Geeze goerge...ya expect better from your brothers in Christ, from your ministers responsible for the spiritual well being of those they have taken the responsibility to minister to.
You expect better from the shepherd responsible for the safety of the sheep :(
Who`da thunk that these wol oops er men might be untrustworthey or not have our very best interests at heart....sigh
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...
well, finished except for this. WordWolf was kind enough to copy my post on the last page so that it wouldn't get lost. I don't want George's to get lost, either...
so, just so no one misses it...
QT
(I edited this quickly, because it read (even with the comma) as "well done except for this" which might have been taken to refer to George's post. I meant, finished on the thread except for this).
"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."
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?"
I am truly happy for you. That you can be so steel-minnded, so self-confident that you have no need for the approval of leadership. You were not moved to be fear-motivated. You were content with your place in the world and your life with your God.
OTOH - there were many, many others, who got into the ministry to escape broken homes and disfunctional families. Ohters who followed the love and came for the promise of the "more than abundant life" with all the prosperity and health and promises that the Word had to offer.
Yes, this was a choice. Yes, they were free to leave at any time. Do you have any idea, can you empathize in the least, with how hard it is for someone who has come seeking love and approval to turn from the very ministry that promised to give them health, prosperity, love, a meaningful life - all through the FOUNDATIONAL class?
And.. how easy it is to manipulate a person who wants approval? Whether intentional or not, a person who has been starved for love and approval - a person who seeks such from God Almighty, is hard put to "just leave."
Remember, that the MOG represented God to us. NO?
He spoke for God, he acted for God, he listened to God.....supposedly.
How, pray tell, is a person who came seeking love, who came seeking approval, who came seeking answers supposed to leave it all behind without having to face a major PERSONAL FAILURE? This person has to admit personal defeat, and face the rejection of the very God that they were told loved them.
Oh - but we were not to have condemnation.... ri-i-i-ight.
So if a person gets sick and then gets prayed for and then gets prayed for again, then goes to the doctor, then maybe gets healed - finally - it that person's fault??? What? You are really going to blame that person for not believing "big enough?" (whatever THAT meant!)
Geez Louise - that person is already sick. Seems to me they need healing and comfort. Doesn't the Word say in SEVERAL places that we are to administer mercy?
Shoot, why is it that vpw could be moved to change after his sermon about alcoholism while the drunkard was at the back of the chapel - But! - later became that very same person who condemned sin and weakness (not to mention becoming the alcoholic himself.)
You can say that these people made a choice - just be aware that you know not of what you speak. Find some compassion and some mercy.
Try opining that in a court of law and see how far that goes.
I might offer the same challenge -- see how far your perpetual allegations of alleged crimes at the hands of twi implementing its corps program go in a court of law.
I might offer the same challenge -- see how far your perpetual allegations of alleged crimes at the hands of twi implementing its corps program go in a court of law.
Personal accounts of the victims, and of eyewitnesses, go a long way in a court
of law.....
The statute of limitations would be more of an obstacle.
BTW,
do you really think you're convincing anyone this is really about being fair?
Personally,
I liked it better when you were candid and said things like
"Has nothing to do with the integrity of the Word, but believing something very evil about a person who means something to you and you love."
when addressing discussions about the evil, criminal, unChristian actions of vpw.
At least there was no pretense you were doing other than trying to protect your mental image of
what "the good old days" were like.
OM,
I am truly happy for you. That you can be so steel-minnded, so self-confident that you have no need for the approval of leadership. You were not moved to be fear-motivated. You were content with your place in the world and your life with your God.
OTOH - there were many, many others, who got into the ministry to escape broken homes and disfunctional families. Ohters who followed the love and came for the promise of the "more than abundant life" with all the prosperity and health and promises that the Word had to offer.
Yes, this was a choice. Yes, they were free to leave at any time. Do you have any idea, can you empathize in the least, with how hard it is for someone who has come seeking love and approval to turn from the very ministry that promised to give them health, prosperity, love, a meaningful life - all through the FOUNDATIONAL class?
