Sorry, but I want to choo-choo once more. I know we are coming down hard on Oldies, but there are many who lurk here who feel the same way. And to Oldies' credit, he HAS changed some of his views after careful consideration of what was said here on Gspot. Oldies, I hope you will consider further.
Some people have been fortunate enough never to have been close to a personality-disordered individual. They try to understand a person's actions in the light of a normal person's motivations. People with disordered personalities often cannot be understood in this way, because they live by different rules -- their own.
Trying to explain away Wierwille's motivation as being "horny" is about like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer was hungry! And I'm sure that Dahmer did some kind things in his day. I can bet that some of his neighbors never suspected, maybe always thought of him as "quiet" or "polite." Well, Wierwille was kind to his dogs, prayed for people, taught the Bible, helped people get born again. But he was also overtly abusive to tender-hearted people who were in his care.
Wierwille was a MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, so even if those young girls had come on to him, stripped naked in front of him, he should have recognized that they needed help, and that he would be sinning to give in to them.
Wierwille was MARRIED, so he should have told them no, out of respect for his wife.
Wierwille was a FATHER, with children the SAME AGE AS THOSE WOMEN, so he should have had fatherly instincts to protect them, and should have left them alone.
Wierwille was a US CITIZEN, and as such knew that he was breaking the law by using drugs or alcohol to trap his victims. Or to approach underage girls. He also knew that what he did would not be approved of by society at large, and the believers in particular, hence the need for the "lockbox."
Wierwille was a MAN, and should have had the guts to approach a peer for sex, not the naive younger generation. Or his wife. Or, upon being rejected, he should have used his own right hand!
Let me put it to you this way, Oldies. You are now probably about the same age, and older, than VPW was when he did these things. When YOU are horny, do you forsake your wife or partner? Look for high schoolers and college kids to seduce? Try to teach that extramarital sex is from God for those who are as savvy as you? Would your actions be okay if you only went after some of the women, and were kind to others?
quote:Asking challenging questions is one thing Oldies......openly accusing folks of being liars or filled with hate or working for satan simply BECAUSE you are unwilling to consider their account or point of view is harmfull and wrong. ...
Rascal, I'm unwilling to consider that VPW was a child of the devil, because I don't believe that people lose salvation if they sin, even repeatedly. I think the teaching that people can lose salvation because of sin is harmful, and devilish, and not representative of what God did in Christ, therefore it's a lie. IMO, someone who knows all these things and still claims VPW was a child of satan should get challenged on it.
P.S. to Oldies, having read your most recent posts:
I do not know if VPW was "of the devil," or never born again, or any of that. But if the Bible be true, and every man's work be tried as if by fire, I think VPW will be standing in a pile of ash, clothed by some charred BVD's!
Dot Thanks for this thread and I'm glad your hand got healed.
A couple of topics that might keep the plagerism discussions lively:
1. Atheletes of the spirit. I remember the evolution story from the ministry- From a ROA
Skit to hollywoods SATANS ALLEY play within a movie in "Staying Alive". Then to Atheletes.
2. I got the impression that VPW (and LCM) had a lot of help that is perhaps unattributed contributions for the Promised Seed, Passover, and Harmony of the Gospels.
In all of these "projects" I got the distinct impression that from VPW's and LCM's comments on SNS tapes etc. that there were many people involved but that these MOG's were overseeing them to be sure that they were "spiritually pure" and then published under their name.
I bought it at the time but now I wonder if it was a kind of exploitation- It wouldn't be plagarism because the "contributors" were "working under and for" VPW and had not published. But I think the astronomical work was someones original work that he shared with VPW- But the hours of research and development into a hopefully accurate and meaningful product were from those unnamed individuals.
I guess what I am saying is that I think these latter works were ghost written- without attribution.
Oldiesman, you are definitely correct to say that it is unfair to say that docvic(praise be his name) was born again of the wrong seed. The only way someone can know this is by revelation from God, no matter WHAT the fruit evident in docvic's(praise be his name) life.
BUT it is equally correct to say that we DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE WAS BORN AGAIN OF GOD'S SPIRIT.
