WordWolf

Wonder1, you can type your post under all the text if you want to respond directly to someone's post-no need to make a separate post. That's what I did here. As you can see, it is obvious where you wrote and where I wrote. I'm going to take a wild guess and suppose that you're a fairly recent arrival to twi and an even MORE recent arrival to the GSC. (Again, welcome.) My, my, you've certainly missed a lot of the exciting stuff! I recommend spending some time reading thru the documents linked to the main page: http://www.greasespotcafe.com Here's one you might find especially interesting, to say the least.... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/waydale/misc/adultery.htm It tells many things. It was originally a study on what the Bible says on adultery. It conflicts with what was told to young women and leadership at the "root" locales. When the contents were brought to twi's attention, leadership sat on it. When they were no longer able to ignore it, they fired the writer, fired anyone connected with it, and spread rumours about them being possessed, evil, and so on. That's all because of the contents of a paper that said "the Bible says adultery is wrong." In any other "Christian" organization, the response would be "yeah, no kidding-of course the Bible says adultery is wrong!" In twi, it was controversial, and led to firing. Doesn't that strike you as particularly odd? The entire contents are on the link. Please review it and ask yourself: Is this study accurately reflecting what God's Word says about adultery? Is this study acceptable for adults to study and review? If you think it's UNacceptable, is it any LESS acceptable than a class where photos of naked adults are shown, and body parts, including slang words for the same, are discussed aloud? If not, then I'm sure you'll have a few NEW questions when someone suggests you take twi's class on sex, whatever they're calling it now. The writer of that study decided to confront people who he concluded were wrong. Please read for yourself what the result was. I myself asked some questions here and there. Ever been threatened with physical violence just for asking questions? I was, last time I was on grounds. It was in a context of CALM discussion, where I was seated, calmly talking with someone over the events up to date. Ever tell someone your conversations were being monitored and eavesdropped on, then have an eavesdropper prove your point by interrupting you minutes later? I did, last time I was on grounds. The "thought police" were quite busy enduring nothing was spoken that met with their disapproval. Whatever you're seeing NOW in the organization is nothing but a pale echo of what I saw, and what I saw was a pale echo of what others saw long before that. Many of the blessings of God are simply not allowed at "The Way", and some never were allowed. Feel free to look around, ask honest questions, and follow up with us. Please phrase your questions politely, and many of us will attempt to do the same. Please understand that some of us are still hurt and bitter, still recovering from lives that were destroyed by people who claimed to represent God. Some of them can't look a Bible in the face again because of what they endured. Some of them are bitter at all Christians because so-called Christians ruined everything they had. Many are still quite emotional, especially when someone suggests that what they lived thru, or witnessed with their own eyes, were illusions, figments, lies spun out. Some people have told them such from time to time, in attempts to ensure themselves that the "good old days" really were as good as we were told they were. This may mean some responses you get will be a bit charged, a bit heated. Please take that into account. Please also take into account that twi has periodically attempted to pry into the private lives of people still IN that post here, or those informing the posters, in order to expose and kick out current "members" of the way. (Are they still claiming there are really no members, or was that claim discarded?) So, if you want personal information-names, phone numbers-many will NOT give them and will expect you're here to expose them and kick them out, or to hurt them for posting here. These are well-documented by now. Let us know if you need some real-life examples of any of these. At some point, you'll want to ask yourself: The actions twi takes-are these the actions of a Christian organization? Is this pleasing to God? Is this how God said to act?

Laleo, I might agree with you on the initial post, and even on page one of this thread. Keep reading. By page 3, the discussion turns into "I don't think there was any coercion involved-everybody was consensual". Let me know if you need the exact posts cited or quoted. Gunpoint is easy to see as coercion, and is an order of magnitude greater than using psychosocial methods. They don't invalidate the presence of other modes of control. "Iron bars do not a prison make." That's been a saying in the world for a long time, and not without reason.

