OM. We were told to pack our bags if we had a problem Hitchhiking!
But you still had a choice, to hitchhike, or not to hitchhike and go home.
The corps had some downright challenging stuff. Lots of us spiritual partners knew that it was intense training, which was why we financially supported folks like you who agreed to do it.
But don't tell me you were forced please ... you had a choice.
Oh suuuuure.....it WAS ok to be a failure a dissapointment by not complying with leaderships orders...but you were forever branded spiritual *LOSER* <_<
Destined to live out the rest of your life in shame, viewed as spiritually *questionable* a spiritual *wimp*
Most of us would have rather died (and some did) than be a dissapointment to God.
You know, I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't want to derail, and I spent an hour putting together a lengthy post with quotes from the thread and my own thoughts, but, in the end, what I want to know from johniam and oldiesman in specific, and anyone else who cares to answer is this...
Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership?
Because that sounds like some of the most twisted logic I can imagine. That is the sort of logic that is parallel to, "She was dressed in sexy clothes, she deserved to get raped--it's her own fault." and "Well, if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town, he would never have been mugged--it's his own fault."
And, the inverse therefore is: "She had a breakdown in her believing, she brought it on herself."
Which very wrongly assigns blame to the victim of a crime. But, then, why should I be surprised? Such logic has dominated the thinking of close-minded, judgmental, self-righteous hypocrites for ages. It's nothing new, but it is hard to swallow. Covering up for policies you KNOW are dangerous and have caused injury makes you nothing short of an accomplice to a crime.
And do NOT try to pass off the argument of "TWI never MADE anyone hitchhike." just because LCM wasn't standing on the side of the highway with a gun pointed to a corps-person's head saying "hitchhike or else!" because anyone who has endured the extreme pressure from someone in authority knows that coercion doesn't always take place at the point of a knife or barrel of a gun.
If someone tells you, "This is the highest calling for your life, and if you fail you will let down not only those who have cared for you, but, indeed, you will have failed GOD...so go, do this thing and get your mind right."
That isn't just a threat for the moment, or quick consequences...that's guilt for an eternity.
So...really now...is this what we're saying? I repeat my original question: Is it the opinion of some here that the people who WERE injured and worse asked for it by not "activating their believing" enough...or, even more foul, that they were believing FOR it to happen?
Because, that's certainly what can be inferred by some of these posts.
I, for one, find the entire idea to be the heart of wickedness. Which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used before.
and...some of these posts have made me ashamed for how little progress we've made as a species.
But you still had a choice, to hitchhike, or not to hitchhike and go home.[/size]
The corps had some downright challenging stuff. Lots of us spiritual partners knew that it was intense training, which was why we financially supported folks like you who agreed to do it.
But don't tell me you were forced please ... you had a choice.
Technically correct, it was (almost always) a choice.
You could choose to risk life and limb (and break the law) and hitchhike,
or
you could pack your bags and go home.
But let's not oversimplify the situation....
IF you chose the second option- "pack your bags and go home",
you were FIRST subjected to a face-melting session from AT LEAST ONE
supposed "leader" of twi, who equated you with the scum at the bottom of the
pond, for "turning your back on God" (refusing to risk your life and break the law by hitchhiking)
and be given one more chance to avoid the disapproval of GOD ALMIGHTY,
the entire leadership-especially lcm, vpw, etc,
the entire staff-who will be told you were weak, scum, etc.,
and "your spiritual partners" (people like Oldiesman who would give you
crap for not risking your life and breaking the law at their say-so)
and to change your mind.
If you elected NOT to do this even after the emotional abuse,
then you better pack fast, because you're off the grounds immediately,
and it's up to you to figure out how to get somewhere else,
let alone where to go.
Of course, people who were kicked out of the corps (because that amounts
to being kicked out) suffer emotional trauma-which was the idea, after
all, with the screaming session. At least one committed suicide for it.
But the suicide, technically speaking, IS a choice. One is not forced to
commit suicide just because one is made to feel like they've disappointed
God Almighty and are fit only for death. That IS a choice.
Nobody here, as far as I saw, ever said those were not choices.
Pretending we DID say that is neither honest nor honorable.
Not that this qualifies as news.
