Satori, it is good to see you again. I've been wishing I could ressurect your thread from summer/fall of 2001 regarding logical fallacies, but alas, I suspect is may be gone forever. Thanks for adding your insightful thoughts to the mix.
I've been hoping you'd show up--you always have such an interesting perspective on things not to mention you always hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I have met E--after she was beaten up and hung out to dry by those creeps. That was my impression at the time, anyway. Her letter filled in the blanks.
Good to see you :-)
If I just had 1/100th of your mastery of the English language....
As a post-script, I do wonder if it isn't the implicit weakness in religious "followers," especially those rootless wanderers (like the denominational outcasts who follow(ed) TWI and its derivatives), that just begs to be exploited. I also wonder if that weakness, in turn, doesn't arouse a predatory instinct in the "reptilian" mind of a leader. I wouldn't be surprised.
"arouse a predatory instinct" says it perfectly...and I would go on to say that once that instinct has "kicked in", the exploitation becomes as a drug to the predator...akin to a junkie needing a fix.
Abigail, I think it's time for new logical fallacy thread. Why don't you start your own? But don't draw from the old one. Just look around you and lay it out.
Thank you WB.
It seems to me that Elizabeth is informed, intelligent, and independent. I'm guessing she is also an attractive woman who is comfortable with her own sexuality. That makes her a major threat to any crone wielding power, and she is gonna pay for it.
If the crone is running a cult, it won't be long before you hear accusations of "witchcraft," explicit or implicit. Those with ears, let them hear.
As psychotic as the "visions" and "prophecies" may be, the most shameful behavior of all is John's. Truly contemptible.
Abigail, I think it's time for new logical fallacy thread. Why don't you start your own? But don't draw from the old one. Just look around you and lay it out.
Thanks, Satori, I plan to, though it will probably be a few days before I have the time to put the thought into it, and then put the thoughts into words. :)
I was just thinking about how much I benefitted from your thread, and was thinking the topic would be appropriate for this subforum.
I don't know that JAL's behavior has been contemptible. It would appear that way, based on one side of the story that's been made public. But I don't know what it was like for these two human beings to live with each other. There are intricate reasons for divorces. Two happy people don't divorce based on the ludicrous visions of some SELF-APPOINTED (there, I said it) prophetess unless one or both are highly mentally unstable.
What I'm trying to say is that the Lynn marriage is not the point, and criticizing Lynn for accepting the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess over his wife is presuming that the prophetic visions were the sole or the major reason behind the divorce. I don't know that this is true, and I'm not prepared to criticize John for it. (Neither am I saying that it is untrue. I'm saying there's so much to a divorce that to get to the truth of that question, for me, would involve me getting into something that is entirely none of my business).
What disgusts me about all this is that, corporately, CES/STFI allowed a SELF-APPOINTED prophetess to insinuate herself into someone else's marriage to begin with. This malicious behavior was accepted, condoned, and encouraged. For that reason alone, the watchmen should be on the walls with bullhorns.
And if they EVER try to personally prophesy into my life, I'll slap them with a slander suit so fast they won't know what hit them.
Oh, by the way, YES, I am saying that if JAL was otherwise happy but allowed the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess' words to corrupt his marriage, he is highly mentally unstable.
What disgusts me about all this is that, corporately, CES/STFI allowed a SELF-APPOINTED prophetess to insinuate herself into someone else's marriage to begin with. This malicious behavior was accepted, condoned, and encouraged. For that reason alone, the watchmen should be on the walls with bullhorns.
Well said and definitely worth repeating over and over again.
I don't know that JAL's behavior has been contemptible. It would appear that way...
What disgusts me about all this is that, corporately, CES/STFI allowed a SELF-APPOINTED prophetess to insinuate herself into someone else's marriage to begin with. This malicious behavior was accepted, condoned, and encouraged. For that reason alone, the watchmen should be on the walls with bullhorns.