We heard him SIT. But to me it always sound really fake, and it was always the same 7 or 8 words - after so many years of SIT, one would think that he would be better at it.
So in order to know that he absolutely HAD received salvation, you and I would have to receive revelation from God.
We just don't know either way, without God telling us.
I think, though, that a person can be called a FIGURATIVE child of the devil - meaning that although that person may have gotten born again, that person's actions benefit the adversary. And I think that it is an at least somewhat applicable appellation in this case.
No way to investigate this one I guess, but now I'm wondering whenVic Wierwille started going by VP? Could it have been in '53 shortly after taking a certain class from a certain obscure minister in Calgary?
quote:Let me put it to you this way, Oldies. You are now probably about the same age, and older, than VPW was when he did these things. When YOU are horny, do you forsake your wife or partner? Look for high schoolers and college kids to seduce? Try to teach that extramarital sex is from God for those who are as savvy as you? Would your actions be okay if you only went after some of the women, and were kind to others?
Shaz, no, no, no, no. VP's sinning was not ok as stated already...
quote:BUT it is equally correct to say that we DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE WAS BORN AGAIN OF GOD'S SPIRIT.
Steve, the only way I can fathom VP not being born again is if the bible itself is false. I'd bet on a stack of bibles and everything I own that VP was born again. I'd bet my own salvation on it. Why? He taught Romans 10:9,10 and John 3:16 for years, convincingly for years, and years, and he spoke in tongues. He wrote books on the redemption powers of Jesus Christ. Back in Session 5 of PFAL... a man simply can't teach that convincingly how to get saved and not be saved himself; what's the point? He teaches for years how to get multitudes saved yet he's not saved himself? That's too far out.
There are many ministers out there that get people born again and aren't themselves. I got born again in the Catholic church!
I'll say it again, the only way you can know absolutely is if God tells you. So you heard him SIT. Me too. But that can be faked! And out of all the tongues that I've heard, his sounded as fake as the fakiest.
As far as how he was able to teach like that - he got his style and substance from other teachers! A man can't sell you a toothbrush with one bristle without being sincere! Sincerity is no guarantee of the truth.
WRT him teaching convincingly, that is irrelevant. There have been many many convincing teachers throughout time.
WRT what's the point? It's been repeatedly made - CIF. Cash. Moola. Money. Mammon.
Frankly Oldies, the issue of whether or not VPW was born again, either of God or of the devil, is largely irrelevent. Yes Virginia, I said irrelevent! Especially to those who suffered under his abuses.
Because what good is it, from many angles be it spiritual or material, that he is born again, and is doing this crap to his followers, huh? I mean, isn't this a lot like that section in I John that talks about what good is it to say you love God but hate your brother? Same principle here. What good is it for him to be born again, and even 'teach the Word' as it were, if he abuses and screws over people like all this?
Answer: It isn't! At all! And by what his life & example illustrates, even if it includes the 'getting born again', 'speaking in tongues', 'teaching the Word', etc., isn't worth following after, defending, or even seriously considering by any mature, thinking, free person. Or like he said in the PFAL class, "I wouldn't go to church with you either!"
And if that makes me an 'unbeliever filled with hate and deception', ... ((shrug)) ... so you still have a valid point to make? Please make it.
Umm, Oldiesman, perhaps you don't intend it this way, but your posts about docvic(praise be his name) sound as if you are staking your personal worth on his reputation.
It sounds as if you need for him to be some kind of hero in order to have validation for your own life.
Like I said, you probably don't intend it that way.
IMF777 - I enjoyed that link comparing BG Leonard & VP Wierwille - what is the larger website name??
Everyone else - re: VPW - he is DEAD, his books still live on, some/most plagerized??He influenced people who influenced you (for good and/or for bad...blessings and/or hurts) and for some the influence was direct. (and hurtful)Others who were directly "blessed" aren't posting here....they should be able to....just like people who were directly hurt.The posts and links about BG Leonard clear up a lot of grey areas in my mind re the Way and why it was both good and bad.