We were IF we loved God.
Oh suuuuure.....it WAS ok to be a failure a dissapointment by not complying with leaderships orders...but you were forever branded spiritual *LOSER* <_<
Destined to live out the rest of your life in shame, viewed as spiritually *questionable* a spiritual *wimp*
Most of us would have rather died (and some did) than be a dissapointment to God.
Yeah we were forced IF we loved God.
Technically, that IS a choice.
It's a horribly-slanted choice, and it's presented as if one means life,
and one means a living DEATH-
which is how they wanted it seen-
but that IS a choice.
You COULD choose to be made a pariah, an outcast, worthy to be trampled underfoot
and not even worthy to eat dog food.
That was ALWAYS a choice.
For MOST people, anyway.
Of course, T*m M NEVER had that choice for him and his wife-
since lcm insisted on keeping HER on grounds because she made a dandy sex-slave.
Small wonder why T*m M made the CHOICE to scream about it in public,
how he could not "compete" with lcm,
and why T*m M made the CHOICE to pick up a pistol and blow his brains out.
You know, I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't want to derail, and I spent an hour putting together a lengthy post with quotes from the thread and my own thoughts, but, in the end, what I want to know from johniam and oldiesman in specific, and anyone else who cares to answer is this...
Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership?
Because that sounds like some of the most twisted logic I can imagine. That is the sort of logic that is parallel to, "She was dressed in sexy clothes, she deserved to get raped--it's her own fault." and "Well, if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town, he would never have been mugged--it's his own fault."
And, the inverse therefore is: "She had a breakdown in her believing, she brought it on herself."
Which very wrongly assigns blame to the victim of a crime. But, then, why should I be surprised? Such logic has dominated the thinking of close-minded, judgmental, self-righteous hypocrites for ages. It's nothing new, but it is hard to swallow. Covering up for policies you KNOW are dangerous and have caused injury makes you nothing short of an accomplice to a crime.
And do NOT try to pass off the argument of "TWI never MADE anyone hitchhike." just because LCM wasn't standing on the side of the highway with a gun pointed to a corps-person's head saying "hitchhike or else!" because anyone who has endured the extreme pressure from someone in authority knows that coercion doesn't always take place at the point of a knife or barrel of a gun.
If someone tells you, "This is the highest calling for your life, and if you fail you will let down not only those who have cared for you, but, indeed, you will have failed GOD...so go, do this thing and get your mind right."
That isn't just a threat for the moment, or quick consequences...that's guilt for an eternity.
So...really now...is this what we're saying? I repeat my original question: Is it the opinion of some here that the people who WERE injured and worse asked for it by not "activating their believing" enough...or, even more foul, that they were believing FOR it to happen?
Because, that's certainly what can be inferred by some of these posts.
I, for one, find the entire idea to be the heart of wickedness. Which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used before.
and...some of these posts have made me ashamed for how little progress we've made as a species.
Very sorry indeed,
QT
In case it was missed, QT made this post a page back.
Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership?
So...really now...is this what we're saying? I repeat my original question: Is it the opinion of some here that the people who WERE injured and worse asked for it by not "activating their believing" enough...or, even more foul, that they were believing FOR it to happen?
Why did we do this dangerous stuff? Because we were young. Because we believed that God went with us. Because we were required to. Because our "spiritual temperature" was taken with our performance.
Ask yourself this - Where did Jesus ever teach these "truths?" Wasn't this habit of doing dangerous stuff just another Gospel alongside the truth?
And yes, we WERE taught not to tempt God - but what if you were TOLD BY A MAN OF GOD to do something dangerous? Oh well! Now all bets were off - this was like some guarantee that God would honor this MOG's directive. So now God wasn't sovereign, Jesus wasn't the Lord of all - the MOG was and God and all his heavenly host had to dance to the MOG's tune??????
Tell me - what is wrong with this picture?
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that OM got to see this....
I think a lot of it had to do with the macho personna that the leadership wanted to portray - except with them it was usually "macho by proxy", in that the lives they were putting on the line were not their own.
Plus the fact that it's a whole bunch cheaper to leave all the transportation and logistics to your vassals. Lord knows there were lots more toys that the MOG and mini-mogs needed.