And.. how easy it is to manipulate a person who wants approval? Whether intentional or not, a person who has been starved for love and approval - a person who seeks such from God Almighty, is hard put to "just leave."
Remember, that the MOG represented God to us. NO?
He spoke for God, he acted for God, he listened to God.....supposedly.
How, pray tell, is a person who came seeking love, who came seeking approval, who came seeking answers supposed to leave it all behind without having to face a major PERSONAL FAILURE? This person has to admit personal defeat, and face the rejection of the very God that they were told loved them.
Oh - but we were not to have condemnation.... ri-i-i-ight.
So if a person gets sick and then gets prayed for and then gets prayed for again, then goes to the doctor, then maybe gets healed - finally - it that person's fault??? What? You are really going to blame that person for not believing "big enough?" (whatever THAT meant!)
Geez Louise - that person is already sick. Seems to me they need healing and comfort. Doesn't the Word say in SEVERAL places that we are to administer mercy?
Shoot, why is it that vpw could be moved to change after his sermon about alcoholism while the drunkard was at the back of the chapel - But! - later became that very same person who condemned sin and weakness (not to mention becoming the alcoholic himself.)
You can say that these people made a choice - just be aware that you know not of what you speak. Find some compassion and some mercy.
Dooj,
I applaud your goals,
but he hasn't found compassion in his heart for the last few years (at the very least)
for vpw and lcm's victims, so if I was a betting man, I'd put all my money on
How noble is it to sue for something one has willingly accepted?
I would opine that that would indicate a total lack of responsibility and/or of owning up to one's own decisions and actions, on the part of the suer.
Finger pointing blame. It's always someone else's fault, in this case twi.
Well OM (I could easily get upset with you if I didn't think you were totally devoid of reason and compassion) I see it happen all of the time... there are lawsuits happening everyday where 'those in charge' neglected to correct practices that had resulted in harm and injury before.
And while you're so comfortable living in your land of make believe... you really need to censure your use of the word WILLINGLY... I think the courts would have found the term COERCION more applicable.
Here ya go:
Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will
Your view of TWI is exponentially more skewed than that of almost every poster here.. your refusal to allow TWI to be guilty is your defense mechanism...
I think the opposite is the case. Some posters have the unrelenting mindset for blaming twi for most everything bad that happened to a participant, while in twi. TWI is always guilty, or nearly always guilty. It is always their fault. Well, I think that mindset is skewed, biased, unmerciful, and unChristian, and I am glad I think differently.
And this, folks, is why I ignore OM. Threads are much more productive and helpful to me when they stay on topic and it's impossible to do that when people continue to fight with someone like that - it's futile.
First of all, thank you WW, Dooj and others who have tried to knock some sense into those who do not view the hitchhiking requirement as "foolhardy behaviour" or believe that we are unjustly holding TWI responsible for this practice. Remember the old saying-"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"? Obviously, there will be those who will never get the point we are trying to make.
For the record: I ran away from "home" in 1972 at age 16. Technically, we were between homes at the time and were overnighting in a motel on our way to somewhere. Because of circumstances I won't get into now, I had to run away in fear of my life, and found myself standing on a freeway off ramp with my thumb out in order to get away. I was terrified, but I had no choice. I didn't pray or "believe": I just did it. And somehow survived. I don't consider myself a "wuss". I did what I had to do, as many young people did during that time, but it's not something I was anxious to repeat. Just because I made it to my destination in one piece doesn't make that action any less dangerous. Until I went into the Corps, I never had to repeat that action again.