When you have two real women telling you to your face that Wierwille sexually assaulted them, independently of each other and without the other's knowledge, and with ZERO evidence that they are anything less than truthful, one would have to be an utter fool not to listen carefully to what they had to say.
They did not "ask for it."
They did not "secretly want it." (Rumor has it that VPW was hung like a hamster anyway...)
Wierwille was not "just being a man." Any man who forces or coerces a woman into having sex when she is not a 100% willing participant is not a man, he is a goddamned rapist. Period.
Regardless of how VPW might have packaged and merchandised it, the only book of any lasting relevance to the topic is usually bound in black leather, not in orange vinyl. VPW does not get a pass because he may have led some people to God.
It isn't some anonymous letter to a hatchet site. This man hurt three of your sisters in Christ, Dot, Excathedra, and his own wife. That is fact, and it is not in dispute. If some preacher expected your daughter to "service" him, I'd wager it would take three men to pull you off of the bastard.
Who deserves the real praise for your new birth? Almighty God? Or a despicable sexual criminal?
Zixar! GOOD POST! Great grasp of the obvious! Thank you for saying it all again so that maybe the deaf shall hear.
I did not say that Weirwille was born of the wrong seed or anything, I said he would sit in the second chair in hell.
So NOW Oldies will make the thread be about how I said Weirwille was a child of the devil.
So, here you go:
Sorry Raf-
Oldies
I am sick of your insults and lack of compassion and constant validation for a known sexual pervert.
If that is the kind of minister that you want-- THEN TAKE HIM. LOVE him. WORSHIP him.
All points of logic are lost on you. All compassionate attempts to teach you about the man behind the curtain fall flat.
People you want to know why the corps who knew did not make announcements? Did not warn all of you? Oldiesman and people like him are the reason. How do you tell someone like this you just saw VP naked, or you have been hanging around a research guy and you think the research maybe bogus? How do you tell people like this?
After all I said to you, all things people have brought to light. All you can then do is argue as to whether VP was born of the right seed? Because I apparently told you he wasn't.
Mike told me that I live in hell, and we were all bright enough not to try to figure out if I was born again or not.
All points of logic are lost on you. It is like talking to dry wall.
Are you really 2 drops short of being a puddle? Your depth and understanding is so "formula" like from a PFAL book.
I tell you that there were sex practices going on and you say you do not believe it. (THat calls me a liar.) So, then I give you back up proof with Marsha's letter on Jeudes site and YOU accuse me of "Worshiping Jeudes."
Its like the lights are on and no one is home. But I do not think you may be that stupid. I think you may be playing everyone with the stupid, shy, unassuming act you put on. I think you show up whenever anyone shares something bad that happened to them with VPW. But instead of defending his litney of crap your defense is as shallow as "I had a great twig." "This poster....."
Praise God you had a nice fellowship. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING THAT VPW HAS DONE.
You swing each argument to something other than defending VPW.
So here is your shot. Defend him. Without ridiculing the victims and eliminating testimony to the contrary, defend him.
You like his books? He did not write them.
You like his class? Oops, not his.
Go ahead defend him. Go ahead, tell us why you think he is so great. Tell us why even though the CHURCH has told you what he has done to God's kids, you think the things he did were okay. Or maybe you think the things he DID were NOT okay -- BUT he was Okay in spite of all the things he did.
quote: Frankly Oldies, the issue of whether or not VPW was born again, either of God or of the devil, is largely irrelevent. Yes Virginia, I said irrelevent! Especially to those who suffered under his abuses
Excellent!
Shaz:
quote:Trying to explain away Wierwille's motivation as being "horny" is about like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer was hungry! And I'm sure that Dahmer did some kind things in his day. I can bet that some of his neighbors never suspected, maybe always thought of him as "quiet" or "polite." Well, Wierwille was kind to his dogs, prayed for people, taught the Bible, helped people get born again. But he was also overtly abusive to tender-hearted people who were in his care.
Good post!
Steve:
quote: I think, though, that a person can be called a FIGURATIVE child of the devil - meaning that although that person may have gotten born again, that person's actions benefit the adversary. And I think that it is an at least somewhat applicable appellation in this case.