And the mindset of living recklessly WAS encouraged. I remember many teachings about "Renewed-mind recklessness", "cutting the safety nets", or "letting go and letting God". It was an integral part of WayWorld Dogma. Anybody who says less is being disingenuous, IMNSHO.
And of course, when things DID go wrong they could quickly hush it up, paper it over, or - if all else failed - BLAME THE VICTIM. That always worked...
Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership?
QT, I can't speak for Johniam, but I need the facts of a particular situation first before giving an opinion.
Regarding hitchhiking, I personally do not believe hitchhiking was particularly dangerous in and of itself. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss, just like anything else. It can be dangerous driving a car, or just walking down the street, depending on the circumstances. Being in the world, one may die or suffer consequences in a whole host of different ways and means.
I think just because an act may be perilous, or risky, doesn't necessarily mean one shouldn't try it ... but again, that's for the individual to decide. But in the corps folks couldn't make up their own rules and knew that going in. It was/is a training program... designed to challenge and expand one's abilities.
George, you bring up yet another good point....while we were out there putting our lives and safety on the line proving our believing...THEY were riding on Harlys or in lincolns or luxurious motor coaches, or if that proved too onerous, flying in personal airplanes,
Shoot even when traveling on grounds....they had cushmans!
I think a lot of it had to do with the macho personna that the leadership wanted to portray - except with them it was usually "macho by proxy", in that the lives they were putting on the line were not their own.
Plus the fact that it's a whole bunch cheaper to leave all the transportation and logistics to your vassals. Lord knows there were lots more toys that the MOG and mini-mogs needed.
And the mindset of living recklessly WAS encouraged. I remember many teachings about "Renewed-mind recklessness", "cutting the safety nets", or "letting go and letting God". It was an integral part of WayWorld Dogma. Anybody who says less is being disingenuous, IMNSHO.
And of course, when things DID go wrong they could quickly hush it up, paper it over, or - if all else failed - BLAME THE VICTIM. That always worked...
Yes, we new that we would be challenged in many ways and we were. But, why is it so important to "Hitchhike"? That's not challenging nor is it biblical.
I and many others had a car. The main objective in going " Light Bearers" was to run a PFAL class.. period.
You had two weeks to get it together. Now.... that's CHALLENGING.
Not only are you walking unfamiliar streets, going door to door, bars etc... to meet people. If you didn't
have a car loaned to you while you were there, you had to use your thumb.
I happened to go to Denver.... in the winter. NOT FUN
I'm just saying that it would've been so much easier if we had our own cars.
Again, we were sent out ONLY TO START A CLASS!!! Not to risk our lives :(
And do NOT try to pass off the argument of "TWI never MADE anyone hitchhike." just because LCM wasn't standing on the side of the highway with a gun pointed to a corps-person's head saying "hitchhike or else!" because anyone who has endured the extreme pressure from someone in authority knows that coercion doesn't always take place at the point of a knife or barrel of a gun.
That (in it's entirity) was a good post QT... but you're wasting your breath trying to talk logic or compassion with OM and johniam... it's been tried before and it doesn't work.
To your analogy of a gun to the head they'd just respond "but you still had a choice"...
QT, I can't speak for Johniam, but I need the facts of a particular situation first before giving an opinion.
*clears throat*
Regarding hitchhiking, I personally do not believe hitchhiking was particularly dangerous in and of itself. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss, just like anything else.
Walking along the median strip of the highway, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.
I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-
like a driver jumps the median at the wrong moment.
Walking through Central Park late at night, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.
I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-
like, say, a guy with a knife and a black cape is hanging out in that area at that moment.
Getting your evening excercise by wandering up and down the stairs in the projects,
in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous
if something goes amiss-like a drug-user or mugger finds you.
Now,
if a program claimed to BENEFIT you insisted that you would be REQUIRED to do each,
most sensible people would-at the very least-insist on discussing the possible benefits
of engaging what is known to be a dangerous activity
(whether or not it dangerous "in and of itself".)
Most programs, you may be surprised to know, DON'T require things like those or
hitchhiking. Of course, most programs are designed by people who actually
know something ABOUT leadership programs,
and don't view the participants as DISPOSABLE.