WW listed brilliantly the steps taken for many of us in our path through TWI. It wasn't even a choice: if you wanted to stay actively involved in the growth of the ministry, there was a logical progression of steps which culminated in enrollment in the Corps program. I did not know, prior to entering the program, that we would be required to hitchhike, specifically to LEAD. If you had a car, other trips like Lightbearers and transfers between campuses were made a little easier, but if you didn't have a car or couldn't get a ride, you stuck out your thumb. NO CHOICE. Would I have entered the program if I had known? I don't know, but I'm betting the answer was yes, simply because of the expectation from leaders and peers. I would have, however, liked to have been given the choice. However, once there, I was committed.
Much has been made of the "fact" that we did have a choice, that we could have refused. Refusal meant dismissal from the Corps program. If you were lounging in your arm chair, playing at participating in the things of the ministry, this might seem like a no-brainer. For those of us who were there, it wasn't that simple.
It has been mentioned that the program was designed to toughen us up spiritually. Ok. I expected that. I expected to be challenged. I expected to be pushed. I bought into all of that. I, like many others, was ignorant of the "behind the scenes" stuff, or of the tragedies that had occurred before. I bought the glitzy side of the ministry. And for that, even though I was young and relatively immature, I take responsibility for.
I do not subscribe, in anyway, that the requirement of hitching to LEAD was delibrately designed to "push us spiritually". It was simple matter of dollars and percentages. The program of LEAD was designed to challenge us, and that was enough. But in order to take advantage of it, we had to get there, and the only cost effective method was for us to stick out our thumbs. And damn the consequences. The percentage of those who made it without incident vs those who did not was very high: therefore there was no need to abandon the practice.
If you did not make there, you were dismissed. Period. However, in my case, I was not dismissed. Why? It had to be my fault, right? Didn't my failure of believing cause what happened to me? I was assured, upon my return, that, indeed, I had failed in my believing, but what had happened to me was punishment enough. Oh, and that because I did not fulfill my LEAD requirement, I probably wouldn't graduate. (You know, I'd give a lot to know what was recorded in my file.)
Shortly after my return, a Corps meeting was held to address the issue of LEAD. There were several individuals who had made it, but were late in getting there. They had to stand up and stay standing as they were raked across the coals. Why? For failing in their believing. They were, of course, assured that they would have no second chances. If they failed again, they were out. As the meeting went on, I was terrified, absolutely terrified, that my name would be called, that I would have to stand, and that my failing would be revealed and mocked. You know what? It wasn't. IMO, it wasn't because they were protecting me. It was because they did not want what happened to me to be common knowledge. Percentages, right?
Why didn't I leave? Why didn't I sue? IT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND!!!! If the whole thing was MY fault, who am I gonna sue??? If it was MY fault, then I had to correct my own unbelieving behaviour.
Tell me how you justify an organization's programs, policy's and processes by allowing someone who had been kidnapped off the highway and raped by two men, while in route to a required class, to so convince herself that it was all her fault to the point that all common sense was erased??
To show you how much of a "wuss" I was, I continued on with the program, which included hitchhiking several more times for other required activities.
Sorry this has become a book: just had to say what I have to say. And, my dear OM, for the record-I was a victim, so I have the right to speak like the victim I was. What happened to me could have happened inside or outside TWI-I know that. But getting a thumb ride to a concert is a world away from getting a thumb ride to a required class with an organization that gave you no other option if you wished to remain. Or an organization that did not change the practice after what happened to me and others.
Lots of words-I just don't know how else to say it.
Today I think hitching is dangerous, but back then I hitched all over the country way before TWI. So did Evan, George, and probably several other GSers. By the way, the first recollection I posted was a TWI deal. I wasn't "ordered" to drive but c'mon. Emporia to someplace? That was while in TWI.
So NO, I don't think hitchhiking was "tempting God". Some of you are just wusses.
OMG John I can't believe you are saying that. I could tell you stories of hitchhiking in the 70's for LEAD and other times of hitchhiking. And you say it wasn't dangerous? WOW!!!!