Glad to see your understanding things, you said it well.
Evan
It would be interesting to see when Vic became VP!
Ckeer- good topics! Raf, what do you think?
Zixar:
quote:It isn't some anonymous letter to a hatchet site. This man hurt three of your sisters in Christ, Dot, Excathedra, and his own wife. That is fact, and it is not in dispute. If some preacher expected your daughter to "service" him, I'd wager it would take three men to pull you off of the bastard.
Who deserves the real praise for your new birth? Almighty God? Or a despicable sexual criminal?
Again, wonderful explaination.
Steve
I wonder if his tongue was real. We don't know.
(((Rascal))))
Greek2me - this was a great post that got lost in the battle.
quote: With regards to Bro. Leonard's quote aboute God speaking to him and saying that He would give the revelation regarding these things (gifts of the Spirit) to bring His people out of Chaos, etc. Brother Leonard was speaking (conversing) to Charles Sydney Price at the time. In other words, Bro. Leonard recognised God speaking to him through Charles S. Price. Those of you reading this who have heard the voice of God speaking to you through another person will recognize this as a viable method employed by God to communicate to us. It's simply unmistakeable. Brother Leonard didn't claim that God spoke to him audibly, as VPW did.
What does "child of the devil" mean to each of you? - Does it mean the same thing?
I propose that TWI's teacing on this may have been errant.
Dot has expressed her opinion that VPW was a child of the devil.
Oldies disagrees and is offended by the idea. Yet I am not fully sure what Dot means by "child of the devil". Or why Oldies takes such offense.
------ Start Edit Here ----------
Correction: Dot never outright said that VPW was a "child of the devil". This term was first used by Oldies on this thread.
Oldies seems to have presumed or taken by inference that what Dot has said about VPW is the same as saying that VPW was a "child of the devil". But Dot never actually made that statement.
-------- End of Edit -----------
So, I have started a thread in Doctrinal where we can possibly explore and discuss what child of the devil means - biblically. Maybe we can clear up things here a bit.
Raf a History of why I do not think Oldies is open to the things here, I think YOU are just a really loving kind man.
History from an old thread, please note there is a similar pattern. Please note other posters observations:
Here are some past "Oldies did not get it" Apparently LG, who posted this thinks Oldies knows what he is doing as well:
quote: Oldiesman, I think you know exactly what you're doing. If so, you're an ***. If not, you are still acting like one. Rafael, I'd like to think that you just don't get it.
IT MATTERS NOT ONE BIT that some woman, somewhere along the way, could have possibly had truly consensual sexual relations with Wierwille. THE POINT is that TWI believers, who thought of him as THE MAN OF GOD, did not.
"It's not about sex but about power" does not mean that either the abuser or the VICTIM is necessarily thinking about power, rather than sex. It means that the abuser uses his POWER to deceive, coerce, manipulate, or whatever it takes to gain the "consent" or overcome the nonconsent of the VICTIM.
Oldiesman, your constant nit-picking about "consent" and what it means to be a victim is designed to deflect accusations away from your precious ABUSER, by constantly offering up the possibility that his VICTIMS might not have really been victims at all, but consenting adults. Hell, the way you stretch and distort things, I'm surprised you don't say that a woman who consents to sex at the point of a gun is a consenting adult, and therefore not a rape victim.
This is what I contend he picks at things to divert us from the exposure of VPW's sick/perverted/plagerizing/abuse etc.
And here:
He makes the topic"All" when it was about VIC and tries to get the conversation off VPW and onto nit-picking about ONE word again.
Oldies quotes this person, then answers then OC responds. See a trend here?
quote:
Sexual predators are not men just falling into sin...they just do not have a weakness for the ladies.. but it is a SERIAL mind set ....
Oldies response:
This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
It's still a little extreme, in my opinion.
posted February 01, 2003 08:26
OC responds to Oldies:
Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
OC brings the topic back.
Then Oldies responds looking for a fight:
He quotes OC quote:
Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
Then responds: Orange Cat and Evan,
I am saying all, because the premise of the argument Excathedra brought up applies to all pastors according to her article:
quote:
As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.