It can be dangerous driving a car, or just walking down the street, depending on the circumstances. Being in the world, one may die or suffer consequences in a whole host of different ways and means.
I think just because an act may be perilous, or risky, doesn't necessarily mean one shouldn't try it ... but again, that's for the individual to decide. But in the corps folks couldn't make up their own rules and knew that going in. It was/is a training program... designed to challenge and expand one's abilities.
It was "designed" by people who didn't particularly care about-nor understand-
the consequences to the people who had to try and live through them.
It was CLAIMED to challenge and expand one's abilities.
Much of it was "retake all the classes", or "go and run some pfal classes on the field"
or "clean up the grounds",
with some breaks for "go hitchhike over there" and some other things.
And again, whether or not someone hitched (or carried out any other myriad number of 'orders') HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MOVING GOD'S WORD. Even you two can't disprove that.
Yes, we new that we would be challenged in many ways and we were. But, why is it so important to "Hitchhike"? That's not challenging nor is it biblical.
I and many others had a car. The main objective in going " Light Bearers" was to run a PFAL class.. period.
You had two weeks to get it together. Now.... that's CHALLENGING.
Not only are you walking unfamiliar streets, going door to door, bars etc... to meet people. If you didn't
have a car loaned to you while you were there, you had to use your thumb.
I happened to go to Denver.... in the winter. NOT FUN
I'm just saying that it would've been so much easier if we had our own cars.
Again, we were sent out ONLY TO START A CLASS!!! Not to risk our lives :(
But, vpw didn't mind that your lives were risked, nor did he care when it was
I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-like, say, a guy with a knife and a black cape is hanging out in that area at that moment.
And then you have something else to blame twi for.
Someone - anyone - hitched in the early days of twi. They got to their destination lauding thier experience to the sky, telling anyone and everyone who would listen how God was with them all the way; meeting their needs and giving them access to speak the "Wonderful Word of God."
Now, this becomes policy. In order to get a truly spiritual perpective on the world you have to hitch.
I saw this in Houston in the early '80's. One guy had the great idea to go witnessing in bars and honky tonks. Before you know it the ONLY way to really win people to the class was to go witness in bars. (What a dream come true for the alcoholics in the branch!)
Oddly enough, the same guy who started the "bar witnessing fad" later FORBADE us from witnessing at all for 6 weeks. His logic? He said, "There are people in your fellowships that don't even KNOW each other, don't even LIKE each other! How are you going to bring others to a ministry that can't take care of itself?"
After that we still went out - but we went out with someone we didn't know and we spent time getting to know that person.
Not to derail - I was just trying to make a point. That being, that once a policy was determined it was difficult to change. How did we get away with this in Houston? Maybe because we were still getting classes together... I dunno...
Ultimately, there was a sheep mentality that twi took full advantage of -as do many people in power.
And it is all done in the name of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit..
Then there's also a thing called "risk/benefit analysis". A thing that was entirely disregarded at WayWorld, near as I can tell.
Like - a couple of girls hitchhiking alone through Texas in the winter. I can definitely see a markedly increased risk. But what were the benefits? I mean, other than the fact that it was a way to transport the girls somewhere at no cost to VPW?
If people would've had the good sense to sue the bastards when things went wrong, I'd bet that WayWorld would've had a marked change of heart with regards how much jeopardy they required their minions to expose themselves to. They were MIGHTY sensitive to trauma to their pocketbook...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
53
44
23
Popular Days
Aug 1
66
Aug 2
64
Aug 3
57
Jul 27
33
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 20 posts
oldiesman 53 posts
WordWolf 44 posts
doojable 23 posts
Popular Days
Aug 1 2006
66 posts
Aug 2 2006
64 posts
Aug 3 2006
57 posts
Jul 27 2006
33 posts
Popular Posts
rascal
Rhino posted on the roa thread about driving while exhausted putting himself, his passenger and other drivers at serious risk in order to get to roa (wish I knew how to cut and cross post) Here's th
outandabout
If we're not supposed to use our "five senses", why did God give them to us?
oldiesman
But you still had a choice, to hitchhike, or not to hitchhike and go home.