JT, My understanding is that in the early days, one or 2 people vanished here and there, but it wasn't organized, and it wasn't many people. (A few people who would have blown a whistle were made to vanish before they could do so. Before the internet, that was very effective.) It wasn't until lcm drew his line in the sand in 1989 that there was anything resembling a policy, and it wasn't until Spring of 1989 that he started to use the mark and avoid verse (without the context and following verse that explained it.) If I were to guess from here, lcm got tired of all the information coming to light, and all the dissent he was facing (at local and leader levels, on subjects like adultery, the tithe, etc) that he decided to start enacting draconian rules in overreaction. It's a little like Bill Cosby saying that parents settle kids arguing that one touched another by declaring "I don't want anyone in this house to touch another person as long as you live." So, any disagreement with lcm meant you had to leave. Any hesitation or independent thought meant you had to leave. Eventually, anything less than cowering in a prostrate manner before local and national leaders meant you had to leave. Of course, on your way out, you were told you'd die horribly, you were outside the realm of people who care about God, etc, and others were told you were evil.

Hello. Any organization is composed of members. Thus, any action taken is taken by members. Technically speaking, everybody who's ever been hurt in history has been hurt by a person or people. When you find that a group is hurting people, or demonstratably wrong, there are three possibilities that I can see. A) ignore it or bury the evidence. I can't do that. B) correct the group and fix the problem. twi demonstrated they did not WANT to change. C) leave and try to keep people you care about from being hurt. When people attempted to fix things, they were fired and/or kicked out, and vicious rumours were spread around them. (Take a look at the Greasespot Cafe's main page, and check out the various documents and editorials.) That leaves an exit as the remaining option, for those of us unable or unwilling to ignore harm. For those of us who care more about people, or more about truth than we do about an organization supposedly dedicated to both, the choice was/is clear.

I'll agree with that, and it's more or less what I've said before. "I'm glad I got in, and I'm glad I got out." That's how I usually say it. I am also aware of a point some other posters have made-that "his ministry", where it blessed people, was really "BG Leonard's ministry" with the label and box switched. I AM thankful of what I DID learn. (I'd have been more thankful if the correct label had been retained, but that's a separate issue.) ========================================================= I know some people who first heard of his death felt like their whole world collapsed. Somewhere along the line, the concept that Jesus would return in vpw's lifetime got spread around. Some also believed that vpw's own personal believing acted like a sort of spiritual safety net protecting the entire U.S. while he was alive, and his death ended that. (IF that were true, the sensible answer, which was obvious to me at the time, was that the amassed believing of everyone in twi was that there was a net while he was alive, and they withdrew that believing when he died-so it was THEIR believing that maintained the net.) I imagine some of those people will have something to say on this.

So, When did it all start? Was that one of the reasons the organization was originally formed, back thru twi back to Vesper Chimes? Was it always part of the original plan? Or did it creep in at some point? Did someone join and bring it with him as he got to the inner circle, or was it always in the background? Was twi originally DESIGNED to be authoritative, or was it tinkered with later until it BECAME authoritative?

Sure would have been nice if that HAD been what it was used for, wouldn't it? Instead, it was used to drive off the godly while the organization protected molesters and pedophiles who knew how to suck up to the boss....

Yes, Mike. We're aware you're under the impression that vpw only surrendered the legal, visible and titular aspects of the organization to lcm, all evidence to the contrary. A separate issue is that only vpw declared vpw had any further authority than that to bestow. That's courtesy of the thread: "Newsflash: vpw never installed spiritual leader of twi!" We also know that YOU'RE convinced that only some sort of spiritual superman could resist abusing an office. The rest of us-we're not convinced. Some of us HAVE held trusts and offices-and NEVER abused them. Some of us know leaders who'd never THINK to abuse their office. The shepherd gives his life for the sheep. It DOES give me pause at the thought of what YOU would do if handed the reins, since you're so sure anybody'd fall....

