PatAnswer

The key research that "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" was built around was taken directly from Ernest L. Martin's "The Birth of Christ Recalculated" written in 1978. Martin did the heavy lifting on that one and the research team used his work. Without Martin's work JCOPS would never have been written.

Recently I saw an article on Forbes website. It was titled "The Seven Habits of Spectacularly Unsuccessful Executives" and can be found here. The seven are: Habit # 1: They see themselves and their companies as dominating their environment. Habit #2: They identify so completely with the company that there is no clear boundary between their personal interests and their corporation’s interests. Habit #3: They think they have all the answers. Habit #4: They ruthlessly eliminate anyone who isn’t completely behind them. Habit #5: They are consummate spokespersons, obsessed with the company image. Habit #6: They underestimate obstacles. Habit #7: They stubbornly rely on what worked for them in the past. Eerie isn't it? Yep, inevitable.

In retrospect I think one of the most effective tools that TWI used (uses) to indoctrinate its followers is the "no private interpretation" teaching. This teaching is introduced early and often to stifle thinking. In the foundational class the example is given of a typical bible study group. A verse is read and then each member of the group gets to stand up and say what they think it means. Johnny, Maggie, Henry each stand and say "Well I think it means..." In the example in the class they may have been giving their thoughts on the sower and the seed. Johnny says "I think the seed is..." followed by the others and they disagree with each other. Then VPW says "now we've got three denominations" and "why don't they just keep reading? The Word interprets itself" and in fact in this instance Jesus later says "the seed is...., the fields are....". Oh that it was always that simple! But VPW says "you nor I dare notprivately interpret the Word". "Private interpretation" (one's own interpretation or letting loose, one's own thinking) is highly condemned. You are not to say what you think the Word means. Now you are ripe for indoctrination. You are no longer thinking but rather accepting someone else's opinion of "what the Word says". I think the truth is that the private interpretaion verse is improperly taught. It's got nothing to do with an individual "privately interpreting" what the Word means but rather that the prophet does not "let loose" by his or her's own volition. But that's only what I think.

When I first got in the ministry there were people in my twig that were advanced class grads. Sometimes they would go to "advanced clas grad weekends" or other meetings. They whet my appetite by telling me that what they were a part of was "closed corporation", they couldn't tell me about it at all. I couldn't wait to take the AC so that I too could go to these exclusive meetings where the topics were of such top level spiritual material. Then I finally got to go. My class was a video of the AC '79 by VPW. Wow, I was finally there! The excitement of being there carried me for a few days. But towards the end of the first week I began to think there was something wrong with me. Everyone else seemed so excited and seemed like they were "getting it" and I wasn't. One of the biggest disappointments was that after stories of God working so mightily and in spectacular ways in people of our day (black hearts, white hearts, who's going to win the next horse race, bumps on the back of someone's hand that would reveal how to minister healing) we would be told that God didn't work that way any more. Those were in the category of phenomena and we weren't supposed to look for anything like that. We weren't to ask for signs though it was clear that VPW and others did exactly that. By the end of the class I felt like I had missed something. Surely I was asleep when the really cool stuff was taught. I had more questions than answers. I think I walked with less power after the AC then before.

OldSkool When Rosie took over I remember her telling people to write to her with any complaints they had. Well, I think she got more of a response than she had anticipated and many of the responses had to do with teachings that Craig introduced that seemed suspect at best. Once she opened that can of worms there were a lot of people speaking freely about those things. I think she realized what she had done and had to put out the fire of discontent. That was about the time she came out with the "proven ministry work" rule. If it had been taught by the ministry it was unquestionable. If the ministry had taught it, it had been researched and was the truth. During the 90's Craig had tried to do away with VPW's name. It was rare to hear someone quote VPW's works, it was all about Craig. Even Rosie herself (who in public was quite the VPW worshipper)would gush about "our Reverend Martindale" and praise his unholy name. Craig did not allow people to quote VPW because it was now Craig's time to shine and the followers were to "get excited about what he's (Craig's) excited about". The "cop-outs" all had VPW's material but Craig proclaimed they were living in the past and following a dead man and that Craig had the "present truth". When Craig was outed Rosie had quite the task in front of her. Craig's and VPW's teachings seem to be contradictory in places. If she suddenly returned to VPW's materials it would cause the lemmings to question if they had been misled. But the questioning had already started and some of the things Craig taught were easy to disprove. She stated early in her reign that the TWI was like a big ship and it took a long time to change directions. In other words, if she made the changes slowly enough maybe people would not notice they were heading in a different direction. The end result is that the TWI became bland and boring, regurgitating the same thing over and over. Because the TWI had been stagnant in its doctrine for the past couple of decades or more their teachings have had no depth or life. Most old-timers lost interest and most newcomers were unimpressed. Classes were met with a giant yawn. The life of the ministry has to be in the "twig" because there certainly isn't any in Ohio. They probably now have the TWI "ship" heading fully on the VPW course but they are decades behind. I've got no interest in following that course, but IF someone was interested then some of the off-shoots would probably be a better fit. They've been moving on while TWI was off course. Some of them have seen and acknowledged a few of the most obvious errors in VPW's teachings and corrected them. TWI has made the mistake of declaring anything that's been taught as truth and unquestionable. They are officially now a dull denomination.

