Oakspear

Okay, ease up :D-->No one's condemning you, and we are giving serious answers. After (I assume) considering the advice you have received, what do you think now?

JM: Look around the cafe. We're not making this stuff up. With a small handful of exceptions we were all in TWI and know what we're talking about. TWI is bad news. Stay away. Why exactly are you involved in TWI anyway? That may help us give you a more specific answer.

Didn't Paul in one of the Timothy epistles mention some evil that some folks had done? Yes? And he was hardly without sin now, was he? Back to the stone throwing!

Steve: Your explanation of what was written to whom, etc makes a lot of sense. I always thought it was a "wrong dividing" to ignore the "...who are at Ephesus", or Corinth or wherever in the salutation section of each epistle. Thanks for your insight into adding different "administrations" Anyway, as I'm sure that you understood, the Oakspearian Administrations illustrate just how arbitrary the scheme is. Bullinger picked seven because it fit into his framework of number in scripture, and Wierwille picked up on it, although he changed them around a little. Although many of them are in fun, there are just as many differences in the way God dealt with people within some of the TWI administrations as between them. What do you think of that, Biblefan Dave?

Unfortunately, the system that Wierwille set up didn't allow for the Trustees to do anything. Wierwille gradually took on the role of "THE Man of God", which put him in a position of unquestioned power. When he stepped down and (literally) annointed Martindale as his replacement, with all the symbolism and ceremony, the implication was that Martindale inherited Wierwille's authority. It wasn't until the Allen lawsuit that he had gone too far even for the other Trustees and had to be replaced.

okay, my tongue is out of my cheek now :D--> Steve L: In your "non-administrative" view of the bible, do you believe that there are some parts of the bible that aren't "written to us"?

Even if the concept of "administrations/dispensations" as a time period is valid, who said that there had to be seven? Why not more? Adamic Administration - Adam only Adam & Eve Administration - Adam & Eve in Eden Outta Eden Administration - Adam & Eve alive and keeping the faith after expulsion from Eden Antediluvian Administration - pre-flood Post-diluvian Adminsitration - After the flood Abrahamic Administration Egyptian Captivity Administration The Wilderness Administration Taking Over the Promised Land Administration Gettin' Their Butts Kicked by the Gentiles Administration The Kingdom Administration Babylonian Captivity Administration Post Captivity Administration Christ on Earth Administration Petrine Administration - Peter top dog - Christ ascended, but still following law Pauline Administration - out with the law Gathering Administration - after gathering together - Beast reigns Judgement Millenium Administration - Christ reigns for 1000 years No More Sorrow or Crying Administration - end of Book of Revelation onward :P--> - There are differences, although some are slight, from one of these time periods to the next. Why not break up time into twenty or more "administrations"?

Is there someone here who said that? No, what Wierwille did was use the parts of the OT that he liked and dismiss the rest. If he liked it, then "we should do more than they did under the law" like he did with tithing, if he didn't like it, it was merely "for our learning". Heck, an argument could be made that Wierwille's distinction between "for our learning" and "written to us" was not as sharp as he made it Or, maybe they don't apply to us because we aren't Israel. They didn't apply to the Vikings or the Apaches back then either. I guess one question is: "Is the new birth tantamount to the grace administration. There's a good thread about whether the new birth = holy spirit here in Doctrinal.

My family and I had dropped out of active involvement in TWI during the time of the Passing of the Patriarch and got back involved in late 1990. We missed all the "excitement" and the mass exodus, as well as the so-called fog years. We knew people who had left and hooked up with various offshoots, and we knew people who stayed in. Why did we choose to go with TWI rather than an offshoot when we decided to get involved with a "fellowship" again? One reason was that most of the people that I personally knew who had left, who were making accusations against Martindale and the Trustees were pea brains whose judgement wasn't worth much to me. The people who were in all happened to be people who I respected and trusted. Another reason was that I heard Martindale's side of things (the Leadership/Galatians Tapes) but not Geer's or Lynn's or Dubofsky's. (This was 1990 and I would not own a computer for several years and no one I knew had access to any competing information) Mrs. Wierwille, the Georges, and others who had been with VPW from the beginning were sticking with Martindale. After a decade had slipped by I finally realized what a mistake I had made.