The so-called profit in Mark and Avoid was the pressure to conform. As it was originally used by twi in 1989/1990, it was the penalty levied on those leaders who refused to swear an oath of loyalty to lcm when he demanded one, no questions asked. Refusal, hesitation, even a desire to discuss it based on biblical principles was treated the same-Mark and Avoid. In plain English, firing them and ostracizing them. As it developed, it became a more general tool to enforce conformity. Someone a conscientious objector or not 100% supporting the bod? Kick them out. The concidence of a lot of people kicked out as they approached their retirement years-thus removing them from twi's sphere of responsibility once they'd bled out their lifesblood for the organization has been noted by a few.

TempleLady, In some organizations, it is expected that some people will challenge those in power and there is a system (effective or not) for review, and redress of grievances. The Roman Catholic church has been wrestling with such issues of late, and people who disagreed with how certain scandals were being addressed were not forced to agree or leave. I'm trying to draw a distinction there. Also, I'm very specifically trying to focus on the NON-LEGAL aspects, I thought I'd made that clear. What the letter of the law of the land says is not even allowed on the table for this discussion. (There's other threads for that.)

Well, once upon a time, there were a few albums put out under "New York Way Productions". One was "Love, Always", which was a compilation with various artists, including Billy Falcon. The other I know of was "Spark in the Dark", by Billy Falcon. That one (and maybe the other) was carried at the bookstore at hq, and BF performed once that I know of on "High Country Caravan". In the early '90s, Billy Falcon released a secular album, "Power Windows" and got a little commercial airplay, even appearing as a musical guest on the "Tonight Show". (Somebody saw the video for the title cut.) If you want any more info on him, someone else will have to chime in.

Oldiesman, pg-1, 5/19/04, 10:45am. Cute. The original context of that statement was legal, to someone who is NOT a member of the organization, in regards to specific legal issues pertaining to the laws of the US. If it was not a question of legal authority pertaining to the laws of the land, the original exchange would have gone something like this: Organization: we claim title to all uses of this word! Surrender it! Person: Up yours! It's in the dictionary. Organization: We cite our authority over you! Person: I am not a part of your group, and I am not on your property. You have no legal authority, and I deny you have any other kind, since I'm not a member! Organization: You must do what we say! Person: Bite me! Organization: Everyone! This is a wicked, wicked man! Person: Call me whatever names you want, I'll do the same. Organization: *fumes and leaves* That was what WOULD have happened if this was NOT a legal issue. That having been said, that statement, delivered as-is, is now fair game for discussion in the context of the CURRENT thread and topic. [The above was edited to adjust for an edit of the original post.] That leaves the question of the poll. The question was: "How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers?" Therefore, on-topic discussions can properly include: twi any religious organization psychological issues sociological issues Bible issues religious issues self-help/recovery issues political issues (if chosen very specifically to be germane) consequences of refusal conformity issues rebellion issues societal issues as a whole Any other post would be legal, but completely off-topic for this specific thread. "How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers?"

This question is NOT directed at people who were never part of their organization, nor is it directly aimed at those no longer in it. (If you assault a member, you commit a crime. If you trespass on private property, you can be thrown off grounds. These are legal issues pertaining to the laws of the US, the state of Ohio, etc.) This is addressing people while they are in the organization. (Either now, or once when they were in.) How much authority can twi-or ANY religious organization-be said to wield over its followers? [Edited to boldface the question.]