Want to get a little peak into how someone with intimate knowledge of sexual abuse can rationalize the whole thing and turn a blind eye to it? Read the transcript of the phone call between the young boy that “coach” Fine abused and “coach” Fine’s wife. She knew what a sick bastard her husband was and yet did nothing. In fact, there are now allegations that she had sex with one of the boys once he was no longer a minor. It is HERE

Naten00, What you've already experienced with folks from TWI is (IMO) what you'll get from most of them. They "know that they know that they know" most everything and like carp climbing all over each other to get bread crumbs they'll get all lathered up once you (a non-grad new person)say something they perceive as "off the word" and can't wait to be the first one in to confront your illogic. If the first to speak slightly stumbles another will be right there to steal their breadcrumb. The basis for this attitude comes from their foundational class where VPW gave an example of most bible fellowships he had witnessed. A verse is read and Maggie says "well I think it means" and Johnny says "I think it means", etc. Some of the things that Maggie et all say are obviously wrong and are easily corrected by intelligent discussion and reading the verse in the context. Most (non TWI)bible fellowships that I knew of may have a discussion like this but by input from everyone they'd eventually come up with the right answer. But VPW condemned this type of thinking as "private interpretation" and said it didn't matter what you or I thought but "what does the word say?". Then he would proceed to tell his followers what "the word" said and meant. You will rarely hear a wayfer say "I thinkit means...". They take pride in not being "open minded". They already know much more than anyone who went to a bible college or a (gasp) seminary. (VPW called them cemeteries.) With all that you have read on this site you are well-equipped to see through most of their sales pitches. Go ahead and go. It should be interesting. Who knows, you might learn something. Galen, You are a bit of a puzzle to me. You've been around for decades and apparently are still in at this time, but you still call the fellowships "twigs"? That moniker has not been used for over 15 years and most good wayfers would have had that drilled out of them long ago. Are you sure you go to a TWI sanctioned Household Fellowship? I don't doubt that you could be attending a TWI "twig" that allows free thinking. I noticed that some areas of the country actually had what seemed to be thriving fellowships and the leaders of those fellowships were generally rebels who insulated their fellowship from HQ and did their own thing. Does your fellowship run a lot of classes or is it comprised mostly of old-timers who ignore what HQ is doing? As long as your fellowship sends in their ABS you'll probably be left alone. They've lost too many people already and are less apt to throw many more out if you're helping to pay the bills. Pins for how many years you’ve been in? Really? They’re getting more and more like a church every day. Oh, concerning them checking on you each time you come back: your name certainly has travelled up and down the way tree. You are being discussed, watched...especially when the horn of plenty comes around. You can buy yourself time off with good behavior according to how deep your pocket is.

They conveniently don't read that quote from Mark 14:7 Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.

Here is another example of something I thought I understood clearly until it was explained to me by TWI: In their definition of "What is TWI" it says: (had to go to their site and pull this so I could be accurate)"A follower of The Way is filled with and manifests power from on high, holy spirit, and freely avails himself of fellowship meetings for spiritual nurture and growth." I always took this to mean that followers could freely avail themselves or not. Emphasis on freely, meaning "in a free manner". Totally up to them. When a follower availed him/herself, they did it freely, willingly, in a free manner. Then Martindale came along (I don't remember Wierwille saying this) and said what the definition meant was that a follower will freely avail himself, will make him/herself freely available to serve. The emphasis was put on avail (be of use, profit, or advantage to) and every follower was to freely (abundantly, often, at no cost)do it. Obviously I misunderstood that simple definition all along.

