Oakspear

1. Wierwille mentions in the PFAL video that Dr. Higgins turned him on to Bullinger after he had been teaching essentially the same things: "He writes like you teach". So Wierwille was claiming to have come up with the information independently. 2. The change to "with distinction came in one of the other books, JCING or ATDAN...I forget which one. 3. I'd like to see How to Enjoy the Bible to catch the whole context. Did Bullinger mean the same thing when he used those words that Wierwille meant? Wierwille had a habit of misunderstanding and confusing Bullinger's points. I wouldn't be surprised if this was another example. 4. True, most of us figured out what Wierwille meant, but how about "say what you mean and mean what you say"?

Can someone tell me what the "Corps Coordinators" did, as opposed to the Corps DIRECTOR? I remember reading in The Way: Living in Love that Duncan was the "coordinator of the second year (First) Corps, while Martindale was coordinator of the first year (Second) Corps. Both these guys were in the Way Corps training program at the time. At some point Martindale became the Corps Director succeeding George Jess. Also, Don Wierwille was the "dean" of the Emporia campus, and there have been "campus coordinators" at the training centers. -->

I think that the intermediate class was done in 75 or 76 - plaid jacket, wide tie & lapels, poofier hair :P--> - ya know seventies!

TWI liked to use examples and analogies in their teaching. That's great, but the problem that would come up is that we would spend so much time explaining the analogy and not really looking at what the bible said. Their explanation of "interpretation" being like dogs running wild was wrong. It was another example of Wierwille misunderstanding Bullinger and Martindale mindlessly parroting Wierwille. (Belle, I think this is one of the ones that you and I hammered out together via email) When I pointed out what I thought was error, and asked for clarification, all that I reeceived was an explanation of how dogs had to be trained, and how we shouldn't let our minds run "vagrantly" like wild dogs, etc. Not one rference back to the context of the verse, or the actual meaning of the word translated "interpretation".

Indeed it was! Who were they? Why did they go to five and then why back to 3? Following the reading of the POP Ricardo Caballero and John Townsend were added to the Board of Trustees. I don't know if they resigned or were forced off as Martindale regained control.References to the Trustees in the 90's omitted these two

Wierwille originally taught this and Martindale ran with it and expanded it as a mistranslated athletic analogy. The only problem is that there is no evidense that the words are mistranslated. All are clearly military.

Jonny Lingo & Linda Z: The Corps that I am mainly talking about were new ones who got in in the nineties. Most of the Corps that I encountered in the nineties were either relatively new grads (20th, 21st etc) or top leaders. Several specifically told me that they were trained to "confront" and to "smoke out" weakness.

With all due consideration to you GSers who were in the Way Corps. I believe that these people were doing just what they were trained to do.

The whole Jews = Khazars thing didn't bother me so much; if it was true it was true, if it wasn't it wasn't; it didn't seem to have too much impact on my life. What bothered me, especially after I actually read The Thirteenth Tribe, was how it was misrepresented in TWI. During my whole time in TWI I only knew of ONE other person who read it all the way through, yet almost EVERYONE that I knew in TWI owned a copy. Most people simply went by what Wierwille wrote in his appendix to JCOP, "Jew and Judean". (That's another thing: "Jew" is simply a worn down version of the word "Judean", which Wierwille actually demonstrates in his appendix, not a name that describes a different people - in many languages the word for "Jew" sounds very similar to "Judean".) In my observation this was simply another example of how wayfers would blindly accept whatever Wierwille said, despite glaring evidence to the contrary. Hey Jonny Lingo: I know I'm continuing your slight derailment, but... There were a small number of Jews living in Palestine/Israel at the turn of the century, more came in every year after WWI, but mostly settled in areas that the Arabs were not heavily settled in. When the U.N. partitioned Palestine after the British gave up the job there was to be a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jewish state comprised areas that held a majority of Jews, the Arab state areas that were mainly Arab. The Kingdom of Jordan was left outside this plan due to separate agreements made with the Hashemite clan of Saudi Arabia to give them their own kingdom. When the neighboring Arab countries attacked the newly proclaimed Israel, many Palestinian Arabs fled to neighboring countries and lived as refugees. When the dust cleared Israel still stood, but the planned Palestinian state had been absorbed (occupied if you will), by Jordan (amazing how Palestinian supporters rarely mention how an independent Palestinian state could have been established fifty years ago if Jordan hadn't occupied it.)

Koestler's work was plausible, but I never thought he sufficiently proved his thesis. He strung together a lot of documents, but they didn't add up to the sum at the bottom IMHO. As has been stated, Koestler did not suggest that all Jews were descendents of the Khazars, just those who were in Eastern Europe in the 1800-1900's. These are properly called the Askenazim. Those who were decsended from the Jews of medievel Spain and Portugal, and those who were found in the mediterranean area and middle east were termed Sephardim. Wierwille (and later Martindale) misrepresented Koestler to the extent that they taught that all modern Jews were descendents of the Khazars. Whether this was intentional or one of Wierwille's failures to understand what he read, I don't know. But there are continuous records of Jews in Europe from biblical times through the late Roman empire and all through the Christian ascendancy in Europe. Wierwille also incorrectly taught that Yiddish was a form of the Khazar language written with Hebrew characters. In fact Yiddish is considered a dialect of German, with many additions from Hebrew, Russian, Polish and other Eastern European languages. Khazaric was related to Turkish.