The corps had some downright challenging stuff. Lots of us spiritual partners knew that it was intense training, which was why we financially supported folks like you who agreed to do it.
But don't tell me you were forced please ... you had a choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Victim Mentality Propaganda has 2 meanings.
1) A process used to impede healing after one had been victimized by a perpetrator.
2) a label invoked to protect a perpetrator when someone's attempting to expose him-
take the emphasis and the 'heat' off the criminal by blaming the victim.
In this case, it's the label.
Nobody's portrayed "everyone" as vpw's victims,and nobody's portrayed "everyone" as helpless.
Therefore your label lacks merit.
However, blanket terms like "everyone" are fairly reliable indicators that the speaker
is busy making a blanket accusation rather than seeking to find the truth or
convey the truth.
Since I've never condemned "all that is twi",
this claim lacks merit.
Since I operate coldly and without hatred,
the second claim lacks merit.
And calling someone exposing crimes of twi "corrupt"
while hiding the felonies of the criminals is more than mildly ironic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
We were IF we loved God.
Oh suuuuure.....it WAS ok to be a failure a dissapointment by not complying with leaderships orders...but you were forever branded spiritual *LOSER* <_<
Destined to live out the rest of your life in shame, viewed as spiritually *questionable* a spiritual *wimp*
Most of us would have rather died (and some did) than be a dissapointment to God.
Yeah we were forced IF we loved God.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
You know, I've been following this thread from the beginning, and I don't want to derail, and I spent an hour putting together a lengthy post with quotes from the thread and my own thoughts, but, in the end, what I want to know from johniam and oldiesman in specific, and anyone else who cares to answer is this...
Are you saying, because in your opinion Hitch-hiking was not 1. particularly dangerous and 2. a specific mandate of TWI (though I should think the strongest case made so far is that both of those were inherently true considering the posts we've just read)...that there was something amiss with the believing of the people who were injured, harmed, raped or more while hitch-hiking at the behest of their leadership?
Because that sounds like some of the most twisted logic I can imagine. That is the sort of logic that is parallel to, "She was dressed in sexy clothes, she deserved to get raped--it's her own fault." and "Well, if he hadn't been in the wrong part of town, he would never have been mugged--it's his own fault."
And, the inverse therefore is: "She had a breakdown in her believing, she brought it on herself."
Which very wrongly assigns blame to the victim of a crime. But, then, why should I be surprised? Such logic has dominated the thinking of close-minded, judgmental, self-righteous hypocrites for ages. It's nothing new, but it is hard to swallow. Covering up for policies you KNOW are dangerous and have caused injury makes you nothing short of an accomplice to a crime.
And do NOT try to pass off the argument of "TWI never MADE anyone hitchhike." just because LCM wasn't standing on the side of the highway with a gun pointed to a corps-person's head saying "hitchhike or else!" because anyone who has endured the extreme pressure from someone in authority knows that coercion doesn't always take place at the point of a knife or barrel of a gun.
If someone tells you, "This is the highest calling for your life, and if you fail you will let down not only those who have cared for you, but, indeed, you will have failed GOD...so go, do this thing and get your mind right."
That isn't just a threat for the moment, or quick consequences...that's guilt for an eternity.
So...really now...is this what we're saying? I repeat my original question: Is it the opinion of some here that the people who WERE injured and worse asked for it by not "activating their believing" enough...or, even more foul, that they were believing FOR it to happen?
Because, that's certainly what can be inferred by some of these posts.
I, for one, find the entire idea to be the heart of wickedness. Which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used before.
and...some of these posts have made me ashamed for how little progress we've made as a species.
Very sorry indeed,
QT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Technically correct, it was (almost always) a choice.
You could choose to risk life and limb (and break the law) and hitchhike,
or
you could pack your bags and go home.
But let's not oversimplify the situation....
IF you chose the second option- "pack your bags and go home",
you were FIRST subjected to a face-melting session from AT LEAST ONE
supposed "leader" of twi, who equated you with the scum at the bottom of the
pond, for "turning your back on God" (refusing to risk your life and break the law by hitchhiking)
and be given one more chance to avoid the disapproval of GOD ALMIGHTY,
the entire leadership-especially lcm, vpw, etc,
the entire staff-who will be told you were weak, scum, etc.,
and "your spiritual partners" (people like Oldiesman who would give you
crap for not risking your life and breaking the law at their say-so)
and to change your mind.