I forgot how idiotic some thinking is. I'm sorry I posted and I'm out of this thread.... :blink:
What is legally right and what is morally right can be quite different. It is not legally wrong to seduce a young woman, plying her with alcohol, drugs, and flattery along with a hint of better things to come - "let me show you how to really love a man, honey". She succumbs, OM would say, of her own free will.
What is legally right and what is morally right can be quite different. It is not legally wrong to seduce a young woman, plying her with alcohol, drugs, and flattery along with a hint of better things to come - "let me show you how to really love a man, honey". She succumbs, OM would say, of her own free will.
Please don't put words in my mouth, Watered Garden.
Drugs are always wrong. I've consistently held the position that those who were narcotized were victims.
OM - With all the questions I have posed, you can only find this to say?
Yes we all need to find compassion and mercy. Can you start with those who you say "had a choice?"
I can see my way clear to have compassion and forgive those men.(Believe it or not.) Maybe its because I didn't suffer under their hands what other's have had to suffer, yet my heart still aches, (aches!) for those who did suffer as did Tops did. Can you not see that by controlling the information that this had ever happened before twi was controlling the response?
At the very least, there should have been meetings to warn the teams of the dangers they would face along the way and how to avoid them. - o-o-o-or, ummmm, maybe - "We will set you up in cars and you ride by FOURS and you take turns driving two staying up at a time and two sleeping." Now that would have been a solution that honored the program and the people. Teamwork, love, fellowship. Maybe it was too easy a solution. Maybe I should be the next President. (Tongue in cheek here.)
The Church that I now attend sends missions to Mexico and Cambodia, and South and Central America. You can bet that they make sure that safety of their people is a number one priority. Yes, these people know that they are entering sometimes dangerous situations - but that only makes the work of the Church to do everything to insure their safety even more important and needful. Every precaution is taken.
There is no hitching to a location. There is no test of their believing. (I can't even believe that I have to write those words - test of their believing )
Yes, Jesus sent out the 12 two by two. TWICE. This was not an everyday occurance. I doubt seriously that he would have sent Peter home had Peter been mugged along the way, or if he and his partner arrived later than the others. Why do we need to spell this out?????
Seriously, you can't be that dense and heartless. Please stop thinking about winning an argument for a moment (I have) and consider how you would have felt if TopoftheWorld was YOUR daughter. She is God's daughter - do you think HE says, "Well, you knew that was part of the program." ?
Seriously, you can't be that dense and heartless. Please stop thinking about winning an argument for a moment (I have) and consider how you would have felt if TopoftheWorld was YOUR daughter. She is God's daughter - do you think HE says, "Well, you knew that was part of the program." ?
I would have felt terrible, but I wouldn't have blamed twi. I would have blamed the perpetrators of the crime.
And as Top pointed out, this type of thing could have happened in or out of twi.
Twi did not perpetuate this crime... they facilitated Top to strive to be her best in the corps, I believe that was the heart behind the corps.... not her having evils befall her.
Yes we all need to find compassion and mercy. Can you start with those who you say "had a choice?"
You say we all need to find compassion and mercy, but you yourself show little if none toward your twi brethren, so who are you to preach?
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?
rascal
Geeze goerge...ya expect better from your brothers in Christ, from your ministers responsible for the spiritual well being of those they have taken the responsibility to minister to.
You expect better from the shepherd responsible for the safety of the sheep :(
Who`da thunk that these wol oops er men might be untrustworthey or not have our very best interests at heart....sigh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietThinker
well, finished except for this. WordWolf was kind enough to copy my post on the last page so that it wouldn't get lost. I don't want George's to get lost, either...
so, just so no one misses it...
QT
(I edited this quickly, because it read (even with the comma) as "well done except for this" which might have been taken to refer to George's post. I meant, finished on the thread except for this).
