WordWolf

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]

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?

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.

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. "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.

[Or they might be the perfect excuse to claim they never existed. Example follows:] [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. I DID, however, get a pointless lecture from someone in-residence AS corps, who obviously was trying to REHEARSE the face-melt. I tried to reason for a moment, then stopped when it was obvious he was not in listening mode. So I let him go on, and when he was done, I simply said "You were waiting all week to give that speech, weren't you?" and he relaxed after I didn't force him to fit into any specific "role", like authoritatian leader or questioned leader or what-have-you. Never apologized-just pretended he never made the speech.] [sINCE some leaders DID get that simple concept wrong, and that keeps eluding Oldies, it does not surprise most of us that plenty of things went on that Oldies never saw and asserts they never happened.] [And if you DID have it in writing, we move on to the next phase, creative reinterpretation of the printed text.]

Highlights from pg-9-11. Dougie73: "I do know VPW taught a live Christian Family & Sex class in lower NY. He showed a clip of a porn at it called "DOG Day Afternoon" Well need I say what it was about ?! I was shocked when I first heard this and it was used as an example to demonstrate how the devil perverted the beauty of sex. I think it was in the early 70's & it was much to much for the students at this camp where they met . It really freaked some of the students so it was never repeated again. Are there any early day wayfers who were there ? I remebered that reading this thread & the person I know that took it was a teenager at the time ! Anyone here ever hear about this. I don't think I would want this ask this person now to recall that memoery so I'll you my friends on the "talk radio of ex-wayfers' to comment! I better "renew my mind" so I can get this posting out of my head now !!!!!!" Skeptical Texan: "If I had been one of a victim of his sexual appetites, perhaps I, too, would ascribe his motive for offering CFS to his sexual lusts. But I don't think it was that. I ascribe his motive for offering to CFS to revenue generation. Seriously, I think the purpose of CFS, and TWI generally, was to make money. VPW may have been evil, but he wasn't stupid. VPW's sexual appetites, and whatever scriptural justifications he made related to them, had to be kept private or any normal person would have left. Then he'd lose the money and access to young women. Promiscuous behaviors and the doctrines justifying them were lockbox for Corps and other Wayfer insiders. I certainly was never privy to them and I don't recall any such justification in CFS (and, being single, I was listening carefully.)" Valerie: "I thought the class was disgusting. I also felt, as GOEY does that it was a class for VP to get every woman in the mind frame to worship the men's penis, thus ATEMPTING to make us promiscious. It only ....ed me off. I also felt that he was very demeaning to women and I just hated the class. It depressed me and made me cry every f***ing time. I think I had to suffer throught it maybe 3-4 times. Then of course I cannot forget the wife who's name rymes with Boynihan, that told me that we are here only to give pleasure to our man even if it hurts. what a stupid b***tch."