Each theme since 200 has started off with "The Promised Land of the Prevailing Word: ..."

When I first got involved with TWI, one of the things that attracted me was the admonition to "search the scriptures whether these things were so". Wierwille presented a way to do that, despite disguising the sources. We were told, at least publically, to not take his word for it, but to "make the Word our own". Great theory. In practice, it wasn't quite like that. If your own research came up with something that differed from Wierwille's teaching, you received a pat on the head and a suggestion to "hold in abeyance" your questions, since surely you were not seeing it, weren't mature enough, or were missing some key point. God forbid that Wierwille was actually wrong! Of course some doctrines did change, but until the edict from above came down, you had to adhere to the old doctrinal position. More and more "research" came to mean going to TWI books and other publications to find out what to believe, then using "research" materials to solidify that belief. We were told that "research" means "to search again" (it actually means to search thoroughly). The application of that was to treat TWI writings almost as holy writ.

No garage, no driveway. Just an alley behind the apartment building with four or five spots to park.

I know no one asked me specifically, but I don't have an unalterable standard, with which I line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them

borderline?

I was once reproved for showing up FIFTEEN minutes early instead of ten. Idiot BC stood at the door with an annoyed look on his face; later told us that coming early was disruptive to them. It didn't help when I pointed out that Twig Leader guidelines said that the home that was hosting fellowship should be ready an hour ahead of time.

TWI has long been in the re-writing business. How many people who got involved in the seventies knew any of the "pillars of the church" from the fifties, other than the ones who still hung around? How many people who got involved in the late seventies/early eighties knew who Steve Heefner was? Or that he operated an independent "Way East" in New York state? What about how supporters of Wierwille like P*ter W*de were ignored, as if they never existed. Even a GS regular, who still runs PFAL classes, did not know who he was in a recent thread. In the nineties, the fact that there were five trustees at one time during the late eighties was whited out of the records. Winston Smith lives!

At one time Martindale named the "guys band" The Present Truth. At that time (mid-nineties) it featured Dave L & Harve Platig playing guitar, Fred G on bass, usually Anthony H on drums and generally the leader of the choir playing keyboards. Later Mike M was added and the others started either leaving TWI or getting assigned "on the field". By the time I left in 2001 they were no longer referring to any TWI group as The Present Truth

Gee Mike, who was going to die if Wierwille told the truth about his plagiarism? He didn't cite his sources. Raf has covered that pretty well in his definitions. He referred to people that he learned from or who taught him, but never is it documented that he admitted that parts of his work were virtually identical to other men's works. Your link does not indicate that he made any such admission. What would have suffered, by the way, if Wierwille had footnoted, if he had indicated in some way that what he had printed was word-for-word someone else's work? If he had been up front and honest about it, there probably would have been no harm. If he had said "J.E. Stiles said the following about this subject, and I can't improve upon it", or "This class started out as B.G. Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class, but I have made changes in it where I felt it was more biblically accurate" or "I learned this in The Companion Bible by Bullinger and believe that it is accurate - what or who would have been harmed? Only Wierwille's ego. We who were so hungry for spiritual knowledge would have eaten it up whether we thought it was 100% Wierwille, or if we thought he was a clever editor, but there wouldn't have been the "Wierwille as the great MOG and biblical reseracher" facade. There couldn't have been any "God taught me the Word like it hasn't been taught since the first century".

I don't know if either was right, or both were wrong. <<<<<Derailment warning>>>>>The error is that Wierwille used the argument that Joseph having older sons would invalidate Jesus' claim to the throne of David when he taught that the royal geneology was through Mary. He was inconsistant, Bullinger, while I don't know if he was right, was consistant in this case. Carry on :D-->

I got the same message. I sent a message to the webmaster asking him what was up.

I met both good and bad Corps people. They did seem to get worse in the nineties, but there were still good and bad. I do wonder at the mindset of those who deplore the Way Corps while admiring the man who set the standards for their behavior, VP Wierwille. If abusive "Corps-Nazis" were removed and disciplined when their abuse was reported that would be one things, but it didn't happen often did it?

My use of the term "primitive" did not refer to the quality of the songs themselves, or the skill of the performers, just that whoever put the record together was not thinking "radio airplay".

At my last apartment (the hovel) Two young guys who were in a "band", practiced at all hours, would get high and jump out the second story window (breaking the glass) and had a meth lab in the apartment. It was a happy day when I saw them handcuffed against the hood of a police car one evening.

Despite the myth that Wierwille was already teaching before he ever read Bullinger, I believe that he did indeed read Bullinger, but didn't always read him thoroughly or understand his point. In The Word's Way chapter "The Lord's Brethren" Wierwille discusses several denominational beliefs about Jesus' brothers. One being that they were Joseph's sons from a previous marriage. He rebuts this idea by saying that the existance of older brothers would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David. This is mentioned in one of Bullinger's appendices to the Companion Bible. Bullinger backs this up by showing that Joseph was the heir of David, and that it is his geneology in Matthew. Mary's is in Luke. If Joseph was in the royal line, then his older sons would be considered heirs before Jesus. Makes sense. EXCEPT that Wierwille's take on the geneologies was opposite from Bullinger's! He believed that Matthew contained MARY's geneology and that Luke contained Joseph's. If Wierwille's teaching on the genelogies was correct then Joseph having older sons from a previous marriage would have irrelevant to Jesus being heir to the throne of David. He cut and pasted from Bullinger without really understanding IMHO. (Another Actual Error?)