Edited by QuietThinkerLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
lcm didn't START OUT that way, but he learned it eventually from vpw.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...c=8019&st=0
especially check out the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5.
lcm proudly documented it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yeah... you see lawsuits all the time these days for stuff we willingly accepted and let slide by...
dangit! I coulda been rich on all of your abundant sharing!
of course, I would've let you come visit and enjoy my bounty as well...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Now,
in case people out there need documentation of this,
since I haven't typed out the exact wording vpw used when he said he wasn't
concerned about the risk of rape to LEAD hitchhikers,
I'll use some documentation I have handy.
lcm on someone in the corps having an attack, and what vpw
thought was the appropriate response to it.
"There was an incident of a guy in the Corps who all of a sudden went
'gooney-bird'. He started to babble and not make sense. LCM worked hard
with the guy to help him but he was incoherent. Dr, when he met him,
confronted him by asking- 'Son, how come you're letting your mind get
all scrambled?' The guy answered unintelligibly and Dr told him that it would
be best for him just to pack his bags and go home. The guy understood
that. He left.
LCM spent many hours and many long distance phone calls trying to make
sure the guy had gotten home from his bus ride home safely. Not being
able to verify his location, he was concerned. Dr told him to move on.
There's nothing you can do, he'll show up at home soon enough. A week
later the guy did show up at home."
INCOHERENT.
TOLD TO PACK HIS BAGS AND GO HOME.
SHOVED ON A BUS.
TOOK A WEEK TO GET HOME BY BUS.
God only knows all the wanderings he had,
and what the attack even WAS.
Just shove him off-grounds then "MOVE ON, THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO."
In a word, DISPOSABLE.
And all the multisyllabic terms someone retrieved from their thesaurus
can't change the HEARTLESS, UNCHRISTIAN attitude the "program"
was run with.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
One question I ask would be:
How noble is it to sue for something one has willingly accepted?
I would opine that that would indicate a total lack of responsibility and/or of owning up to one's own decisions and actions, on the part of the suer.
Finger pointing blame. It's always someone else's fault, in this case twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf:
"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."
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?"
This isn't rocket science for most people....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Skipping the highly subjective label "noble"
(else I ask how "noble" it is to do all the things vpw did),
let's ask a question that is NOT subjective:
Could one successfully sue twi for injuries taken in LEAD,
or for requiring hitchhiking, resulting in being hit with a car or raped,
or suing on behalf of a participant murdered on their way to/from LEAD?
Well, judging from OM,
you would think a judge would see the dead body, or the injured
or raped party, say "he who consents cannot receive an injury"
and close the case immediately.
That, of course, would NOT happen.
That's because those running a program-or ANY institution-
have a responsibility to ensure their institution or program is SAFE.
There's a LaZerTag arena I used to frequent.
The walls and partitions are all covered with low-density plastic.
If you ran fullspeed into either, you'd bounce.
They TELL people there's no running, nor climbing on the partitions,
nor crawling thru the arena.
They have referees monitoring the match, and they are looking
specifically for infractions of this.
WHY?
There's a release on all the applications, saying the person accepts
responsibility for their own actions.
But if you were playing in the arena, and suddenly tripped over
another player, and a running opponent crushed your left hand
under his fat boot, you could sue the arena-and win.
WHY?
Because they're supposed to ensure the safety IN the arena.
There's supposed to be nobody to trip OVER.
There's supposed to be nobody running at ALL.
They're running the session-therefore they accept the LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY
to ensure the safety of the participants.
You participated willingly, correct.
You knew there would be other players, correct.
However,
if there's danger present,
then the organization has MISREPRESENTED themselves
and held forth that this is safe and not dangerous.
==========
Let's say you join an adults organization-
the Princes of Magellan or something.
They organize a get-together involving a mountain-climb.
You agree.
To get there, you are REQUIRED to hitchhike, and you'll
be expected to mountain-climb.
One person never gets there-he was mugged hitchhiking
and he's in the hospital.
One person takes a 30-foot fall off the mountain due to
insecure supports.
Both will sue the organization-and win.