Some highlights from the other thread.... (pg-1-pg-8) Zix: "CF&S was an unusual class--they didn't give a syllabus when I took it. The first part was the "Family" part, man head of household, children unruly, etc. Those verses and the like. Second part was the sex part. VP runs through all these slang terms for genitalia because "you can't minister to someone if you don't understand what they're talking about" Roll Eyes (Hello? Word of Knowledge, anyone? Oh well...) He shows diagrams of all sorts of different breast and penis shapes (which drew laughter from the women in my class, "Look, honey! There's yours!" (My TC's wife)) Mrs. Wierwille is there and she looks embarrassed and miserable, wanting to be anywhere in the world but on that set. He has Dr. Winegarner talk about some physiology, tells women how to spit-lubricate their partner if necessary, makes an offhand reference about masturbation preferable to being unblessed with sex, etc., etc. Ick. I feel like I need a shower just remembering all that stuff. My TC told me VP used to use married Corps people for live demonstrations of the positions, but had to stop because it was freaking the students out. Don't know if that's true, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was." WhiteDove: "The CF&S class filmed in 1974 was a video version of the early live camps.The sessions are: 1. The way of a man with a maid,man wonderfully made ,attitudes toward sex 2. The threefold cord, The Virtuous Woman 3. I Corinthians 7:1..ff The original sin 4. Anticipation,Realization, Memory, New Morality, general anatomy and language barrier(Dr. covers slang terms for male & female parts and sex ect.) 5. Male & Female anatomy 6. Childbirth,lovemaking, birth control,masterbation 7. Art of dating responsibilities of Men & Woman , Question and answer session. Lots of good pictures of Tick the wonder dog." "They did not give out syllabus except for a scripture sheet and a handout on The Virtuous Woman. The Corps classes did have a syllabus about 40 pages and as Im looking the ever present Final exam. also a instructers guide." Mr P-Mosh: "I can verify what Zixar said. I didn't get a syllabus either, but I did take notes, which I don't know if I still have or not. I just thought it was weird for VPW to be going through all the slang terms like that; I had always thought of him as grandfatherly but I think sitting through CF&S changed my mind towards him being like a dirty old man." Goey: "CF&S was a sneaky little class where VPW slyly taught his personal preferences and perversions for sex as if they were the defacto standard. VPW taught that a man's penis was beautiful and magnificant while a woman's vagina was ugly. I'll bet old Vee Pee never knew how to sexuall satisfy a woman, or never really cared to know. He was into getting his own satisifaction - taking care of the Man of God. He taught in this class that" the way to a man's heart was through his penis", opening the door for premarital and promiscous sex and to women trying to get a man's heart by taking care of that magnificant and beautiful penis. Well, we know what got to old Vee Pee's heart now don't we? Don't recall if he taught how to get to a woman's heart - but it certainly was not through her vagina because that thing is ugly. Best not look at it. It was also a class that subtly made men superior to women in most every way. This class was about VPW's disdain for women, relegating them to sexual and domestic servants of men. I never took this class seriously. WordWolf: "A) It was the only class where 7 sessions made for a 2-page syllabus. That should be a sign that it's a little sparse on substance. B) It's the only class I ever took where I was embarrassed of the name. "I have to head out-I have a Bible study class tonight." "Really? What on?" "Um, Christian Family." C) The "original sin", Proverbs 31:10ff was covered, as was I Corinthians 7:1ff was also covered. How he could read I Corinthians 7:2, commit adultery many times, and look himself in the mirror is beyond me. D) Everyone remembers the session with all the slang terms. It seemed to relax us a little, since you can't be embarassed while laughing, but other than that, wasn't necessary. E) It was largely a Sex Ed or "Hygiene" class. Complete with photos and illustrations. F) I honestly don't remember vpw's comments mentioned above. I do remember (and even back then, others had commented) how beautiful he thought a woman's funbags are. (Funbags, you know, Thelma and Louise.) G) I remember him saying a few things here and there about various sex topics. The most off-the-wall ones will stay with me till I die. Like, how a man wants a woman who's a bit of an angel and a devil- an angel in public, and a devil in the bedroom. Or, concerning one position I have no intention of trying, "ever couple probably tries it at some point". To which, I say, "Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew." If someone out there has tried it, DON'T TELL ME. I do NOT want to know. And of course, in my class, he described-but did NOT show- that pornographic video with 2 women and a dog. He said the dog was trying to get away from the women, which showed it had more sense than they did. THANKS FOR SHARING. WHY did I need to know ANYTHING about that video? Was that instructive in some way? H) One of the main points, one that was repeated in several sessions, was the destigmatizing of sex as "dirty". Oddly enough, the proper place of a sex life in a MARRIAGE and not as OUTSIDE a marriage seemed not to be repeated in several sessions. Strange sorting of priorities for a Christian class. I) Of course, the one thing that I still find TRULY bizarre was that wierd "casualwear" outfit he wore teaching that class. I can understand getting out of the suit, but was that thing actually worn in PUBLIC? That thing was uglier than a leisure suit! J) The hero of that class was Tick. Anything else you want to know? Kudos to whoever managed a session breakdown-my goal was to just get thru it." Pirate: "This class was the beginning of the end for me in twi. It was just so ridiculous. The long list of slang terms was very educational. I learned a lot I had never heard before. "Taking the dirt road" is the one that has always stuck in my mind, no matter how hard I've tried to get it out of there. Of course everybody remembers the pictures right out of "101 Sexual Positions." Basically, they were just cheap black & white 50s-60s era pornography. I can remember VP pointing out one that was supposed to the best for getting the deepest penetration. Thanks, Doctor. I don't know if they did this in every class, but at the end we were supposed to answer a list of questions like "How old were you the first time you had sex?" "Have you ever had a homosexual/lesbian experience?" "Have you ever participated in oral sex, anal sex, group sex, etc. etc. etc." This was supposed to be anonymous and for "research purposes" but it was pretty bizarre and I really wonder what they really did with those. The weirdest thing for me though was the whole "original sin was masturbation" teaching. When we broke up into our little discussion groups after that one, I remember asking the other people if they really believed that and they all did. Our group leader said something like "We might not understand it all but Dr. Weirwille does and that's good enough for me." What a crock. I was on the way out the door after that." diazbro: "At the time (75 or so) we in my area were all young with an abundance of hormones so it made sense that there might be a class to deal with this topic. On the other hand no one in the room needed an explanation on slang or needed to see pictures of dongs." " CF&S was some half-a$$ed stab at trying to make recommendations on how a christian should approach the topic of sex but it failed as it didn't deal extensively with issues such as sex before marriage and/or adultery which are only two of the more obvious issues." Trefor Heywood: "It was far more about sex than the Christian Family." "The class did seem to be fairly denigrating towards women. "I remember VPW using a phrase like "A wife should be an angel in the kitchen and a whore in the bedroom". When she wasn't cooking, was he renting Dotsie out?" Wow 76-78: "It seems to me that I came away from that class with a distinct sense that it was mainly directed at the women. -How she should treat her man (we're just little boys, all grown up). How she shouldn't nag at him, how she should look pretty for him, she should have sexy nighties set aside for special times, she should have the home peaceful for him when he comes home from work, etc, etc. But I must add that I (myself) also thought that if a man was to receive such adoration from a woman, he must be doing something to deserve it. This was my take on it, I could not imagine someone getting this kind of treatment just because that is the way it is supposed to be. Looking back, I now see how lopsided the teachings and exhortations were. I think it is in this class where he makes statements like "there is no clear cut teaching about fornication in the New Testament" and "if you knew the freedom you had in Christ, it would blow your minds". These statements, made in this class setting, clarified the meaning of the statement made in plaf: 'love God, love your neighbor and do as you damn fool please' Makes ya wonder if vpw had an agenda, huh?" Zix: "Yes, VP taught that crap about the Original Sin being masturbation (i.e. must have been a banana, not an apple...) in CF&S. Fortunately, right before the segment started, our Limb C stood up and said "The biblical evidence for this next segment is still under review, so don't take it as set in stone." Not surprising that he didn't stick around long after LCM's "Obey or Die" letter... Apparently, VP took the phrase with the Serpent showing Eve that the fruit of the tree was a thing "to be desired" and declared it meant "to be desired sexually". Funny, then, as how masturbation is not mentioned again in the Levitical cleanliness laws, although it does go out of its way to legislate that you can't touch the saddle upon which a menstruating woman has sat. Must have been an oversight... :blink: " Dot Matrix: "I took the class more than once, maybe three times. I NEVER understood how VP got "masterbation" from scripture. I found that class to be in poor taste. Now, looking back, it was about old horny men having a great time at the expense of young believers. Why did he think he needed to teach such smut to young adults? We already learned about it in school or with our own experiences. It was inappropriate. Never understood the masterbation stuff, but then I never understood "corps night" I used to sit there like I was in a foreign country unfamilar with the language. I still thnk VP used our "birth to the corps" papers as "beat-off material." (Some had some racey things written in it.) In CF&S, I bet VP watched us through a little peep hole, through which he peeked and played "yankee doodle" on his dandy." "If I believe TWI was OKAY then went bad, I feel better about me.... Then, I was not REALLY deceived, I got into a GOOD ministry and it went bad. To recognize VPW was a sexual pervert who took us all for a ride --- means you have to deal with yourself/myself/ourselves in understanding we WERE THAT tricked!!! That deceived!!!! That taken advantage of!!! To say VPW taught some good Bible is like saying John Wayne Gacey wasn't all bad because he could paint." WayferNot: "I first took this class when I was a youngin (19 yrs old). I scratched my head about masturbation being the original sin. But then when veepee tried to teach women how to masturbate, I really scratched my head. I thought now if Adam and Eve did it and got booted from the Garden of Eden, why it is OK to do it now? And then the suggestion he gave to women on how to masturbate was not a good one. In case you are wondering, he said that women/girls needed instruction because they weren't as knowledgeable in this area. (Go figure.) I don't remember needing any lesson on this. I guess he thought that because he thought women were more reserved in this category of life. He said men/boys didn't need it because their hands always found their way to that part of the body."

