Remember, we all worked "9 to 5" in the secular world. this garden was to be one piece of the self sufficiency plan.

(side note) IT takes awhole lot of swiss chard and turnips to feed fifty people. 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.

...

The difference between us and other groups doing this was that we, of course were doing it to save the world while others were doing it to save themselves.

BTW, OM, is it tempting God to put yourself in a dangerous or comprising position when it was the POLICY OF THE CORPS PROGRAM??????

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.

Yes, I do own a copy of TW LIL.

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?

I started with twi in the fall of 1973 as a freshman in college. I attended weekly twig meetings coordinated by one of those Rye Groovy Christians - a wonderful woman of God to this day! I took the PFAL class on film in April 1973. It was coordinated by C. Geer and was a lifechanging experience. Although I loved the twig meetings (strongest refreshment was juice and cookies), I was not interested in taking the class until I read TW - LIL.

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.

WordWolf, it's Friday.

*checks*

So it is.

July 28 and everything.

Almost New Moon.

I am continually amazed at the intensity of this discussion.

I can't understand why there would be such a dispute about what was or wasn't taught 30 years ago in a particular area. It was my experience that debt was seriously frowned on, giving time or money to another charitable group was seriously frowned on and that the only way to *prove* you were born again was to speak in tongues.

Now how these thing were enforced varied widely depending on the zealousness of the local leadership. Many good-hearted leaders looked at their people's hearts or just looked away. Others, the brown-shirts of the Corps and potential Corps, enforced the rules and unwritten rules with an iron fist.

It was the luck of the draw as to which one you had. I got out in '83 so I didn't see the walls closing in as many of you did.

I would think that after all these years we could agree that each of our experiences was unique.

MOST of us can.

I see what you're saying doojable, but I still wouldn't call them twi policies, even "unwritten" policies.

Happenings and experiences yes, but not necessarily twi policies.

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?

So your position is that because the bible doesn't say he tithed a second time, that means he didn't?

"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.

question oldiesman, are you in the way?

i mean are you actively participating in their programs?

if i had to quess i would venture that you are

at least, if you are invovled, you have the decency

to not fight or argue with those who are not

to disagree is one thing, and that is out of respect

please tell me what makes the way org have what other religions don't.

ive read lots of stuff here at gs and frankly most of it turns my gut

the way is not a true source of love imo, it seems to be a center of chaos and contention.

why pit family against family, parent against child, wife against husband, friend against friend

for a doctrine?

a creed?

a theology?

seems to me jesus said to love one another even as i have loved you

is his love not capable of sustaining all who call upon him?

is jesus selective in his love?

or is he absent in the way?

these are legit questions and if or when you have the time could you please answer

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.

waysider, had I ever heard anyone from twi imply that SIT was a requirement for salvation, I probably would have done just what doojable did, speak up about it. The matter was so clear in PFAL.

Now if some individual wants to believe within their own thought processes that a person they know isn't saved and since they didn't hear them speak in tongues, it only corroborates their belief... well.. that's up to that person. But twi didn't teach that as doctrine. I don't care if the person who believes it is 4th corps, they are still wrong. That was the individual having his own thoughts on the matter.

twi taught that SIT proves one is saved; they didn't teach that the absence of SIT proves one is unsaved.

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.

They made my brother sell his house.

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]

I don't know.

Does the bible say that Abraham just tithed once and didn't tithe again?

I'll play the "Oldiesman sidetracks the discussion" game.

Hebrews 7

"1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law,"

According to Hebrews 7,

Abraham gave a tenth-

of the spoils-

returning from the slaughter of the kings.

According to Hebrews 7,

this is different from the Levites, who take a tenth "of the people according to the law."

Was this a one-time thing Abraham did, or did he do it all his life?

"9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."

Looks like Abraham didn't pay tithes during the lifetime of Levi.

==============

What does the actual account say?

Genesis 14:

" 1And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of nations;

2That these made war with Bera king of Sodom, and with Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, and Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

3All these were joined together in the vale of Siddim, which is the salt sea.

4Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer, and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

5And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emins in Shaveh Kiriathaim,

6And the Horites in their mount Seir, unto Elparan, which is by the wilderness.

7And they returned, and came to Enmishpat, which is Kadesh, and smote all the country of the Amalekites, and also the Amorites, that dwelt in Hazezontamar.

8And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (the same is Zoar;) and they joined battle with them in the vale of Siddim;

9With Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and with Tidal king of nations, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings with five.

10And the vale of Siddim was full of slimepits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and fell there; and they that remained fled to the mountain.

11And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all."

Recapping in the closing verses,

"12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.

14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

15And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.

16And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

17And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.

18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.

19And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

20And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all."

Abraham tithed ONCE. To Melchizedek, of the spoils of war.

(NOT HIS INCOME.)

Abraham was called "The Friend of God."

YES, the Bible says Abraham tithed ONCE.

Find the SECOND TIME if you can find one.

Here's a hint: look for the word "tenth" or "tithe" in Abraham's lifetime.

Heck, throw in "firstfruits" just for fun.

If you find ANYTHING relevant to Abraham tithing

(which wasn't already mentioned), sing out.

Here's another hint: I already looked, and it's not there.

Abraham tithed ONCE. To Melchizedek, of the spoils of war,

not his income.

Oldies,

why did you ask this question when you have decades of training in how to

read the Bible, and understand it, and supposedly remember things more fairly

than the rest of us? Shouldn't you have found the results and returned to educate us

as to our failure to read and understand it correctly-

IF YOU COULD FIND AN ERROR?

Or was throwing a question into the discussion your goal?

..Copied from Lorna's Post

"This is all hearsay bs. I also baby sat, right up until the time I left. I was always asked and never made to feel guilty if I said no. I used to do things for the branch coordinators and they were always thankful and never expected me to do them. I would fold laundry etc. It was my choice. So I really don't believe some of the bs here being "unwritten" policy. Alot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time. I would attribute them to bad habits rather than "unwritten mandates" and a waste of time to even talk about. The past is past put it behind you, I'm sure there are more serious things to talk about here.

And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us."

Hi Lorna,

Certainly I see in your post that your experience was far different than mine, and different to many others who post here in general and specifically on this thread.

I'm actually envious in a way that your experience with the interpersonal relationships seems to have been on a positive, mutually beneficial plane.

As to whether or not you be lieve that "A lot of these things that were said to believers were not mandates by TWI, but individuals who went overboard. Oh well, we are not all perfect people. Perhaps they were doing their best at the time." I can't agree with you there.

I posted, initially, with a blanket of sarcasm because it still annoys me. But, as to *just* the babysitting: I was *compelled* because I was put in a position where it would have been extremely hard to say no, and the one time I did, I received a reproof session far in excess to what might have been required. Since no reproof should have been required at all. But, during my time in TWI as a married person, and the few months I was separated before leaving finally--the assumption of babysitting was a "policy" acted upon by two separate sets of LCs, three different sets of BC's, and I experienced it in two states. In one case, I ended up being the primary childcare giver (when the corps couple had to return to secular work), and when I mentioned compensation I was told that was a "devilish, hard-hearted thing to say." Because giving in service was my great privilege.

So...that's five couples, not all from the same corps, trained by twi, three of the men ordained ministers, and yet, the "policy" was shockingly consistant. So, let's just say then, that it wasn't a policy, but it certainly was something that was both understood and accepted. And, the reasons given for doing it, and the consequences for NOT doing it were also shockingly consistant.

I remember when the mortgage issue came to a head here. I was, because of my role as insta-babysitter, witness to one of the "sell your house, get out of debt, or get out of here" sessions. It was brutal for the couple who endured it, I'm sure...and all the threats of bodily destruction and familial devastation were trotted out. It scared me. The husband finally had enough. He took his wife's hand, they left the house, and were announced as M&A at the next session of HF.

Finally, as far as "a waste of time to talk about."