If that statement is true, then you may say that about VPW and all other pastors in TWI too, right?
I think what's fair is fair, if you're going to apply that standard to VPW you might as well apply it to all of them.
A side comment to Orange Cat: you may dislike me very much, hate my guts even, but in the future if you want me to answer your questions please address me by my handle.
NOW OC RESPONDS also aware that Oldies does this stuff on purpose:
quote:Hail to thee oldiesman, don't flatter yourself, I don't hate you I just hate to type.
You maketh no sense Oldiesman, by whatever moniker you like. When confronted with Vic's predation you try to dodge and make it look like it applies to everyone. Hardy. You can't possibly misunderstand to the degree you seem to.
You can call me OC if you like. Just don't call me late for dinner.
Later on down Lindy makes a great post to the nay-sayers trying to make things about something else....
quote:What is the deal here!!!
This is not a doctrinal thread. Why the need to discuss semantics?
Was it just the several women here at CS that VPW had non-consentual sex with?
Was it only 10, 20 wommen?
Was it 100, 200?
Was it concentual with 10, 20 all but ten or twenty?
Lets not kid ourselves. This is not the point.
Would it matter if he only raped 20 and had consentual sex with the other 100? Would that make some of you feel better? How about if it were only a few head leaders that did the same thing? Would that make you feel better?
You think this nit-picking does not take something from these women?
Then why do we see these responces you get?
It does not matter if it was not every single sexual encounter.
Take a look at the thread the Profile of a Sexual Preditor.
The reality is that it was probably more like hundreds of women.
The man was a preditor. Lets not nit-pick how what I just said is not provable. But you know it is probably true.
Then a poster says:
quote: Oldiesman is a neo-Wierwillite, surely you know that. He so busies himself in whitewashing Wierwille's sepluchure that he has little time to do ought but sugar coat the great sugar daddy on the pulpit. Wierwille's sins are real
Then OC writes to Raf, because Raf is a good man trying to enlighten Oldies:
quote: As is frequently the case, I hope you are right and I am wrong. A certain poster has struck me as being particularly unctous for over 3 years. And I hadn't noticed any glimmer of light entering his skull. My hat is off to you for perceiving it and to him for awakening. I will await further developments. Thank you for explaining your position - not about the abuse (which was always clear) but about your attititude toward him. You really did have me perplexed, but now you've enlightened me. Keep on thinking the best of others.
Then a good point by LG:
quote:Does Oldiesman have the right to post what he does? Sure, but having the right to do something doesn?t make it the right thing to do. It?s not a matter of rights. It?s a matter of respect. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay out of some discussions. This one is not about Oldiesman?s dismantling or affirming his belief system. It?s about ministerial abuse.
Excathedra started this thread because:
quote:
Originally posted by excathedra:
someone on that other thread referred to wierwille's sin as adultery
what i'm saying it was SO MUCH WORSE THAN THIS
She referred to THIS ARTICLE, from which she quoted the following:
quote:
From ?Soul Stealing?
Even when adultery is involved, unfaithfullness is not the primary issue. I have found that ministers enter into romantic or sexual relationships with parishioners primarily because there is an imbalance of power between them at the outset and because they need to reinforce and heighten the intensity of that power dynamic. This is need is driven by internal forces and Is reinforced by societaly conditioned expectations that women will function as a nurturing, sexual servant class. [Emphasis mine.]
Notice that neither Excathedra nor the author of the article said ?always? or ?all ministers.?
Referring specifically to Wierwille, excathedra wrote:
quote:
but wait he was even worse
when he knew you thought of him as a father figure, i mean this now, he still felt it was okay to prey on you
it wasn't like a moment of passion or mistake or getting carried away, you know what i mean
it was thought thru, planned, calculated, like with very little emotion or feeling for the person (me)
In follow-ups she said that she was just trying to describe her experience.
Oldiesman came along and quoted one sentence from the article: ?As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.? (Emphasis mine.) He then took off on the possibility that a pastor might just be horny, which has absolutely nothing to do with the thesis of the article or what anyone else had been discussing on the thread. He went further by saying:
quote:
Originally posted by oldiesman:
I'd like to see the definitive proof that every sexual relation of a pastor/perishioner is about power and control.