I agree, Uncle H. VP sucked a lot of people in with his charismatic personality and his ability to convince via his teaching. Loy retained the fraction he did because some folks believed that he was annointed by Wierwille, and he was still (until 1994) running Wierwille's class, which accounted for any new growth. He didn't have Wierwille's skill, but he was entertaining :P--> I would be very surprised if there was more than a fraction of a trickle of new people under Prez #3. She has no personality, and ousting Loy undermined the "infallibility" of the MOG that helped to keep things together before.

I saw the sabbath described as "giving one seventh of your time" in a Way Rag article by Loy, I believe entitled "The Tithe Doth Still Provide", but I never saw it elaborated upon.

While I agree that Wierwille couldn't possibly have known everything that was being done in his name, I find it inconceivable that widespread corruption of his doctrines could have proceeded for very long. How many times did people say "this wouldn't be going on if 'Doctor' knew about it", only to find out that he either already knew or didn't care? Something else to consider, with choosing of leadership supposedly done by revelation or inspiration or somesuch, how could Wierwille disavow a rogue teaching?

Where in Malachi or anywhere else does it mention giving 1/7th of time? The sabbath, if that's what you are referring to, was a "rest", it wasn't giving anything

I wasn't referring to present-day TWI, unless you think that VP Wierwille is still alive.

Here and there on Grease Spot one reads references to things that we remember being taught in TWI as "not what 'Doctor' taught" or practices that would have been stopped "if 'Doctor' knew about it". The implication is that "leadership" or "the Corps" somehow betrayed Wierwille's vision and headed off in direction s that he didn't approve of. I'm specifically talking about when Wierwille was alive, when he could have done something about anyone straying from his path. An example might be the "Law of Believing". All over "the ministry" people were being taught a simplfied version believing = receiving, and being blamed when their so-called believing didn't pan out; yet some Wierwille apologists suggest that Wierwille taught otherwise. Was his "ministry" so out of his control that his teachings were twisted? Or were the Corps carrying out exactly what he wanted?

...and nobody can tell me that Sudo doesn't answer prayers :D-->

Our company has two every January, half the stores go one Friday night and half the next. We use the local auditorium/arena that is normally used for concerts, basketball games and indoor football. We have cocktails, dinner, dancing and a prize drawing. I've gone every year; this will be my sixth. There usually is a lot of drinking, and occassionally someone needs to be shut off or escorted home, but generally everyone is pretty well behaved.

So, each "adminsitration" is a period of time, right? The "Law administration" was for Israel, right? What "administration" were non-Jews under while Israel was under the law? Not just non-Jews living just outside Israel's borders, but, say, Vikings or Siberians or Apaches?

Or sometimes the holes are there and we just point them out. Most of the ex-Way people I encounter (here and elsewhere) do very well at separating any animosity and resentment from examination of the Way's doctrines and practices. Who said that? No one here...got a quote Biblefan? Gee, I don't see the connection. Why would a reference to TWI theology necessarily indicate bitterness, etc.? Yet there was a TWI "corporate culture" that drove how many people acted. I want to be like you when I grow up ;)--> If you think that there is complete argreement about what the bible says about various subjects, or that it's as clear as you make it, you are incredibly naive. Ah, there's the rub...determining what and what was not true. Practicing psychiatry without a license are we?

It's like pole vaulting in the dark: you don't know how high you're supposed to jump, nor how long the pole is that will get you there, nor how far away the cross bar is, nor how far you missed it by. Welcome back to the fray Mike, working on the logic I see, although still operating from an unsupported premise ;)--> - we disagree as usual, but at least you use complete sentences (lots of 'em) and appear to have a grasp of spelling and basic grammar

...and how convenient to have something that can't be measured (i.e. your own believing) to blame if things don't come to pass as imagined.

Okay, so there is (according to Mike and the now deceased Wierwille) a law of believing that "simply stated" is believing = receiving, but is in reality more complicated than that. Other variables include "community believing" and the negative impact of the non-believing world. Apparently the only way to really know if you are believing is if you are receiving, because if you're not receiving, your not really believing. Naw, that's not circular at all :P-->

If the "law of believing", i.e. believing = receiving were true, then the world would be a lot more chaotic than it already is, with people "believing" for competing things. If the "law of believing" is true, then why do people not recieve what they "believe" for 100% of the time?

You say "witchcraft" like it's a bad thing ;)-->

I always look under my therapist's car when I hear somebody honk their horn while counting steps.