If you elected NOT to do this even after the emotional abuse,
then you better pack fast, because you're off the grounds immediately,
and it's up to you to figure out how to get somewhere else,
let alone where to go.
Of course, people who were kicked out of the corps (because that amounts
to being kicked out) suffer emotional trauma-which was the idea, after
all, with the screaming session. At least one committed suicide for it.
But the suicide, technically speaking, IS a choice. One is not forced to
commit suicide just because one is made to feel like they've disappointed
God Almighty and are fit only for death. That IS a choice.
Nobody here, as far as I saw, ever said those were not choices.
Pretending we DID say that is neither honest nor honorable.
Not that this qualifies as news.
Technically, that IS a choice.
It's a horribly-slanted choice, and it's presented as if one means life,
and one means a living DEATH-
which is how they wanted it seen-
but that IS a choice.
You COULD choose to be made a pariah, an outcast, worthy to be trampled underfoot
and not even worthy to eat dog food.
That was ALWAYS a choice.
For MOST people, anyway.
Of course, T*m M NEVER had that choice for him and his wife-
since lcm insisted on keeping HER on grounds because she made a dandy sex-slave.
Small wonder why T*m M made the CHOICE to scream about it in public,
how he could not "compete" with lcm,
and why T*m M made the CHOICE to pick up a pistol and blow his brains out.
All of those were choices, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
OM.. I never said I was forced.
I said that we would be M&A. That means YOU as a spiritual partner would no longer be able to communicate with those who were M&A.
How would that make you feel? All the money you put into that person, then you get a letter stateing that
thay were kicked out or put on probation because they were going against what leadership told them to do.
The people in the Corps. commited themselves to GOD and the Ministry. We were taught day in and day out
to not go against leadership because that would be wrong in God's eyes. And foolishly, we believed it. Not
because we were forced. But because our hearts only wanted to please HIM.... Our Heavenly Father.
Edited by SunnyflaLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
In case it was missed, QT made this post a page back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure that OM got to see this....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Why did they do this stuff?
I think a lot of it had to do with the macho personna that the leadership wanted to portray - except with them it was usually "macho by proxy", in that the lives they were putting on the line were not their own.
Plus the fact that it's a whole bunch cheaper to leave all the transportation and logistics to your vassals. Lord knows there were lots more toys that the MOG and mini-mogs needed.
And the mindset of living recklessly WAS encouraged. I remember many teachings about "Renewed-mind recklessness", "cutting the safety nets", or "letting go and letting God". It was an integral part of WayWorld Dogma. Anybody who says less is being disingenuous, IMNSHO.
And of course, when things DID go wrong they could quickly hush it up, paper it over, or - if all else failed - BLAME THE VICTIM. That always worked...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
QT, I can't speak for Johniam, but I need the facts of a particular situation first before giving an opinion.
Regarding hitchhiking, I personally do not believe hitchhiking was particularly dangerous in and of itself. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss, just like anything else. It can be dangerous driving a car, or just walking down the street, depending on the circumstances. Being in the world, one may die or suffer consequences in a whole host of different ways and means.
I think just because an act may be perilous, or risky, doesn't necessarily mean one shouldn't try it ... but again, that's for the individual to decide. But in the corps folks couldn't make up their own rules and knew that going in. It was/is a training program... designed to challenge and expand one's abilities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
George, you bring up yet another good point....while we were out there putting our lives and safety on the line proving our believing...THEY were riding on Harlys or in lincolns or luxurious motor coaches, or if that proved too onerous, flying in personal airplanes,
Shoot even when traveling on grounds....they had cushmans!
Good GRIEF we were nuts <_<
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
STILL works, as far as some people see it....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
OM
I see it a little diferently than that.
Yes, we new that we would be challenged in many ways and we were. But, why is it so important to "Hitchhike"? That's not challenging nor is it biblical.
I and many others had a car. The main objective in going " Light Bearers" was to run a PFAL class.. period.
You had two weeks to get it together. Now.... that's CHALLENGING.
