Raf

Since 2002.

I told you, you would probably do just fine to quote the Geer book. Doesn't that book have an intro explaining that some of these were articles which appeared in The Way Magazine?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

My God, do you know what this means? It means these guys (The Other Way International:)-->) have done more of God's Word in two years than that Ohio wannabe cult has done in 60. That's Power For Abundant Giving, baby!

Yeah, what the ™ happened to that thread, anyway?

Actually, that part strains credibility. You cannot tell from an internet search how many organizations use the words "The Way" in their names, as opposed to somewhere in the copy on the site. For example, a web site about a buzz saw might talk about improving the way you cut wood. Or something. I kind of feel like that cab driver right before the climactic battle in Superman II. "Man, this is gonna be good!"

Interesting indeed.

Insurgent, That song is too good to quote only in part. If others will forgive the digression, here are the complete lyrics to "Nothing," from A Chorus Line.

I should make it clear that I'm quoting from the Our Times book referenced in the first post on this thread. I do not have the article and do not know when it was published. Pat: for your needs, the book may be enough to establish that Wierwille actually wrote this. TWI never challenged it, and it was published by The Way, albeit indirectly (The Way in Great Britain while it was under Geer's control).

Someone else was quoting from it earlier. It begins:

Dot Matrix, you ROCK!

Jon, when you're posting, click on "URL" (above the text box). There's two boxes. One is for the actual URL, and the other is for whatever it is you'd like to type there. You can type anything, including thewayinternationalsucks.com

Here's my rabbit's worth: What is the real purpose of this website? To tell the truth about TWI, warts and all. To share and compare experiences, find old friends, and make new ones. To provide substantiation for some rumors and to debunk others. And occasionally to get silly. Would you like some coffee? All I see is bashing, slamming and cut downs. You're not looking very hard at all. Check out the doctrinal section, where serious debates and discussions about doctrinal issues take place. Try the prayer room: some people would appreciate some prayer. Politics your game? Bush lovers and Bush bashers love to clash swords over politics. If this ministry was really that bad why continue to talk about it? Because there are still some people who refuse to believe it is bad. And we welcome them, but we tend to get riled up when people say "everything's fine" or "everything was fine." Because it's not. And it wasn't. While good things were happening on the surface, other things were happening behind closed doors. People were abused. Lives were ruined. In God's name. I know if I had a bad experience with a group (which I have) I might talk about for a little bit, but then its history! Why the constant talk? Hey, bully for you, dude! I'm happy for you. Really. I wasn't hurt at all by TWI. Not in the slightest. Saddened, but not hurt. So when I realized there was an on-line community of people who shared this particular experience, I was happy. And the more I learned about them, the more I appreciated the different directions their lives took. I don't know, it's just interesting. Don't people interest you? And you didn't ask this one, but I'm going to answer it anyway: Don't you have better things to do? Yes. And I do them. All the time. I run my own Web site. I see movies (Young Adam: don't bother). I write for a newspaper. I'm a karaoke freak. I read my Bible and other articles of Biblical interest. I vote. Heck, I do all sorts of stuffs. And on slow moments during the day, or when I'm at home relaxing, I sometimes come here to talk to interesting people such as yourself. I had to leave the cream and sugar on the side, since you didn't tell me how you take your coffee. Drink up. And again, welcome.

John: He Word Wolf got his "Johns" mixed up. He meant Igotout (whose name is Jon).

How many people were told that "researching" meant "re-searching" the searches that had already been done, by VP? GAD that ticked me off.

Well, what's the site?

If you spend time scouring books looking for "actual errors," you might be in an Internet cult.

We are very close to agreement. I haven't said that they are helpless or hopeless. I have said that they are victims of the abuse of power. Whether motivated by fear, misplaced love, deception, or a host of other psychological influences, they chose not to break the cycle. I use the word "choice" a little loosely in this context. I think a lot of them felt they had no choice. A lot of them felt that succumbing was better than the alternative: loss of family, friends, fellowship, reputation, status, or whatever. And again, to be clear, for those who were drugged against their will or knowledge, there's not even a question of their "culpability." They were raped, by anyone's definition. But that's another issue. Look at how excathedra put it: Who are we to come to her now and tell her to "own up" to her role? She spent years in that self-condemnation, and we do her a disservice when we tell her to "take responsibility." Not because she hasn't, but because she has. The same thing happened when imbus told her story on another thread. The first thing she was hit with was, "do you see how you committed adultery too?" As if she didn't realize that! As if that sin didn't burden her heart for years! As if she needed us to tell her what she did was wrong! She didn't need it. We talk about doing a disservice when we recognize that victims were victimized: Let me turn that around. We do these women a disservice when, by our words, we seek to place them back in the same self-condemnation from which they've finally begun to recover. And that's what happens when we tell them "own up," "take responsibility," "you sinned." They know that. They don't need a refresher course. Cycles of abuse can be interrupted. But we're not dealing with cases in which they were. Can we remember for a second that this stuff actually happened to real human beings, some of whom are reading this? They know that cycles of abuse can be interrupted, now. They didn't even know they were being abused then. A little perspective is in order. They weren't helpless. They weren't hopeless. They know that now. They did not know that then. In the context of this discussion (as far as I see it) what they know now is irrelevant. Only what they knew then counts toward the point of the abuse of power. Maybe I'm wrong about the issue of relevancy. I've tried hard to make a case for my position. You've done a fine job of offering a counterpoint/rebuttal. Maybe we're not completely seeing eye to eye on this particular matter, but we don't necessarily have to. I truly appreciate the dialogue. Incidentally, I don't recall if I said this before, but look at my posts on the thread called "How much authority did TWI have over you." I think you'll find we're not really all that far apart.