Oh, by the way, YES, I am saying that if JAL was otherwise happy but allowed the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess' words to corrupt his marriage, he is highly mentally unstable.
However stable, unstable, or whatever, allowing these wack-jobs to malign his wife, to intrude upon his marriage, is, was, and always will be contemptible.
No matter what their problems might have been, he allowed the sanctity of his marriage, and his wife's heart, to be defiled and desecrated by these unspeakable charlatans. End of story.
...Two happy people don't divorce based on the ludicrous visions of some SELF-APPOINTED (there, I said it) prophetess unless one or both are highly mentally unstable....
...Oh, by the way, YES, I am saying that if JAL was otherwise happy but allowed the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess' words to corrupt his marriage, he is highly mentally unstable.
Hi, Raf! This is Chrispy. Please take no offence, I just disagree on this...
I don't know how long you've been married. I have been married 33 years to Richard. Marriage is a commitment. I made a vow and I intend to keep it. Happiness is fleeting. The Lynn marriage may not be the point. But it was the proof to me that something is rotten in the CES/STF leadership.
Divorce is a legal process that one person initiates. John initiated it.
He divorced her because she would not concede that the prophecies and everything else she was being hammered with were true. When I confronted John Lynn about divorcing Elizabeth, he told me that John Shoenheit told him it was acceptible because she had hardened her heart. I choose at this time to believe that JAL was also twisting Schoenheit's words, but this may not be the case.
The verse being twisted was Mark 10:5:
Mar 10:1ff ¶ And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away [his]wife? tempting him.
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
This passage is clear that it is not condoning divorce and that it is an indictment of the divorcing man's hardness of heart, not the wife's.
Elizabeth's experience was a nightmare and something that borders on criminal assault, slander in the least. John sought the divorce because she would not agree to the prophesies. She hardened her position, as she should. I hope that I would have the same strength of character in a similar situation.
I don't think JAL is highly unstable, he is bewitched like the galatians:
Gal 3:1 ¶ O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
The Galatians were not unstable, they were bewitched. Being unstable would give him an excuse for allowing the prophesies to sway him. The prophesies worked because he had faith in the lies of a "friend."
Chrispy, I'm not sure if JAL was twisting his words either, but for what it's worth... TWI used that same counsel with my ex husband. In addition to likening me to the contentious woman in Proverbs and insinuating that I was 'not pleased to dwell' with him. They in effect, classified me as an 'unbeliever' after I spoke out about TWI.
Since it's obvious that CES doctrine is still very similar to TWI's and their ability to twist and pervert scripture is equally astounding, it could be carry over doctrine from TWI.
Raf, we were otherwise very happily married, but once I realized my ex was not going to protect, support and stand up for me it did cause lots of additional problems in the marriage. The respect, trust and security went out the window. So, in the end, yes, there were tons of problems.
No offense taken. We disagree on terminology and shorthand, not the essence.
When I say "happy" in the context of a marriage, I'm talking about being well-adjusted, secure, open, honest, understanding, etc... a good marriage. I'm not talking about the fleeting emotion of the hour.
And I simply don't know (or care to know) whether the Lynn marriage was happy before Glinda stuck her nose in it.
As for "bewitched" vs. "unstable," I would argue that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, i would argue that someone who is bewitched is by definition unstable. I'm merely expressing the sympton. If you want to talk cause instead, be my guest. Someone who is "bewitched" to the point of listening to a prophetess over his own wife, etc, as has been alleged in this case, either is not in a happy (my definition) marriage to begin with or is unstable, either as a result of being bewitched, mentally incompetent, downright stupid or any combination of the three. I'm am not saying that's the case here. I'm saying that anyone (generic) who allows that which was described to happen to a happy marriage is unstable. And if the shoe fits in this case...
To apply what I said to your marriage, I would say that if your marriage was otherwise happy, your ex-husband was unstable, bewitched, stupid, insane, wacko, or whatever you want to put as the word there, to let TWI come between man and wife.
