WordWolf

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]

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."