The courts of the USA KNOW (they see it as self-evident)
that the group in charge of the event is required to MINIMIZE
risks-and this one MAXIMIZED some of them.
(PLUS required someone to break the law.)
And just because you have a deep, unshakeable loyalty for the
Princes of Magellan, that does not change their responsibility.
Try opining that in a court of law and see how far that goes.Experts in what is acceptable risk and responsibility would disagree,
to the tune of lots of money.
Oversimplifying. It's never twi's-or vpw's-fault. EVER.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
OM,
I am truly happy for you. That you can be so steel-minnded, so self-confident that you have no need for the approval of leadership. You were not moved to be fear-motivated. You were content with your place in the world and your life with your God.
OTOH - there were many, many others, who got into the ministry to escape broken homes and disfunctional families. Ohters who followed the love and came for the promise of the "more than abundant life" with all the prosperity and health and promises that the Word had to offer.
Yes, this was a choice. Yes, they were free to leave at any time. Do you have any idea, can you empathize in the least, with how hard it is for someone who has come seeking love and approval to turn from the very ministry that promised to give them health, prosperity, love, a meaningful life - all through the FOUNDATIONAL class?
And.. how easy it is to manipulate a person who wants approval? Whether intentional or not, a person who has been starved for love and approval - a person who seeks such from God Almighty, is hard put to "just leave."
Remember, that the MOG represented God to us. NO?
He spoke for God, he acted for God, he listened to God.....supposedly.
How, pray tell, is a person who came seeking love, who came seeking approval, who came seeking answers supposed to leave it all behind without having to face a major PERSONAL FAILURE? This person has to admit personal defeat, and face the rejection of the very God that they were told loved them.
Oh - but we were not to have condemnation.... ri-i-i-ight.
So if a person gets sick and then gets prayed for and then gets prayed for again, then goes to the doctor, then maybe gets healed - finally - it that person's fault??? What? You are really going to blame that person for not believing "big enough?" (whatever THAT meant!)
Geez Louise - that person is already sick. Seems to me they need healing and comfort. Doesn't the Word say in SEVERAL places that we are to administer mercy?
Shoot, why is it that vpw could be moved to change after his sermon about alcoholism while the drunkard was at the back of the chapel - But! - later became that very same person who condemned sin and weakness (not to mention becoming the alcoholic himself.)
You can say that these people made a choice - just be aware that you know not of what you speak. Find some compassion and some mercy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I might offer the same challenge -- see how far your perpetual allegations of alleged crimes at the hands of twi implementing its corps program go in a court of law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Personal accounts of the victims, and of eyewitnesses, go a long way in a court
of law.....
The statute of limitations would be more of an obstacle.
BTW,
do you really think you're convincing anyone this is really about being fair?
Personally,
I liked it better when you were candid and said things like
"Has nothing to do with the integrity of the Word, but believing something very evil about a person who means something to you and you love."
when addressing discussions about the evil, criminal, unChristian actions of vpw.
At least there was no pretense you were doing other than trying to protect your mental image of
what "the good old days" were like.
Dooj,
I applaud your goals,
but he hasn't found compassion in his heart for the last few years (at the very least)
for vpw and lcm's victims, so if I was a betting man, I'd put all my money on
"heart of stone" for the foreseeable future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
A respectible mission for all of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Well OM (I could easily get upset with you if I didn't think you were totally devoid of reason and compassion) I see it happen all of the time... there are lawsuits happening everyday where 'those in charge' neglected to correct practices that had resulted in harm and injury before.
And while you're so comfortable living in your land of make believe... you really need to censure your use of the word WILLINGLY... I think the courts would have found the term COERCION more applicable.