WordWolf, you pretty much nailed it. :) I really feel for Elizabeth. I've so been there - thinking you're marrying your "Ephesians 3:20" man only to find out that he'll gladly throw you under the bus if someone pretending to speak for God tells him to....even if he deep down disagrees with said speaker. So much for the 'unalterable commitment' they teach. It seems to be conveniently forgotten when it's no longer in their best interest to promote it.
Raf, I use those words, but the 'choice' ones I use would be censored here. :ph34r: I dunno if you remember, but I contacted you privately about attending some sort of 'intervention' with my ex. I was convinced that if I could get him to listen to sound reason that he'd actually see how effed up TWI, their advice and his obedience to them was. :( It was merely weeks before this was to happen when he decided he wanted a divorce.
This passage is clear that it is not condoning divorce and that it is an indictment of the divorcing man's hardness of heart, not the wife's.
You reminded me - a good translation of the Mark vv is - "Because of your hardness of heart", and hardness means unwilling to listen, stubbon, at wits end.
Jesus seems to be talking to those Pharisees specifically but also may have been including men and women as a whole. By law only men were allowed to initiate divorce then, not women. So, it's reading as if He said 'divorce has been allowable to accomodate (your) hardness of heart, for that point where you stubbornly won't listen anymore and can't go any further".
Jesus responds to the man and the woman's relationship - "what God joins together". He's definitely not condoning divorce as you say. The law allows for it, doesn't command anyone.
Of course in reality it can be either person in a marriage, so if it's applied with any reasonableness it's going to have to include either one.
I see this verse and Paul' suggestions on divorce are often used (wrongly) when one spouse just wants to get out of the relationship and needs some justification for being 'right', the 'good one'.
Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person.
It also reminds me of a little book called "Animal Farm." The pigs, the leaders pressured the other animals to make false confessions of treason and treachery and hanging out or meeting with the dreaded SnowBall. Once an animal conceded to make a false accusation, their throat was ripped out. There was a movie, I believe it was "The Killing Fields." People who made false accusations against themselves or admitted to false accusations were also killed. Murder is illegal here, but for her or anyone to agree to those accusations made by others, would be suicide and they would be marked forever, damaged, their reputation damaged permanently. It's a no win situation for the accused. It's disgusting and reprehensible to commit such acts in the name of any religion.
"Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.
The error returned was:
Sorry, you do not have permission to start a topic in this forum."
I'm not sure about what you meant when you posted "Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person."
I just want to be sure you know that I did not intend to imply anything about Elizabeth's stability. My statements about mental stability are directed at John, and then ONLY if he allowed those prophecies to ruin an otherwise happy marriage. I do not know that the marriage was otherwise happy. Nor do I want to. It's none of my business.
I have since read Elizabeth's entire letter. Didn't want to give the impression it wasn't important. She chose every word very carefully and it deserved a full reading.
I'm not sure about what you meant when you posted "Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person."
I just want to be sure you know that I did not intend to imply anything about Elizabeth's stability. My statements about mental stability are directed at John, and then ONLY if he allowed those prophecies to ruin an otherwise happy marriage. I do not know that the marriage was otherwise happy. Nor do I want to. It's none of my business.
Raf
I had read the letters, most of them anyway and so many posts that were swirling around in my mind, that my post was a direct result of putting myself in a person's shoes and going against a group of people trying to tell me I was possessed or something close to that. Having been in TWI, and having seen that done to others and having it done to me, I identified. It had nothing to do with your post at all.