NOBODY claimed that!
In a later post, oldiesman said:
quote:
This is the premise of this entire argument, that its ALWAYS about power and control in the male.
That is just not true. The article never said that and no one had said that on the thread, either.
Radar O?Reilly replied to Oldiesman?s statement by saying, ?It is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER when the aggressor is in POWER over the victim.? Also, ?Maybe it isn't about power to the Aggressor (man or woman) but it is about power to the VICTIM (man or woman) and that is the perspective that counts.?
Oldiesman came back with this:
quote:
What you seem to be suggesting is, ALL the women in TWI who had sex with ministers didn't have the option to just say ?no?. They are ALL victims, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. They are ALL victims (of rape?).
NOBODY suggested that!
After some discussion about why abused women sometimes don?t say anything and, specifically, why women Wierwille abused didn?t say anything or weren?t heard, if they did, Oldiesman said this:
quote:
Another possible reason why some women never said anything:
3. They knew they had sinned by voluntarily committing adultery with VPW, and they kept their sin with VPW in the lockbox. They confessed their sin to God, asked for his forgiveness, and the matter for all intents and purposes, was forgiven and forgotten.
------------------------
The subject was NOT voluntary adulteresses! It was abused women. In the context of the discussion, Oldiesman tacitly accused at least some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses! You wonder why I called him an ***? (That will be censored. The word is A-S-S.)
I?m going to write that one again, in bold-face:
Oldiesman accused some abused women of being voluntary adulteresses!
Excathedra replied, ?you are a fooking ashhole.? IMO, given what Oldiesman had just written, that was pretty darn mild.
Then you came along, Rafael. Your first post in this thread:
quote:
----------------
Originally posted by Rafael 1969:
excath:
I'm trying to be real delicate here. Let's put your experience aside. Okay? The following question has NOTHING to do with YOU or what YOU went through. It is not directed at YOU. Okay?
Would you agree that at least SOME PEOPLE might possibly fit the description oldies presented? SOME? Not all. Not even a majority. Let's say, four people. Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille, that it's possible about FOUR of them were Wierwille worshippers who were more than happy to shower their favor on him?
I think SOME people fit that description. I think that does NOT distract from VPW's responsibility as a Christian, and particularly as a Christian minister, to refrain from such behavior. So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.
In any event, I think Oldies is a nice guy, and I know you're hurting when you call him the things you called him.
Sorry for butting in.
-------------------
First of all, you?re damn right she was hurting! Oldiesman had just implied that she might be a slut who had willingly sinned with Wierwille. (No, he didn?t say that but he sure made it clear that it was a possibility.) Secondly, the thread was not and is not about people who ?might possibly fit the description oldies presented.? Thirdly, this: ?Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille?? completely ignores the WHOLE FRIGGING POINT of the thread, which is that what Wierwille did to HIS VICTIMS was much worse than engaging in adultery. Even more importantly, it is a SLAP IN THE FACE to Excathedra and Wierwille?s other VICTIMS for you to say that they ?engaged in adultery with Wierwille.?
In your defense of Oldiesman, you inadvertently pointed out the reason behind his posts: ?So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse.? Actually, it does more than that. The most important thing is shifting blame away from Wierwille. That can?t be done with facts, so it?s done by concentrating on the blame that other people might bear. However, since this thread is about real victims, not ?possible? consenting adulteresses, much of the blame is shifted to Wierwille?s VICTIMS, denials and statements of noble intentions notwithstanding.
Later you wrote:
quote:
-----------------------
And it still doesn't excuse Wierwille, but it robs those very few possible people of "victim" status. Is that so unreasonable?
---------------------------
What is unreasonable is your failure to see that this is not about ?very few possible people.? It?s about many real people and them trying to discuss the nature of their real victimization, what led to it, and how to deal with it afterwards. The dealing with it includes emotional healing but it also includes learning how to strengthen themselves against future victimization and how to help others, including their children, to avoid becoming victims themselves or to guard against further victimization if they have already become victims.