Here ya go:
Main Entry: co·er·cion
Pronunciation: kO-'&r-zh&n, -sh&n
Function: noun
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will
Your view of TWI is exponentially more skewed than that of almost every poster here.. your refusal to allow TWI to be guilty is your defense mechanism...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think the opposite is the case. Some posters have the unrelenting mindset for blaming twi for most everything bad that happened to a participant, while in twi. TWI is always guilty, or nearly always guilty. It is always their fault. Well, I think that mindset is skewed, biased, unmerciful, and unChristian, and I am glad I think differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And this, folks, is why I ignore OM. Threads are much more productive and helpful to me when they stay on topic and it's impossible to do that when people continue to fight with someone like that - it's futile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Folks who are able to tolerate opinions other than their own have no problem with my posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
First of all, thank you WW, Dooj and others who have tried to knock some sense into those who do not view the hitchhiking requirement as "foolhardy behaviour" or believe that we are unjustly holding TWI responsible for this practice. Remember the old saying-"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still"? Obviously, there will be those who will never get the point we are trying to make.
For the record: I ran away from "home" in 1972 at age 16. Technically, we were between homes at the time and were overnighting in a motel on our way to somewhere. Because of circumstances I won't get into now, I had to run away in fear of my life, and found myself standing on a freeway off ramp with my thumb out in order to get away. I was terrified, but I had no choice. I didn't pray or "believe": I just did it. And somehow survived. I don't consider myself a "wuss". I did what I had to do, as many young people did during that time, but it's not something I was anxious to repeat. Just because I made it to my destination in one piece doesn't make that action any less dangerous. Until I went into the Corps, I never had to repeat that action again.
WW listed brilliantly the steps taken for many of us in our path through TWI. It wasn't even a choice: if you wanted to stay actively involved in the growth of the ministry, there was a logical progression of steps which culminated in enrollment in the Corps program. I did not know, prior to entering the program, that we would be required to hitchhike, specifically to LEAD. If you had a car, other trips like Lightbearers and transfers between campuses were made a little easier, but if you didn't have a car or couldn't get a ride, you stuck out your thumb. NO CHOICE. Would I have entered the program if I had known? I don't know, but I'm betting the answer was yes, simply because of the expectation from leaders and peers. I would have, however, liked to have been given the choice. However, once there, I was committed.
Much has been made of the "fact" that we did have a choice, that we could have refused. Refusal meant dismissal from the Corps program. If you were lounging in your arm chair, playing at participating in the things of the ministry, this might seem like a no-brainer. For those of us who were there, it wasn't that simple.
It has been mentioned that the program was designed to toughen us up spiritually. Ok. I expected that. I expected to be challenged. I expected to be pushed. I bought into all of that. I, like many others, was ignorant of the "behind the scenes" stuff, or of the tragedies that had occurred before. I bought the glitzy side of the ministry. And for that, even though I was young and relatively immature, I take responsibility for.
I do not subscribe, in anyway, that the requirement of hitching to LEAD was delibrately designed to "push us spiritually". It was simple matter of dollars and percentages. The program of LEAD was designed to challenge us, and that was enough. But in order to take advantage of it, we had to get there, and the only cost effective method was for us to stick out our thumbs. And damn the consequences. The percentage of those who made it without incident vs those who did not was very high: therefore there was no need to abandon the practice.
If you did not make there, you were dismissed. Period. However, in my case, I was not dismissed. Why? It had to be my fault, right? Didn't my failure of believing cause what happened to me? I was assured, upon my return, that, indeed, I had failed in my believing, but what had happened to me was punishment enough. Oh, and that because I did not fulfill my LEAD requirement, I probably wouldn't graduate. (You know, I'd give a lot to know what was recorded in my file.)
Shortly after my return, a Corps meeting was held to address the issue of LEAD. There were several individuals who had made it, but were late in getting there. They had to stand up and stay standing as they were raked across the coals. Why? For failing in their believing. They were, of course, assured that they would have no second chances. If they failed again, they were out. As the meeting went on, I was terrified, absolutely terrified, that my name would be called, that I would have to stand, and that my failing would be revealed and mocked. You know what? It wasn't. IMO, it wasn't because they were protecting me. It was because they did not want what happened to me to be common knowledge. Percentages, right?