To be honest, as someone who left around 1989 and who was associated with CES then, and as such whenever I had associated with churches or groups after that, I always had to find something that DID not resemble TWI. I am most glad after reading this, I did not stay involved. I agree with you about the unstable part of it all. It just amazes me that people would base life altering decisions on dreams. It's insane. It's like reading about people who waste their life savings to have a curse removed or have a medium contact their dead loved ones for them.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
6
7
11
Popular Days
Dec 28
17
Jan 14
15
Jan 17
10
Jan 12
8
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 8 posts
satori001 6 posts
therebutforgrace 7 posts
uptown1 11 posts
Popular Days
Dec 28 2006
17 posts
Jan 14 2007
15 posts
Jan 17 2007
10 posts
Jan 12 2007
8 posts
Abigail
Satori, it is good to see you again. I've been wishing I could ressurect your thread from summer/fall of 2001 regarding logical fallacies, but alas, I suspect is may be gone forever. Thanks for adding your insightful thoughts to the mix.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Satoori001,
I've been hoping you'd show up--you always have such an interesting perspective on things not to mention you always hit the proverbial nail on the head.
I have met E--after she was beaten up and hung out to dry by those creeps. That was my impression at the time, anyway. Her letter filled in the blanks.
Good to see you :-)
If I just had 1/100th of your mastery of the English language....
wb
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
"arouse a predatory instinct" says it perfectly...and I would go on to say that once that instinct has "kicked in", the exploitation becomes as a drug to the predator...akin to a junkie needing a fix.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Abigail, I think it's time for new logical fallacy thread. Why don't you start your own? But don't draw from the old one. Just look around you and lay it out.
Thank you WB.
It seems to me that Elizabeth is informed, intelligent, and independent. I'm guessing she is also an attractive woman who is comfortable with her own sexuality. That makes her a major threat to any crone wielding power, and she is gonna pay for it.
If the crone is running a cult, it won't be long before you hear accusations of "witchcraft," explicit or implicit. Those with ears, let them hear.
As psychotic as the "visions" and "prophecies" may be, the most shameful behavior of all is John's. Truly contemptible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
IMO, Elizabeth's counterattack has been played out capably. I’d advise against picking or otherwise winding up in a catfight with Ms. Snow White.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Thanks, Satori, I plan to, though it will probably be a few days before I have the time to put the thought into it, and then put the thoughts into words. :)
I was just thinking about how much I benefitted from your thread, and was thinking the topic would be appropriate for this subforum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know that JAL's behavior has been contemptible. It would appear that way, based on one side of the story that's been made public. But I don't know what it was like for these two human beings to live with each other. There are intricate reasons for divorces. Two happy people don't divorce based on the ludicrous visions of some SELF-APPOINTED (there, I said it) prophetess unless one or both are highly mentally unstable.
What I'm trying to say is that the Lynn marriage is not the point, and criticizing Lynn for accepting the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess over his wife is presuming that the prophetic visions were the sole or the major reason behind the divorce. I don't know that this is true, and I'm not prepared to criticize John for it. (Neither am I saying that it is untrue. I'm saying there's so much to a divorce that to get to the truth of that question, for me, would involve me getting into something that is entirely none of my business).
What disgusts me about all this is that, corporately, CES/STFI allowed a SELF-APPOINTED prophetess to insinuate herself into someone else's marriage to begin with. This malicious behavior was accepted, condoned, and encouraged. For that reason alone, the watchmen should be on the walls with bullhorns.
And if they EVER try to personally prophesy into my life, I'll slap them with a slander suit so fast they won't know what hit them.
Oh, by the way, YES, I am saying that if JAL was otherwise happy but allowed the SELF-APPOINTED prophetess' words to corrupt his marriage, he is highly mentally unstable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well said and definitely worth repeating over and over again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Snow White?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
No matter what their problems might have been, he allowed the sanctity of his marriage, and his wife's heart, to be defiled and desecrated by these unspeakable charlatans. End of story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
richnchrispy
Hi, Raf! This is Chrispy. Please take no offence, I just disagree on this...
I don't know how long you've been married. I have been married 33 years to Richard. Marriage is a commitment. I made a vow and I intend to keep it. Happiness is fleeting. The Lynn marriage may not be the point. But it was the proof to me that something is rotten in the CES/STF leadership.
Divorce is a legal process that one person initiates. John initiated it.