Head table, no double standard there! The common folk got kelp/sea salt/cayenne for seasonings. Someone somewhere determined that black pepper and regular salt were bad for you. BUT, you know who got the white salt/black pepper don't ya? Those super believers at the head table could believe to overcome the damage that those seasonings would cause but don't you run of the mill folks try it.

In another thread Chockful said: "Be very nice to the new people until they take the class, then gradually control more and more of their lives." Which got me to thinking about another category where TWI would talk out of both sides of their mouth. When it came to "undershepherding" we were told that we should "undershepherd" new folks until they could stand on their own. Similarly, we were told to undershepherd folks through (or until they took) the Advanced Class. So logically after someone took the Advanced Class should be when they can stand on their own. Well, what does stand on their own mean? Does it mean that they've reached a maturity level that should allow them to make their own decisions about their own lives (what they do, what they don't want to do, when they do it)? Does it mean they have the ability to give input into a biblical discussion even if what they think goes against accepted TWI doctrine? From my observation those that made it through the Advanced Class were not allowed to stand on their own, were not allowed to make decisions that they felt best for their own lives. There was ALWAYS more to do, their way of doing it, another level to attain another hoop to jump through. Maybe it's Way Corps or an outreach program or class crew. There was always someone telling you how to live your life no matter how old you were or how many years you were in the ministry or how many classes you took. Newbies and innies: Stand on your own? It's never going to happen. It's a false promise. Look around you. All that awaits you is more control, more demands, bondage, for the rest of your life.

Cman, I think this is one of the great tragedies of groups like TWI. One tends to throw everything out because you feel betrayed, bamboozled, and misled. I know I got so invested in TWI that when a few things fell, all of it fell. I was left gazing on a pile of broken doctrine and I didn't know if I had the energy or desire to sift through it to find any valuables. I do know that I couldn't read my KJV for a long time. My brain would automatically correct the text to TWI doctrine. For a while I just quit reading the bible altogether. But I found that eventually I could read versions that for the most part were very divergent from the KJV. I enjoyed it and I'd ask myself why they translated certain sections the way they did. Low and behold I found out that many of the things that I was taught in TWI were simply wrong and that many traditional Christian teachings that TWI railed against were much closer to the truth than what they taught. I learned a lot from these types of translations. I didn't accept them all, but at least it helped me get my brain to quit jumping to TWI interpretations. I also did something that for the most part was discouraged in TWI: I read commentaries. When I found any that really spoke to my heart I would make sure I checked them while deciphering a section of scripture. Most of them went much deeper than TWI ever did. I always found TWI teachings very shallow and repetitive, even when I bought into them. Just figured it was "the simplicity of the word" when it was really just limited, narrow, and arrogant. I also got out and talked to other Christians without allowing myself to jump in with my opinion. I just listened and considered. Again, I didn't accept all that I heard but at least I was hearing a different perspective. Along those lines I also got out and did community service. Since this was severely lacking in TWI it was a whole new perspective on life and gave me a sense of compassion, thankfulness, and gratitude and also gave me satisfaction by truly helping my fellow humans. I've not settled in to any particular way of thinking yet, but I'm at peace with my God.

I would have to agree with others that one of the biggest reasons wayfers don't leave is fear. If we're talking about those at HQ, the majority of them have been there for decades. DECADES! And going out and getting a real job with real responsibilities scares them. They've given up. They'll just stay there and exist. Life is not too bad in rural Ohio. Nice, quiet, wholesome community (outside of the compound). They're just going through the motions, checking off the boxes on their "sponsies" list, smiling, still saying "Bless you!" but they're miserable. I guess another question would be why don't they throw RFR out? Last I knew most can't wait for her to retire, die, or somehow get out of the way so they can get some sort of life back into their ministry. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard. I know there have been reports of underground movements to throw her out but so far it hasn't happened. Recently Robert Schuller was thrown out of the very church that he founded. Wow. RFR must have read about that and started looking around at her loyal cabinet, wondering who might be her Brutus. But she is a sly Fox. She didn't get in her position by being nice or playing fair. She puts up a pretty good front of being a nice old lady but I used to see grown men quake in fear of her. Don't know what she has on them but it's something big.