Welcome Mr. Moonlight. I'm sure no one needs to tell you, but just in case: please be careful posting. You don't want to give anyone tips as to your identity or location. You're in my prayers, and I'm sure a few others' too. By the way, you're also in my seat. But I'll make an exception. This time. :)--> Coffee?

People across the country and around the world celebrate with you... Even aliens.

Here's one site. Here's another. Not a lot of detail here. Here's a third. I'd also recommend checking out the amazon.com entry for this book, as people have weighed in on the subject. I recall reading an old piece of literature... That's a joke. Actually, I recall reading a NY Times article that went into some detail ont he subject: but it's in the Times archives now and, frankly, I don't feel like spending money to retrieve it. :)-->

Laleo, That was, indeed, a very wise post. Gave us a lot to chew on. I still think that the culpability of the victim is not relevant when the discussion is centered on the abuse of power and the extent of power. In declaring that the power exercised by some TWI leadership was "absolute," I agree that the original post on this thread went too far. It was not absolute. But it doesn't have to be absolute to be "power." And there was considerable power wielded. As I said, as Goey said, and as others have said, the psychological power wielded by TWI was, in the minds and hearts of some followers, just as intense as the power of a gun pointed at your head. When a "man of God" tells you that adultery is not wrong, of course you have the right and ability to disagree and to walk away from the situation. But (again, in some cases) at what cost? The targets of this abuse were motivated by deception, fear, manipulation, all imposed by these people who were supposed to be representing God. That's powerful power. So yes, some of the victims wanted to do their best to love God and love their neighbor as themselves, but they were deceived into thinking that adultery could be an expression of that love. Stupid? To me, yes. To you, probably. To someone who is vulnerable and "would rather be loved and wrong than unloved and right," it's less clear. To someone afraid of having their reputation tarnished, someone with few friends or family outside this cult, to someone who has already isolated their friends and family to be a part of TWI, it's less clear. Let's look at your two examples: 1. A male friend is told by TWI leadership to tell his girlfriend to have an abortion. You and I probably agree that he made the wrong call. He lost his girlfriend and, as you left the story, didn't even know whether he was, in fact, a father. Was this man a victim or bully? He was a little bit of both: a victim of improper counsel by "men of God;" a bully for trying to get his girlfriend to do something she didn't want to do. In this case you've touched on something important, something that has not been discussed: how do bullies get to be bullies? To some extent, they get to be bullies by being victims first. Your friend was a victim being trained to be a bully. 2. Your other friend was "incapable of turning down a sexual advance." Laleo, if someone with that characteristic becomes part of a church, the church is responsible to help her overcome it. Do you think TWI would have helped her? Or do you think some leaders would have helped themselves to her? The question on this thread concerns, primarily, leadership and the abuse of power. No one you mention in your example is in a position of leadership, so it's kind of off point. While I understand what you're trying to say, the point remains that whether leadership was confronted with someone so unwilling that they had to drug her to get her to comply, or someone who was so abused that they were "incapable" of saying no, leadership had a responsibility commensurate with their power (influence) as leaders. And a leader who takes sexual advantage of people has abused his power. Here's another way to look at it: If the abuser was not in a position of leadership, would the relationship turn sexual? Would the abuse have been possible? If the answer to the above question is yes, then the culpability of the woman is relevant. If the answer is no, then it is irrelevant. That's just my opinion (an oversimplified version, I might add). Anyway, excellent post. Thank you for writing it.

And this, it turns out, is not true. DNA evidence debunks Koestler's theory. Wierwille could not have known that at the time, but it turns out that Koestler's theory, interesting as it may have been, was incorrect.

Justin Guarini looked like he walked to American Idol from the set of Sigmund and the Sea Monsters. As for Kelly Clarkson, she looked like she got turned down by "Saved by the Bell" for being too chirpy. No opinions on Ruben or Clay, except that Clay looks like a bird.

I think it would be juvenile to go through all the trouble of posting just because we like the way it looks.