He divorced her because she would not concede that the prophecies and everything else she was being hammered with were true. When I confronted John Lynn about divorcing Elizabeth, he told me that John Shoenheit told him it was acceptible because she had hardened her heart. I choose at this time to believe that JAL was also twisting Schoenheit's words, but this may not be the case.
The verse being twisted was Mark 10:5:
This passage is clear that it is not condoning divorce and that it is an indictment of the divorcing man's hardness of heart, not the wife's.
Elizabeth's experience was a nightmare and something that borders on criminal assault, slander in the least. John sought the divorce because she would not agree to the prophesies. She hardened her position, as she should. I hope that I would have the same strength of character in a similar situation.
I don't think JAL is highly unstable, he is bewitched like the galatians:
The Galatians were not unstable, they were bewitched. Being unstable would give him an excuse for allowing the prophesies to sway him. The prophesies worked because he had faith in the lies of a "friend."
Edited by richnchrispyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Chrispy, I'm not sure if JAL was twisting his words either, but for what it's worth... TWI used that same counsel with my ex husband. In addition to likening me to the contentious woman in Proverbs and insinuating that I was 'not pleased to dwell' with him.
They in effect, classified me as an 'unbeliever' after I spoke out about TWI.
Since it's obvious that CES doctrine is still very similar to TWI's and their ability to twist and pervert scripture is equally astounding, it could be carry over doctrine from TWI.
Raf, we were otherwise very happily married, but once I realized my ex was not going to protect, support and stand up for me it did cause lots of additional problems in the marriage. The respect, trust and security went out the window. So, in the end, yes, there were tons of problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Chrispy,
No offense taken. We disagree on terminology and shorthand, not the essence.
When I say "happy" in the context of a marriage, I'm talking about being well-adjusted, secure, open, honest, understanding, etc... a good marriage. I'm not talking about the fleeting emotion of the hour.
And I simply don't know (or care to know) whether the Lynn marriage was happy before Glinda stuck her nose in it.
As for "bewitched" vs. "unstable," I would argue that they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, i would argue that someone who is bewitched is by definition unstable. I'm merely expressing the sympton. If you want to talk cause instead, be my guest. Someone who is "bewitched" to the point of listening to a prophetess over his own wife, etc, as has been alleged in this case, either is not in a happy (my definition) marriage to begin with or is unstable, either as a result of being bewitched, mentally incompetent, downright stupid or any combination of the three. I'm am not saying that's the case here. I'm saying that anyone (generic) who allows that which was described to happen to a happy marriage is unstable. And if the shoe fits in this case...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So, in short, Belle,
you're saying that twi insinuated itself into your personal life and marriage,
and that twi and its practices and doctrines were the reasons for your divorce,
since you wouldn't just blindly follow them, but your husband did, even when they badmouthed you...
....and you see a similarity in this and how the other divorce we are discussing fell out,
correct? That Elizabeth was placed in a position where following her conscience resulted
in CES/STFI insinuating themselves into her personal life and marriage,
and invented and magnified problems- like inventing these so-called "personal prophecies"-
specifically to either intimidate her into silence (forcing conformity), or to convince
JAL that God Almighty has decided he should divorce,
correct?
Is that what you're saying?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Belle,
To apply what I said to your marriage, I would say that if your marriage was otherwise happy, your ex-husband was unstable, bewitched, stupid, insane, wacko, or whatever you want to put as the word there, to let TWI come between man and wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
WordWolf, you pretty much nailed it. :) I really feel for Elizabeth. I've so been there - thinking you're marrying your "Ephesians 3:20" man only to find out that he'll gladly throw you under the bus if someone pretending to speak for God tells him to....even if he deep down disagrees with said speaker. So much for the 'unalterable commitment' they teach. It seems to be conveniently forgotten when it's no longer in their best interest to promote it.