Again, I respect your opinion, but I would suggest that different people seek out healing and understanding in their own way. I haven't seen this thread get blown up to the level of "Hearsay BS" that you've called it. I don't know if we all agree that there were abuses, and yes I use the word intentionally, perpetrated by twi, but I *do* believe that. Even in these "small, insignificant" ways, the continued pattern of control and dominance bled down from the top, and it takes people time to process that and work it through.

Therefore, I'm not sure talking about it is a waste of time.

I thought a great deal about your use of the term b*ll..... It's a strong opinion and an inflammatory term, guaranteed to elicit a strong response. During my time in twi, I saw plenty of "small things" blown off, and derisively dismissed as "b*ll....*, and have since come to question any argument which makes light of another person's personal experience.

We're talking here, in context, about our experiences in twi and I'm trying to limit my response to that. When you say "the past is the past, put it behind you." Instead of using this thread to whip up old resentments and add fuel to a fire, I believe many posters are trying to do just that, and using the old, well-worn mechanism of shared experience to do it. Sometimes you just have to voice things before you can put them away, or process them.

I was deeply affected by how I was treated by leadership--these were the people we were told stood for twi, represented them, and since the ones who took advantage of me most are still involved at the leadership level, I am afraid I must disagree with you in full, and say that twi does back these unwritten guidelines, and there is a tacit agreement to the items which go on.

I hope I haven't offended you. Apologising for my own thoughts and reactions--even when something's not my fault--is a trait I picked up in twi, and haven't overcome yet. But...I'm trying.

Regards,

QT

And you don't throw people out for having a mortgage, we had and still have a mortgage and no one ever implied that to us.

I don't know what part of the country you lived in, but this was definately mandated in our area. The most obvious abuse of this "unwritten policy" regarding mortgages was during the time a new couple was coming to our fellowship. They were signed up for the class and we were awaiting "5" more to sign up for them to go through (or whatever number it as at that time).

This couple owned a gorgeous house out a little ways in Anna Ohio. Just georgeous, with a hill going down their backyard and a great big jungle gym for their kids and an abundance of land.........and then the person who was "undersheperding them" began to talk to them about the NO DEBT POLICY of TWI. The NO MORTGAGE POLICY of TWI. Now mind you, the wife of the HFC who was responsible for getting their money............er, uh, oops I mean "undershepherding" this couple had gotten an inheritance when a family member died. They paid their car off, bought another one and paid their house off.

These HFC's were NOW the shining example in our area of a couple DOING the Word when it came to the NO DEBT POLICY.

Moving on, the couple with the gorgeous home, was finally convinced to sell it and take the money and buy another outright. What they ended up buying, with persuasion from HFC and his wife and the BC was an old "fixer-upper". Oh my God, this brick building was so run down that it was not even "habitable" at the time they bought it and when we the fellowship when over to oooo and ahhhhh over their great believing I was in total shock. I will never forget that day and what I was thinking and probably should have said at the time.

Now I know this new couple was a grown couple, and should not have been persuaded by these TWI kooks to do this, but somehow it happened. (who here cannot say they were never schnookered at one point or another by TWI) The pressure from the top down towards us peons to apply the PRESENT SPEWTH was incredible. As far as being booted out for not following these "unwritten policies" you knew that it was coming down the pike the longer you questioned, bucked and rebelled. If you made it through your first or second "face-melting" and got called in for a third one, you better bet you are going to be told to pack up and get out of the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word" tent city. You guys that were around late 90's early 2000's knew that there was to be no murmurings in the tents against TWI or leadership.

We were taught that if one of us screwed up in the promised land, then that could affect or kill another believer. I heard this teaching in a STS - hah no guilt there huh? I don't remember the scripture, but it was in the old testament and we were taught that it applied to us because we were the spiritual ones allowed into the "Promised Land of the Prevailing Word." They compared our spiritual understanding to being in the physical realities of the Promised Land in the old testament. If it wasn't said out right (and I don't recall one way or the other), it was HEAVILY IMPLIED during that STS and other meetings to follow after LCM announced one night that we had truly indeed "ARRIVED" in the Promised Land of the Prevailing Word.

It was a much more intense commitment that everybody in the ministry was supposed to make. It didn't have to be written down because we lived it everyday.

