Oakspear

Man, you were busy last night! I think you miss my point. I'm not talking about blame. I'm talking about emphasis The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not. When it is pointed out that a TWI leader, Wierwille included, abused his flock in some manner, it is nothing but a distraction to point at others. The question is, was a specific action of Wierwille's ethical, moral, godly, biblical, or wasn't it? The fact that young women for whatever reason agreed to have sex with him doesn't make him any less an adulterer. The fact that many people chose to stick around in the face of abuse doesn't make the abuse okay.

I see Martindale's teachings are still alive and well in TWI

One of the recurring battles here at the ol' cafe features a disagreement between those who assign responsibility for certain woes that befell us to Wierwille and his subordinates and those who feel that each individual is completely responsible for anything that happened to them. It is my position that in most cases we are responsible for how we think and act, and we decide how we will respond to people who treat us wrongly. (Watch for this sentence to be taken out of context to support an opposing opinion!) It is also my position that this kind of discussion gets pushed into a false dilemma: TWI and its leaders are totally responsible for our problems or we are totally responsible for our problems. A third alternative is that although we decided to stick with a group that was in many cases abusive, the leaders of TWI were wrong to take advantage of the position that we put ourselves in. The emphasis should not be on whether Wierwille, Martindale or Joe Corps Grad was responsible for our mental state, or the problems that we encountered, but whether the actions that they took were ethical or not. The way I see it, abusive leaders saw that there were people who, for one reason or another, were willing to put up with whatever level of abuse they were subject to in exchange for what they perceived were benefits: being part of "the household", having access to "the Word like it wasn't known since the 1st century", or whatever other reason people had for putting up with b.s. - Those leaders then took advantage of those people who had put themselves in that position by abusing them. The emphasis should not be on whether those abused people could have theoretically walked away, or spoken up, but should be on those "leaders" who acted unethically and unbiblically when they knew that they had some people by the b@lls. It is a distraction to attempt to turn the spotlight back on those who feel victimized or abused. The spotlight should instead be on the perpetrators.

There were times when I was happy and times when I wasn't. When I was, I gave credit to TWI and when I wasn't I blamed myself.

No, you do not, but I wasn't limiting my end of the analogy to good stuff about TWI, nor to this board only; I would guess that you are not shy about telling people about God, the bible and your knowledge and experience of them. This is a discussion board. Pawtucket could have set this up as just a document archive, but if people want to discuss things, so what? I think you overestimate how much time most people spend here. And how do you know what people do with their time and lives?

If it was indeed wasteful or pointless to continue to talk about the same or similar bad events over and over, wouldn't the same thing apply to talking abgout the same biblical things over and over? Quote from an earlier post altered to reflect my point: Apparently some think that if you have a good experience and feel the need to share it is not enough to have pages of information on the subject. It needs to be reinvented each and every day. After all, if you want to hear about God, there are pages and pages written about him and Jesus in the bible, don't you think people have already heard about him? [For those who don't know me that well, I'm not seriously suggesting that Christians don't "witness", just trying to make a point ]

If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed. I'm not familiar with this, 100,00 leaving due to Jesus' prediction. What's your source? I'd be interested in learning more if you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction. That's an interesting one. The quote about "The Lord cometh with 10 thousands of his saints" is a quote from the apocryphal Book of Enoch.

Interesting analogy, but what is being discussed is a lot worse than most people encounter at Macy's.

Or perhaps they need to be right out in the open.

So now it's okay to post on Grease Spot and still be involved in TWI. I'll take my apology now.

Wasn't "Hole in the Numbering System" a book by Stephen Hawking?

Jen-o: Yet some of our fellow posters take words like your own and decide that they mean that Wierwille's sins invalidated the truth in them. Excuse me, I assumed that these posters decide what others' words mean. But the facts are that the frequent response to posts like yours is "Wierwille's sins do not invalidate the truth that he taught". We all have different ideas of how much that Wierwille taught was true. However, I have yet to see someone who believes that previously true doctrine, whether plagiarized or original became false once Wierwille taught it due to his character flaws, sins, abuses, etc.

While we're at it, is there anyone here who thinks that any of Wierwille's material was false because it was plagiarized? Or even that all of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized?

Ham: It sounds like you're saying that Wierwille's character indicated or pointed out the falsity of what he was teaching, not that it made false what was otherwise true. Also that his character was a red flag to accept nothing he said at face value. Correct me if I'm wrong and you were really saying that there was truth that his sins turned into lies.

Still waiting for this assertion to be made, other than some posters claiming it has been made.Every poster who has been accused of saying that Wierwille's sins invalidate any truth in his teachings has explained the misunderstanding. Come on! If you're out there and believe that any truth that is in Wierwille's teachings is no longer truth because of Wierwille's sins, step up to the microphone and say so!

They were trying to soak the brides & grooms up here. Last year there was a bill in the legislature to increase the marriage license fee from $15 to $100. It didn't pass. From what I've read, Nevada has the most restrictions and requirements and fees on wedding officiants.

Wierwille defined a prophet as one who spoke for God, which he strongly implied that he did. Someone can't be what they don't explicitly claim to be? Why not?

Is there anyone here who believes that any truth in Wierwille's work is somehow not truth due to any of Wierwille's sins or abuses? If so, please step up and say so clearly. I don't think such a poster exists. I hear posters asserting that Wierwille's character influenced what he taught, should cause one to not take it at face value and that the teachings were not truth. Yet various arguments are addressed by the statement that Wierwille's sins don't negate the truth in them. This strawman has been around so long that it's taken on a life of its own.

They don't require ministerial licenses up here Whitey. They just take your word for it.

In Nebraska & Iowa you don't have to register or get a license.

So, shiftthis, not wanting anything to do with TWI = not being into God?

Google "wedding officiant requirements"

During the ! wedding a few years back my then-fiancee, now wife Susie, noting that the "minister", our esteemed Raf, was not a professional minister, but nonetheless did a great job, mentioned that she thought that I would be good at marrying people. In 2005 I got a Universal Life Church ordination, but waited about a year to put an ad in the yellow pages, advertising as a wedding officiant. I ended up performing eight weddings in 2007, including an "emergency wedding" at 11PM on a front lawn, wearing my grocery store uniform, with vows that I had made up in the car on the way over. For 2008 I set an initial goal of averaging 1 per month, which would have covered advertising for my wife's business as well as mine, but soon increased it to 2 per month. I've done 5 so far, including one alternating between Spanish and English and have contracts and deposits for 12 more, plus 3 appointments with couples this week for future weddings. I'm about ready to hire a secretary!

It's a Grateful Dead thing

Wierwille agreed with Lamsa, who believed that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. He threw around the term "Estrangelo Aramaic" which referred to the script that the language was written in, not a dialect.