Raf, I use those words, but the 'choice' ones I use would be censored here. :ph34r: I dunno if you remember, but I contacted you privately about attending some sort of 'intervention' with my ex. I was convinced that if I could get him to listen to sound reason that he'd actually see how effed up TWI, their advice and his obedience to them was. :( It was merely weeks before this was to happen when he decided he wanted a divorce.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Chrispyrich sed
This passage is clear that it is not condoning divorce and that it is an indictment of the divorcing man's hardness of heart, not the wife's.
You reminded me - a good translation of the Mark vv is - "Because of your hardness of heart", and hardness means unwilling to listen, stubbon, at wits end.
Jesus seems to be talking to those Pharisees specifically but also may have been including men and women as a whole. By law only men were allowed to initiate divorce then, not women. So, it's reading as if He said 'divorce has been allowable to accomodate (your) hardness of heart, for that point where you stubbornly won't listen anymore and can't go any further".
Jesus responds to the man and the woman's relationship - "what God joins together". He's definitely not condoning divorce as you say. The law allows for it, doesn't command anyone.
Of course in reality it can be either person in a marriage, so if it's applied with any reasonableness it's going to have to include either one.
I see this verse and Paul' suggestions on divorce are often used (wrongly) when one spouse just wants to get out of the relationship and needs some justification for being 'right', the 'good one'.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I have to be honest
I read the "prophecies "
and never did get to EL's letters
Understand I come from a religious ideology that believes in Prophecies has, in factm, a living prophet
And all I could think as I read the verbal diatribe of an obviously unsettled and sexually psychopathic mind was
HOW could anyone think this was of GOD???
In fact where was GOD in the entire picture???
dead babies
maggots
swamps
fishnet stockings
wedding dresses
demonic faces
But
No GOD
no Jesus Christ
No Holy Spirit
No love
no gentleness
no guidance
Just darkness and bleakness
Darkness and bleakness --silly me I aways thought that was of the devil..............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person.
It also reminds me of a little book called "Animal Farm." The pigs, the leaders pressured the other animals to make false confessions of treason and treachery and hanging out or meeting with the dreaded SnowBall. Once an animal conceded to make a false accusation, their throat was ripped out. There was a movie, I believe it was "The Killing Fields." People who made false accusations against themselves or admitted to false accusations were also killed. Murder is illegal here, but for her or anyone to agree to those accusations made by others, would be suicide and they would be marked forever, damaged, their reputation damaged permanently. It's a no win situation for the accused. It's disgusting and reprehensible to commit such acts in the name of any religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
"Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.
The error returned was:
Sorry, you do not have permission to start a topic in this forum."
------------------
Are no new topics permitted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Satori, see this thread:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=12647
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
FullCircle,
I'm not sure about what you meant when you posted "Not agreeing to false prophecies (sp) and accusations made against a person was considered hardness of heart? I consider that to be a strong stable person."
I just want to be sure you know that I did not intend to imply anything about Elizabeth's stability. My statements about mental stability are directed at John, and then ONLY if he allowed those prophecies to ruin an otherwise happy marriage. I do not know that the marriage was otherwise happy. Nor do I want to. It's none of my business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I have since read Elizabeth's entire letter. Didn't want to give the impression it wasn't important. She chose every word very carefully and it deserved a full reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
Raf
I had read the letters, most of them anyway and so many posts that were swirling around in my mind, that my post was a direct result of putting myself in a person's shoes and going against a group of people trying to tell me I was possessed or something close to that. Having been in TWI, and having seen that done to others and having it done to me, I identified. It had nothing to do with your post at all.
To be honest, as someone who left around 1989 and who was associated with CES then, and as such whenever I had associated with churches or groups after that, I always had to find something that DID not resemble TWI. I am most glad after reading this, I did not stay involved. I agree with you about the unstable part of it all. It just amazes me that people would base life altering decisions on dreams. It's insane. It's like reading about people who waste their life savings to have a curse removed or have a medium contact their dead loved ones for them.
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.