Neighbor This seemed pretty straightforward: neighbor – one who lives around or in proximity with me, wherever I may be. And of course Jesus answered the question “who is my neighbor?” with something that really challenged the minds of the Jews in his day. The Samaritan was neighbor to the man who was robbed along the road. The Jews hated the Samaritans and couldn't even conceive of helping one or being helped by one. Wasn't I surprised to learn that if you didn't like someone or didn't get along with them you could say they weren't your neighbor, even if they lived across the street. Where did I learn this? Sitting in the class Living Victoriously when Wierwille was teaching on love. When he came to "love your neighbor as yourself" he said “and who is my neighbor? Certainly not that son of a _____ that lives down the road!” pointing to the house across from the Wierwille home and the BRC (I think his name was Schrolucke [sp?]. The audience giggled with delight and I squirmed. I should have taken this as a cue to get out. Enemy Well if you don't have to love your neighbor, what about loving your enemy? How can you get out of this one? Martindale was the one who answered this one. He taught that an enemy is someone in the “household” who is a temporary enemy and needs to recover. You can help him (the temporary enemy) by loving (confronting and yelling at) him and getting him back in alignment. Just redefine simple words and you're under no obligation to love those you don't like. Problem solved. Poor Well if you don't have to love your real neighbors or your real enemies, at least you can take care of the poor, right? Nope. The word “poor” was redefined as “humble” everywhere it popped up. Case solved, no need to give to the (real)poor. TWI quoted Jesus saying “you have the poor always with you” so why waste your time(money) with them? They're always going to be around. They're a slothful bunch. If they really wanted help they'd be humble so you can teach them the word you know and they can believe to have abundance. Give TWI the money and they'll make the word available for these poor (humble) people. [As so often happened, TWI hung their doctrinal hat on one verse or a part of one (you have the poor with you always), ignoring the context of Jesus saying “but me you have not always”, meaning “let her take care of me, I'm not going to be around much longer. The poor will always be around so you can take care of them later.) Then one day I read it in Mar 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. Fornication/Adultery We don't really need to rehash this do we? Enough said I can't believe I tolerated any of this. You innies: wake up! Think! If they are still teaching this have the guts to question it. Maybe you'll find out how much they love you!

Johniam, I'm so glad you're here. When I was lurking on this site there were times when I considered that maybe what I learned and how I thought while in TWI was not all that bad, that we're all just trying to get to Chicago you know. But then I'd read things that you write and I'd realize that there, but for the grace of God, go I. The ideas you express are (to me) the natural progression of Way think. You help remind me of the extremes that Way think can be taken to. I've seen it in hundreds of people. In your point number 1 listed below you end it with "nobody died", which I assume means that to you it was no big deal. Really? Nobody died? You leave so many details out of the story that it's hard to fathom how this WOW family got to the place that one of them was pointing a loaded gun at the other three. At the very least it is reckless, careless behavior that could have been lethal. Normal behavior would not allow any gun, loaded or not, to be aimed towards another. And what was a gun doing in the WOW home? I guess the guy was just expressing his freedom in Christ. Behavior like that is an indication that something is seriously wrong with an individual. The guy had "issues". He needed real help. Yet leadership decides the best place for him is back on the WOW field with these same guys he had issues with. Oh my. Amateurs. They rolled the dice and apparently won. Had this guy gone on to do something horrific then I'm sure we would have read in the paper how he once threatened 3 christian missionaries with a loaded gun. And people would have thought "that's where it should have stopped, why didn't they report it?" Kind of reminds me of a sex pervert that was allowed to live amongst the "household". Devil spirits working overtime trying to mess with WOW families indeed.

I don't know, Steve. I don't think what our eyes see contradicts each other, I think they compliment each other. They see two different perspectives of the same "truth" and blend them into something more "solid" and with more depth. Our ears do the same. They take similar but different aural information and blend it to establish what the sound is and where it is. We get the word "stereo" from the Greek word stereos, meaning stablish or solid. Our English word stereo can apply to our eyes (stereoscope)or our ears. Like our eyes and ears, when our minds receive two different perspectives of the same truth it establishes that truth. But if our eyes, ears, or minds receive truly different or contradictory information concerning one reality or truth then there's conflict.

