Raf

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.

If you can't afford to pay child support, but you can afford to tithe, you might be in a cult. If you think there's nothing unusual about laughing hysterically at a corny, prerecorded joke you've heard a million times before, you might be in a cult. If your intro to the Bible class spends more time discussing the crosses on the side than it does discussing the cross in the middle, you might be in a cult. If your New Testament has more ink smudges in the margins than white space, you might be in a cult.

Tom, I apologize: you were the first to mention I think it's only fair to give credit where credit is due. So let's make sure everyone knows Goey is not trying to steal credit for your idea for I certainly wouldn't try to take credit or lead anyone to believe that was my idea.

Oldiesman, No one, not one person, was rude or inappropriate to Wonder. Wonder asked a question, politely. It was answered, politely. "Carved up and cubed like diced ham?" No, Oldiesman, the question was neither carved nor cubed. It was answered.

So wait, Goey, are you saying that if I were to register: they couldn't sue me? That's pretty amazing. Maybe was could park there and start a bidding war for I think you may be onto something.

Oldiesman, Some of us do write about, and post about, other things. That's what Tom was trying to say.

Wonder, Welcome. How would you like your coffee? You are correct: many who left did so because of people. I left primarily because everyone I knew was leaving at the same time, and because my personal investigation (scant as it was) led me to believe that staying was not the godly thing to do. I praise God I was never hurt in the way so many others were. But another significant reason to leave is doctrinal: I do not buy TWI's take on tithing, on "the law of" believing, or on a slew of other, significant issues. I don't foresee changing their minds about those issues, so if I'm going to be honest, I'm not going to stay. I would like to say those doctrinal issues are the reason I left, but they're not. I came to those conclusions later. But they are the reason I would continue to stay away, even if TWI really did become "kinder and gentler." For all I know, TWI already is kinder and gentler. But I've moved on. And, for me, that's okay. I don't require TWI to be perfect. Lord knows I'm not. Neither is CES, CBC, Restoration Fellowship, or any other ministry. I just have no desire to re-join TWI only to be constantly reminded that, in their uninformed opinion, I'm robbing God because I don't fork over thousands of dollars to their coffers every year. God Bless You.

I don't think anyone is complaining about getting kicked out in 1989. Heck, I'm grateful it happened. Spared me the wrath to come, if you catch my meaning.

John, Thank you. I truly appreciate your post. A couple of things: One, regarding the VF class: take a look at my postings on the thread entitled "How much authority can TWI have over you." You'll find that I say pretty much the same thing. You said: "Each person is responsible to rise up." I agree. You said: "Bathsheba's culpability was moot when David made her his wife." Agreed. So why did we not see God say anything to her before that? Because He wasn't upset? No, we'll agree that He probably was upset, based on that particular sin making the Top Ten list. But her culpability wasn't the point of the account. The point of the account was David's sin, and how it affected not only David, but the entire kingdom of Israel. In that context, Bathsheba's role is not the point. The point of this thread is the abuse committed by those in authority. That abuse is largely responsible for what happened to TWI. The culpability of the abused is irrelevant to that point. It may be relevant to other points, but not that one. You said: "I think these women here are a lot stronger than you think." Now, yes. But they are not in TWI now. They have had time to reflect now. They resent what happened now. They regret it. And they kick themselves for allowing this to happen in their lives. They honestly don't need us to remind them of what they did. At the time they were in TWI, they were manipulated, deceived, and abused. It happened far more frequently than you or I would like to think. Do I underestimate the strength of these women? Perhaps. But in turn, you vastly underestimate the power wielded by the abusers, and the extent to which they abused their position as "men of God" in order to satisfy their lusts. If you take your mind off the culpability of the women, you can more clearly see just how dastardly the men were. It wasn't just sex. It wasn't just adultery. It was the abuse of power, the taking advantage of love, and the rule by fear. I apologize if I crossed any lines of decorum in this debate.

Look at the extras. The music video. "Up Up Up" by Rose Falcon. Billy Falcon's daughter.

Don't get me wrong: I'm sure Bathsheba was an adulteress. It's just that in the telling of the story, her culpability was not the point. God doesn't spend any time in II Samuel 12 discussing her culpability (I don't know if it's mentioned elsewhere, but if it is, I assure you it's because where it's mentioned, it's the point.) God was mad at David. God was upset with what David did. Bathsheba's culpability was not a factor. David was held accountable for what David did. Was He mad at Bathsheba? Sure He was. There was, after all, that matter of breaking one of the Big Ten. But it's not mentioned: because it's not relevant. Get it? The culpability of the person who is used by the "man of God" is irrelevant to the discussion, regardless of her level of consent. In other words: It does not matter one whit if the woman was drugged or raped or a prostitute, the point is that men of God ought not be doing such things.