Why didn't I leave? Why didn't I sue? IT NEVER CROSSED MY MIND!!!! If the whole thing was MY fault, who am I gonna sue??? If it was MY fault, then I had to correct my own unbelieving behaviour.
Tell me how you justify an organization's programs, policy's and processes by allowing someone who had been kidnapped off the highway and raped by two men, while in route to a required class, to so convince herself that it was all her fault to the point that all common sense was erased??
To show you how much of a "wuss" I was, I continued on with the program, which included hitchhiking several more times for other required activities.
Sorry this has become a book: just had to say what I have to say. And, my dear OM, for the record-I was a victim, so I have the right to speak like the victim I was. What happened to me could have happened inside or outside TWI-I know that. But getting a thumb ride to a concert is a world away from getting a thumb ride to a required class with an organization that gave you no other option if you wished to remain. Or an organization that did not change the practice after what happened to me and others.
Lots of words-I just don't know how else to say it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
OMG John I can't believe you are saying that. I could tell you stories of hitchhiking in the 70's for LEAD and other times of hitchhiking. And you say it wasn't dangerous? WOW!!!!
I forgot how idiotic some thinking is. I'm sorry I posted and I'm out of this thread.... :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunnyfla
TOTW,
You said it well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
What is legally right and what is morally right can be quite different. It is not legally wrong to seduce a young woman, plying her with alcohol, drugs, and flattery along with a hint of better things to come - "let me show you how to really love a man, honey". She succumbs, OM would say, of her own free will.
But is it morally right? Of course not.
wg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Please don't put words in my mouth, Watered Garden.
Drugs are always wrong. I've consistently held the position that those who were narcotized were victims.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
OM - With all the questions I have posed, you can only find this to say?
Yes we all need to find compassion and mercy. Can you start with those who you say "had a choice?"
I can see my way clear to have compassion and forgive those men.(Believe it or not.) Maybe its because I didn't suffer under their hands what other's have had to suffer, yet my heart still aches, (aches!) for those who did suffer as did Tops did. Can you not see that by controlling the information that this had ever happened before twi was controlling the response?
At the very least, there should have been meetings to warn the teams of the dangers they would face along the way and how to avoid them. - o-o-o-or, ummmm, maybe - "We will set you up in cars and you ride by FOURS and you take turns driving two staying up at a time and two sleeping." Now that would have been a solution that honored the program and the people. Teamwork, love, fellowship. Maybe it was too easy a solution. Maybe I should be the next President. (Tongue in cheek here.)
The Church that I now attend sends missions to Mexico and Cambodia, and South and Central America. You can bet that they make sure that safety of their people is a number one priority. Yes, these people know that they are entering sometimes dangerous situations - but that only makes the work of the Church to do everything to insure their safety even more important and needful. Every precaution is taken.
There is no hitching to a location. There is no test of their believing. (I can't even believe that I have to write those words - test of their believing
)
Yes, Jesus sent out the 12 two by two. TWICE. This was not an everyday occurance. I doubt seriously that he would have sent Peter home had Peter been mugged along the way, or if he and his partner arrived later than the others. Why do we need to spell this out?????
Seriously, you can't be that dense and heartless. Please stop thinking about winning an argument for a moment (I have) and consider how you would have felt if TopoftheWorld was YOUR daughter. She is God's daughter - do you think HE says, "Well, you knew that was part of the program." ?
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
So what if she wasn't drugged?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I would have felt terrible, but I wouldn't have blamed twi. I would have blamed the perpetrators of the crime.
And as Top pointed out, this type of thing could have happened in or out of twi.
Twi did not perpetuate this crime... they facilitated Top to strive to be her best in the corps, I believe that was the heart behind the corps.... not her having evils befall her.
You say we all need to find compassion and mercy, but you yourself show little if none toward your twi brethren, so who are you to preach?Depends on the facts of the situation.
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.