If I were to take a guess at what Eagle means, I would say he meant "they find no error in anything these mean taught, even if the error had been found, dissected, and is common knowledge at the GSC." Examples could include -"Speaking in tongues is PREREQUISITE to revelation." -the 1942 promise -all the "actual errors" discussion material -the differences between "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God" of Bullinger's, which the others (except cg) all picked up, and was proven wrong. (And cg beat us to it, actually.) So, around here, those are "obvious". If the ex-twi communities weren't cowering in fear from open dialogue, they would be "obvious" THERE, too. However, some shut down open dialogue forums, and some never allowed them to START.

I'm not on the clock or something. I'm asking if someone could post quotes in their spare time like in the other ("wonderland") threads. The "the way:living in wonderland" thread has quotes almost entirely from "the way:living in love." "vp and me in wonderland" discusses "vp and me". "Outreach Outside twi's congregation" (I think that's the name) quotes a bit from "Born Again to Serve." The first 2 are threads I worked on, and covered excerpts from all over the book. A week or so, or anytime in August, really, would be appreciated. It's not like you get a salary for posting here, and you're too savvy for a "loyalty to the website that taught you t3h tr00th" speech. (At this point in life, certainly...) Frankly, if Tom LB and the Sudos split up all the quotes, it would be more of a side-thing and feel less like a job for any of them....

By 1988, the Teen Stage had been renamed the Afternoon Stage, since it had proven to be so successful that believers in their 20s (and older) would also hang out there, aka "Teen Vets." The same stage was also used for a "Coffee House" (a talent show, really) one night each ROA. Both the afternoon activities and the talent show were Bible/twi-based. In other words, it was a rousing success. As with all rousing successes, lcm would either slap his name on it, or destroy it. He chose to destroy it. And as a younger person, I never got the memo that we were supposed to be attempting the horizontal mambo during the ROA. Looking back, I'm glad I didn't.