Those leaders claiming to fairly represent their constituencies in secular legislatures and meetings should not abuse their offices by using them as tools to procure sexual favours and commit adultery. Even the US Congress admits that, and some people consider it an offense worthy of removing someone from political office over. Those people claiming to lead in God's name and in God's authority ought to behave in a manner consistent with the ordinances of God, and especially be an EXAMPLE of such principles in action. They should especially honour their bonds of marriage, and seek not to offend God by violating his precepts by committing fornication out of wedlock. They should seek Godly ways of avoiding temptation, and not seek ways to please their flesh ("conspiracy to sin".) Finding themselves in positions of direct temptation, they should exit that situation swiftly and seek to avoid it henceforth, not behave opportunistically, as if they found a dollar on the street. So-called Men of God ought not to do such things. Christians all over the world have NO difficulty understanding this, and seeing it easily from Scripture. No compelling Biblical argument has been presented as to why adherents to vpw, twi or pfal should seek to exempt themselves from Biblical exhortation and doctrine. No significant argument has been presented claiming to be Biblical that defends such behaviour. It seems that only places like twi and David Koresh's Branch Davidian group outside Waco have claimed that their groups are Christian and their leaders are entitled to have sex with their followers, even disregarding marriage vows. (Koresh claimed he was now married to all the females in his group....so all the women in his group belonged to him. He also claimed he was the messiah, the King of Kings.) I'm not saying that all the other groups are NECESSARILY right, nor that twi's doctrines are NECESSARILY wrong or in harmony with the Branch Davidians on all points. Being in the majority is not a guarantee of correctness. However, when one IS in the minority, it behooves one to be clear that one actually has a good reason to dissent, that the majority doesn't see something that one does not. In this case, it is specifically one thing. So-called Men of God ought not to do such things, nor seek to excuse such things. It has been agreed that some other people have sinned in the commission of certain acts. The people who committed them, in some cases, have PREFACED their comments by saying they sinned in their own actions. That is an issue that was already agreed-upon, LOUDLY. Why it is still coming up over and over as a topic for discussion, therefore, CANNOT be because it is in contention. It must be another reason-was the previous discussion forgotten so quickly? Was it deliberately ignored? Do the same statements brought back distract from an uncomfortable or ugly truth? The two points that are still under contention is how much consent and responsibility is in the hands of the victims, and how much responsibility is in the hands of the perpetrators. For example, drugging someone and having sex with them while they're out is a crime in the eyes of the law, and will send you to jail. It is considered that the person drugged and unconscious was not able to consent, and that the drug was given to circumvent refusal, i.e., you knew they'd say no, so you took away their chance to ask. In that respect, it resembles forced rape in that the person's ability to consent is removed physically. If a woman takes a shortcut crosstown thru Central Park at night, dressed up for a night out, and a rapist leaps out and rapes her in Central Park, the court will NOT accept "well, she knew the risks of walking in the park at night" as sufficient reason to exonerate the rapist. If the defendant says "well, she was asking for it", he's pretty much guaranteed his case is lost. Those surviving rape and molestation need to understand what led up to it and what happened, and why someone chose to victimize them. (It's often nothing to do with lust for sex, but a lot to do with abuse of power.) They don't need to hear "it's your fault for not running out of the room" very often, at least, nothing I've ever read indicates this is a legitimate therapy tool.

It's a brilliant statement, isn't it? Obviously from a very logical, thoughtful and honest mind. It pretty much sums up what I feel. Sorry if you don't agree._TWI has no power over you except that which your actions allow. -Zixar_ Ok, perhaps I should NOT expect better of you than that. The example I gave WAS straight out of pfal, and I know we both thought that specific instance had merit. (I've seen that verse used to justify missionary work, also.) The lesson was that statements must be understood in their CONTEXT, and, isolated from them, may be completely misrepresentative of the original speaker or even common knowledge. You're deliberately ripping it out entirely from its context to make it appear as if Zixar was saying the same thing you are saying, and endorses your opinion. That's entirely NOT what he did. In case you're wondering, Shaz endorsed my use of her quote... did Zixar endorse your use of his?