Back to the couple who sold their house.......they never took the class.........and were really really really ....ed off when they walked away from fellowship.........

I wonder if TWI got 10 or 15% of the money that this naive couple got off of selling their beautiful home and land. And yes one was expected to tithe just as soon as they got that check from selling their homes.

"I always thought that "tithing" was part of Mosaic Law... that it had no place in the Grace administration... that Jesus only referred to it a couple of times because he was living under Mosaic Law at the time... "

About your statement above -

What was taught when I was in twi was that tithing was instituted with Abraham which was before the Mosaic law, so it transcended the law and still was God's will after the law administration.

That's what twi taught me as well-about Abraham.

However, the previous statement is true-regardless of what twi taught.

Raf mentioned this earlier.

"According to the Bible, Abraham tithed once, and not of his income, and was called the friend of God.

Well, shucks, I tithed once too. Guess I'm covered."

dmiller's response:

"Right. He tithed to Melchizedek once

(from the spoils of war --- Genesis 14).

NOT from other income. "

If twi really DID hew to what the Bible taught-

instead of flying upon the spoils and maximizing the "pass the loot" strategy,

you would have been taught THIS, instead.

A so-called "policy" may be nothing more than a request that, if an individual couldn't or wouldn't do it, would be a request and it would end right there.

Example:

One supposed policy mentioned was "always obey your leadership", or "never question leadership".

At times I did.

Just one example.... one day, my tc wanted me to drive him, on the back of my motorcycle, to Albany for some meeting he had to attend. At first I told him ok, but then the day arrived and it was cloudy, and I got an uncomfortable feeling about it, so I told him no. He was quite perturbed, even called me an a-hole. And that's the end of that story.

I also have letters questioning top leadership and responses back.

Bra-vo, Oldies.

You can recall some incidents in the 80s when you disagreed and werent blasted.

THOSE incidents are not ALL incidents.

Since YOU didn't see them, that does NOT mean OTHERS did not.

You were never drugged by vpw-does that mean NOBODY was?

This is NOT a difficult concept for most people.

Further,

supposed leadership "being perturbed" (I'm picturing YELLING involved-

was that a nice word for "he went into face-melting mode?"

BTW, "face-melting" was lcm's term, not a GSC invention-

he called it that.

Is leadership entitled to call disagreeing people who VOLUNTEER under

him "a-holes"? Is this acceptable behaviour to you?

"And that's the end of the story."

Weren't living on grounds, I take it?

If you had this same disagreement with vpw himself,

you would have been off-grounds within the hour.

If you had this same disagreement with lcm himself,

you would have been off-grounds within the hour.

If the "leader" had connections and you didn't,

they might have stopped for now.

But now, the wheels have just BEGUN to turn when you're not looking,

and things "coincidentally" all seem to work AGAINST YOU.

Nothing you can say "you're all being a-holes to me because I

wouldn't bend over for that staff leader twit" about,

not with any guarantee it wasn't all a "convenient" coincidence.

As for elsewhere, similar things might happen, depending on who

was in charge.

Most of twi in most of the 90s, disagreeing with leadership ANYWHERE

was a ticket to "mark-and-avoid" land, and you were kicked out.

Some people here WERE kicked out for refusing to conform when

face-melted.

If you ask twi what their policy is, they'd tell you.

They may even recommend some stuff... but it was up to the individual believer to decide for themselves what's best.

"Dear twi:

I was wondering.

Is it twi policy that the president of twi is entitled to drink alcohol in

large amounts daily, claim the work of others is his own,

and to rape the women of the congregation, and kick out any woman

who looks like she might tell someone?"

"Dear Joe Believer:

It is not and has never been a policy for twi to ever approve of or do

any of that."

"Dear twi:

Well, your word is good enough for me!

Glad we had this little chat!"

================

"Up to the individual believer to decide for themselves"....

which, in the 90s certainly,

meant

"conform or accept all the social sanctions for refusing to conform,

all the confrontations, all the rumours they spread smearing your name,

and the recommended ostracism of you by leaders".

Technically, that IS a choice.