Then Oldiesman popped off with this:
quote:
------------------
This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
-------------
NOBODY proposed anything like this.
His claims of sincerity and objectivity notwithstanding, Oldiesman continues to distort, pick nits that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion, cast ?possible? blame on ?possible? people who might not be victims, in order to distract from or completely sidetrack the discussion, which is about real people and real victimization, and will hopefully lead to real recovery and real prevention.
I posted this old info to show this has been a concern and a pattern seen by other people besides me.
Now it is almost a year later. It is the same thing - different day with Oldies.
The thread was about plagerism and when it got good and hot it became about him attacking me and he and I fighting.
It became about nit-picking me.It is his MO. He is just slicker than Mike.
Draw your own conclusions.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 3:23.]
The FIRST use of Child of the Devil was stated by him in speaking/yelling at Imablvr?
To Imablvr about me:
quote:
I was "blessed" at first (by BG's ministry)...
Imablvr, you were blessed at and by TWI, if you were there. Admit it, people at TWI were part of that process. Unless you were actively involved in the real BG's ministry, your statement (you were blessed by BG's ministry) is a result of another lie, that the blessings we had were there "only because of God and B.G. Leonard." What nonsense! That's a lie, similar to the lie that VPW was a child of the devil, and has a place in hell. These are lies from the Father of Lies, spewed with bold spittle from someone who demonstratively thinks only evil about VPW. Believing these lies causes you to denounce where you were even!
IMO, due to the words of Dot Matrix folks should get out their Spiritual Halitosis meter and start using it.
(A BRIEF ASIDE FROM DOT, yet Oldies said he does not remember calling "us" liars (gist))
------
I said this and he is quoting me here:
quote:...VPW ... started a ministry to abuse people. So, we got saved and were immediately escourted in to depravity, abuse and oppression. VPW was the counterfiet sent to make sure those that were looking were rendered impotent shortly after finding Christ.
Oldies responds:
Good Lord. I think if the Devil Himself were writing this, He couldn't put his thoughts any more bold and blatant.
I profoundly disagree with these words and do not relate or acknowledge these words or experiences in any way in my time in TWI-1. They are lies, lies from the fiery pit of hell. Railing bold words of evil designed to falsely accuse one of God's children from someone who apparently thinks they are the Searcher of Hearts.
WOW, what boldness!
It demonstrates how hatred of a person, in this case VPW, blinds and distorts anything and everything VPW ever did.
Geeze no wonder why the Wierwille's don't post on here. Goodness gracious.
Dot then says
?. I say thank GOD for any good that happened, praise God for Leonard's work; and may VPW have a special place in hell for all the lives he destroyed?.
Then, I said, ?And Oldies who says Weirwille was one of GOD's children? Which God??
Answering his above comment.
He then made an issue out of me apparently saying VPW was born of the wrong seed/child of the devil. Which is something I am not even sure I believe in.
MORE FYI:
I said this and he quotes me:
?I think VPW was an evil guy doing evil things. He thinks otherwise.?
Oldies then says:
I've said on more than one occasion that VP did evil works and good works, that he was a compilation of the two. Saying he was doing only evil is distorting the record. Promoting he did evil only distorts his life and this is probably why she thinks he was a child of the devil.
He then again says I said this:
?But I still keep my mouth shut, generally, until the false accusations are so blatant (vp is a child of the devil) etc.?
I NEVER did. He accuses me twice. I kept thinking I didn't say that, and went looking and I didn't.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 4:04.]
I think Greek2me had a real point when he reminded us that VIC said he heard God audibly
Greek2me:
quote:With regards to Bro. Leonard's quote aboute God speaking to him and saying that He would give the revelation regarding these things (gifts of the Spirit) to bring His people out of Chaos, etc. Brother Leonard was speaking (conversing) to Charles Sydney Price at the time. In other words, Bro. Leonard recognised God speaking to him through Charles S. Price. Those of you reading this who have heard the voice of God speaking to you through another person will recognize this as a viable method employed by God to communicate to us. It's simply unmistakeable. Brother Leonard didn't claim that God spoke to him audibly, as VPW did.