Let me clarify that. The context of my sentence was that they REWROTE the origin of Venom for the cartoon, and THAT's the origin I cited and you confirmed (the cartoon origin). The comic(616, Marvel continuity) origin of Venom goes as follows: Spiderman was one of the heroes kidnapped by the Beyonder for the Secret Wars. Spiderman lost the use of his webshooters when Reed Richards needed all the electronics to assemble an device that allowed them to channel more power thru Iron Man's armor so he could blast a tunnel clear of the mountain range the Molecule Man dropped on them. Spidey's costume later took a lot of damage in the fighting. When they were inside one of the bases later, Reed had used one of the alien devices to make new costumes for people. Spidey went in later and tried to figure out which device did it. He ended up with the black costume, which imitated the Spider-Woman they met there (from the kidnapped suburb of Denver). He later discovered the costume had built-in webshooters, and that it would follow his commands-opening a pocket, swiching to short sleeves, appear as normal clothing. He discovered even later that it wasn't a costume, but a symbiotic lifeform that was living off his life-energy. It proved vulnerable to sonic attacks, and Reed Richards got it off Spiderman with a sonic blaster. When it escaped containment, it went after Spiderman again. He got free of it by risking permanent damage to his hearing and jumping inside a church belfry while the bells rang (he'd never make it to Reed in time.) It crawled off, dying, and would have died there, but Eddie Brock was downstairs, praying for absolution or something, and it merged with him. That's the Venom in the comic books. (Don't ask me about Carnage-that was just a stupid idea.) Then again, most of the kids who think they know the X-Men only know them from the cartoon and movies, not the comics, even the hatchet job that hack Austen did on them. So, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the kids will ALL say the cartoon origin is the "correct" one.

Oldies, Please stop isolating Zixar's quote out of its context. The context was the affects of the organization itself on someone who currently rejects their claims of authority, as regards to their actions in a court of law. Isolating it OUT of that context is as honest as using the "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance" verse as a missionary verse while ignoring the next verse says "you shall break them with a rod of iron...". You know better than that, and I'd expect better of you than that.

The cartoons rewrote the Venom origin, so I see no reason for the movies not to. I think John Jameson or some other astronaut was connected with its arrival from space. Hey- the X-Men cartoon rewrote the M'kraan crystal saga, which makes sense. That thing can injure small children trying to understand it.

Mike, On an auto-parts message board, would you accuse the posters of being obsessed with their cars and thinking of nothing else, if that's all they posted about? No, that's what the board is FOR. That's them using the board for its intended purpose. If there were many claims that users found the carburetor of the 1952 Ford Snowhopper to be inferior and problematic, would you accuse them of focusing on negatives? (Maybe I shouldn't ask...)

Sounds to me like another case where there were more blessings on the field than at headquarters. Then again, NY in general periodically made rude gestures in the direction of conformity. Not that we weren't tricked plenty of times, just that you had to be subtle-overt pressure to conform gets a knee-jerk reaction in the Big Apple and points nearby. (I can't speak for what went on upstate, but the Spanish fellowships were NYC all the way.)

So, the biology of wolves tells them something people should have already learned.... Leaders ought not to abuse their office.

Semi-derail.... I object to protraying adulterers and abusers of their offices as "wolves". Wolves are organized in one of two ways: loners and packs. Loners are solitary and have no social structure since it's just them. Packs are run by an alpha pair who has authority over the pack. When mating season comes, the alpha pair are the only wolves that breed. The biology of wolves ensures the "lesser" females usually do not go into heat, and those who do are sent on an enforced vacation until season is over. (They can then rejoin, or stay away, or form a new pack or whatever.) The males don't mate out of season, and other than the current alpha, none of them do IN season. So, in plain English, wolves are monogamous, and do NOT have sex with subordinate wolves by virtue of their office. Some corrupt leaders, on the other hand......

Mike, 5/17/04, pg-2. I added asterisks for the various products we're being peddled.

Yes, and some fiction writers make it a point to be as accurate on weapon use as possible, as well.

Good point about the likeness. It's Dr. Otto OCTAVIUS, though. Just so you know. Personally, I think he's one of many characters whose time has passed for most stories, but that's one guy's opinion. It's not like I'm following Spiderman or anything...