Thanks WordWolf and Geisha. I'm reviewing the discussion that WordWolf pointed me to and am considering what both of you said. I think I'll need to print them out and sit down with a pot of tea and mull this over.

Geisha, In an earlier post you quoted this verse: “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?” And I suppose that the point of quoting this is to show that the Bible says that God does not lie, thus God cannot lie. Period. But the verse goes on to say "or the son of man, the he should change his mind (repent). Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" There are plenty of places where God changes His mind (repents), where He says something but does not do it (because He changes His mind). This seems contradictory if the above verse is universally applicable. If the fact that He will not change His mind is applicable only here where Balaam is speaking to Balak then is that true also of the statement that He cannot (or shouldn't) lie? I'm truly wanting to know. Please pardon me if this has already been covered or is too elementary. Peace

Thanks Waysider, just like I like it.

I've been a lurker here for years. This is my first post. This site has helped me tremendously to unravel most of the wrong teaching and (im)practical application of it that I received in TWI. I've got a ways to go yet but am very thankful for the progress I've made so far. Now that I am somewhat clear in my thinking about who and what TWI is I've tried to go back and figure out how I fell for all of this. What was I thinking? Or, better yet, why was I not thinking? In the "College Degrees and The Way" thread Twinky said "They stole my critical thinking ability". This is what I think happened to me. But rather than say someone stole it, I realize that I relinquished it, I set it down. Like getting someone to lay their weapon down they disarmed me. In retrospect (and for future application) I ask, why did I let them? I suppose there were some things that softened me up first. I was introduced to TWI by a longtime friend, someone who was not at all the religious type. Their life seemed changed for the better. (by the way: they no longer "stand" in TWI) Then all the people that I met that were associated with TWI seemed so loving, caring. And they all attributed their loving actions to TWI and specifically PFAL. So I took it. And I heard Wierwille say how God had told him that He'd teach him the word like it hadn't been known since the first century if he'd teach it to others. I had never heard anyone make such a claim but I considered it, thought it might be possible. And in PFAL I heard things taught differently than I had been taught in my christian upbringing and I considered it, it made some sense. But what I think really got me to drop my critical thinking was the section on "no private interpretation" or one's own letting loose. The example given of Maggie standing up and saying "well I think it means..." followed by Johnny saying "well I think it means...." reminded me of bible discussions that I had heard growing up, people's opinions. I didn't want more opinions. The bible was to interpret itself. Some easy sections were cited where the text clearly said what the answer was (the seven churches are..., the seven candle sticks are....). Made sense to me. Why guess? This was quickly followed up with the record of Eve's demise for considering an alternative to what God said, adding a word, changing a word, deleting a word, etc. And it all starts with considering "Did God really say?". Look how easy it was for her to get into trouble. I wasn't going to be like her was I? So to keep myself out of this damnation I wouldn't allow myself to consider that what I was being taught was wrong. I dropped my critical thinking and believed what I was being taught. I was being had. Well, once I realized after all too many years that something was wrong I dared to critically look at what I had been taught, to (really) "make it my own". And it began to unravel, which was disconcerting at first but ultimately liberating. One of the first doctrines to fall was that of "no private interpretation". After looking at it from a fresh perspective I realized that for me that section had nothing to do with how I interpret the bible, but rather how we got it. Just look at the context. But I'm not here to convince anyone of what something means or doesn't mean...I suppose that would belong in the doctrinal forum. And how often did I hear Wierwille and others say things like "it's just got to be this" or "in the original it says this" and it was all their own private interpretation, guesswork (and not good guesswork at that). As far as the record of Eve is concerned: that's between God and her. But I do know that the basis of belief HAS to start with "Did God really say?". There's nothing wrong with considering what God says (said). It will hold up under scrutiny. As for adding, changing, deleting words: I'd say TWI is more guilty of this than most bible believing groups. So I'm back to square one on a number of beliefs. That's good in many ways. From TWI I've had a good lesson on "what it is not". That's a good place to start. I know what Christianity is not, it is not TWI. Peace