Not only are you walking unfamiliar streets, going door to door, bars etc... to meet people. If you didn't
have a car loaned to you while you were there, you had to use your thumb.
I happened to go to Denver.... in the winter. NOT FUN
I'm just saying that it would've been so much easier if we had our own cars.
Again, we were sent out ONLY TO START A CLASS!!! Not to risk our lives :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
That (in it's entirity) was a good post QT... but you're wasting your breath trying to talk logic or compassion with OM and johniam... it's been tried before and it doesn't work.
To your analogy of a gun to the head they'd just respond "but you still had a choice"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*clears throat*
Walking along the median strip of the highway, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-
like a driver jumps the median at the wrong moment.
Walking through Central Park late at night, in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous.
I suppose it can prove to be dangerous if something goes amiss-
like, say, a guy with a knife and a black cape is hanging out in that area at that moment.
Getting your evening excercise by wandering up and down the stairs in the projects,
in and of itself, is not particularly dangerous. I suppose it can prove to be dangerous
if something goes amiss-like a drug-user or mugger finds you.
Now,
if a program claimed to BENEFIT you insisted that you would be REQUIRED to do each,
most sensible people would-at the very least-insist on discussing the possible benefits
of engaging what is known to be a dangerous activity
(whether or not it dangerous "in and of itself".)
Most programs, you may be surprised to know, DON'T require things like those or
hitchhiking. Of course, most programs are designed by people who actually
know something ABOUT leadership programs,
and don't view the participants as DISPOSABLE.
It was "designed" by people who didn't particularly care about-nor understand-
the consequences to the people who had to try and live through them.
It was CLAIMED to challenge and expand one's abilities.
Much of it was "retake all the classes", or "go and run some pfal classes on the field"
or "clean up the grounds",
with some breaks for "go hitchhike over there" and some other things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
And again, whether or not someone hitched (or carried out any other myriad number of 'orders') HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MOVING GOD'S WORD. Even you two can't disprove that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
But, vpw didn't mind that your lives were risked, nor did he care when it was
brought to his attention.....
The operative term being "didn't care"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And then you have something else to blame twi for.
*clears throat*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
WW,
True.. but in my case it wasn't vpw. It was lcm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Victim mentality communication gobbledygook. Stay home and be safe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
OM
LOL... you are just too funny.
OK.. I'm done for now.. need to do my chores.
Bye guys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
What PROBABLY happened was this:
Someone - anyone - hitched in the early days of twi. They got to their destination lauding thier experience to the sky, telling anyone and everyone who would listen how God was with them all the way; meeting their needs and giving them access to speak the "Wonderful Word of God."
Now, this becomes policy. In order to get a truly spiritual perpective on the world you have to hitch.
I saw this in Houston in the early '80's. One guy had the great idea to go witnessing in bars and honky tonks. Before you know it the ONLY way to really win people to the class was to go witness in bars. (What a dream come true for the alcoholics in the branch!)
Oddly enough, the same guy who started the "bar witnessing fad" later FORBADE us from witnessing at all for 6 weeks. His logic? He said, "There are people in your fellowships that don't even KNOW each other, don't even LIKE each other! How are you going to bring others to a ministry that can't take care of itself?"
After that we still went out - but we went out with someone we didn't know and we spent time getting to know that person.
Not to derail - I was just trying to make a point. That being, that once a policy was determined it was difficult to change. How did we get away with this in Houston? Maybe because we were still getting classes together... I dunno...
Ultimately, there was a sheep mentality that twi took full advantage of -as do many people in power.
And it is all done in the name of the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit..
Sad, very, very sad....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Then there's also a thing called "risk/benefit analysis". A thing that was entirely disregarded at WayWorld, near as I can tell.
Like - a couple of girls hitchhiking alone through Texas in the winter. I can definitely see a markedly increased risk. But what were the benefits? I mean, other than the fact that it was a way to transport the girls somewhere at no cost to VPW?
If people would've had the good sense to sue the bastards when things went wrong, I'd bet that WayWorld would've had a marked change of heart with regards how much jeopardy they required their minions to expose themselves to. They were MIGHTY sensitive to trauma to their pocketbook...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.