And Ex and Evan questioned the begining use of VP as Leonard used BG. Anyone know?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
35
18
78
Popular Days
Nov 10
47
Nov 7
45
Nov 4
40
Nov 9
35
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 27 posts
Raf 35 posts
oldiesman 18 posts
Dot Matrix 78 posts
Popular Days
Nov 10 2003
47 posts
Nov 7 2003
45 posts
Nov 4 2003
40 posts
Nov 9 2003
35 posts
shazdancer
LOL, Dot, nice segue!
Sorry, but I want to choo-choo once more. I know we are coming down hard on Oldies, but there are many who lurk here who feel the same way. And to Oldies' credit, he HAS changed some of his views after careful consideration of what was said here on Gspot. Oldies, I hope you will consider further.
Some people have been fortunate enough never to have been close to a personality-disordered individual. They try to understand a person's actions in the light of a normal person's motivations. People with disordered personalities often cannot be understood in this way, because they live by different rules -- their own.
Trying to explain away Wierwille's motivation as being "horny" is about like saying that Jeffrey Dahmer was hungry! And I'm sure that Dahmer did some kind things in his day. I can bet that some of his neighbors never suspected, maybe always thought of him as "quiet" or "polite." Well, Wierwille was kind to his dogs, prayed for people, taught the Bible, helped people get born again. But he was also overtly abusive to tender-hearted people who were in his care.
Wierwille was a MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, so even if those young girls had come on to him, stripped naked in front of him, he should have recognized that they needed help, and that he would be sinning to give in to them.
Wierwille was MARRIED, so he should have told them no, out of respect for his wife.
Wierwille was a FATHER, with children the SAME AGE AS THOSE WOMEN, so he should have had fatherly instincts to protect them, and should have left them alone.
Wierwille was a US CITIZEN, and as such knew that he was breaking the law by using drugs or alcohol to trap his victims. Or to approach underage girls. He also knew that what he did would not be approved of by society at large, and the believers in particular, hence the need for the "lockbox."
Wierwille was a MAN, and should have had the guts to approach a peer for sex, not the naive younger generation. Or his wife. Or, upon being rejected, he should have used his own right hand!
Let me put it to you this way, Oldies. You are now probably about the same age, and older, than VPW was when he did these things. When YOU are horny, do you forsake your wife or partner? Look for high schoolers and college kids to seduce? Try to teach that extramarital sex is from God for those who are as savvy as you? Would your actions be okay if you only went after some of the women, and were kind to others?
Hoping you will consider some more,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rascal, I'm unwilling to consider that VPW was a child of the devil, because I don't believe that people lose salvation if they sin, even repeatedly. I think the teaching that people can lose salvation because of sin is harmful, and devilish, and not representative of what God did in Christ, therefore it's a lie. IMO, someone who knows all these things and still claims VPW was a child of satan should get challenged on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
P.S. to Oldies, having read your most recent posts:
I do not know if VPW was "of the devil," or never born again, or any of that. But if the Bible be true, and every man's work be tried as if by fire, I think VPW will be standing in a pile of ash, clothed by some charred BVD's!
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckeer
Dot Thanks for this thread and I'm glad your hand got healed.
A couple of topics that might keep the plagerism discussions lively:
1. Atheletes of the spirit. I remember the evolution story from the ministry- From a ROA
Skit to hollywoods SATANS ALLEY play within a movie in "Staying Alive". Then to Atheletes.
2. I got the impression that VPW (and LCM) had a lot of help that is perhaps unattributed contributions for the Promised Seed, Passover, and Harmony of the Gospels.
In all of these "projects" I got the distinct impression that from VPW's and LCM's comments on SNS tapes etc. that there were many people involved but that these MOG's were overseeing them to be sure that they were "spiritually pure" and then published under their name.
I bought it at the time but now I wonder if it was a kind of exploitation- It wouldn't be plagarism because the "contributors" were "working under and for" VPW and had not published. But I think the astronomical work was someones original work that he shared with VPW- But the hours of research and development into a hopefully accurate and meaningful product were from those unnamed individuals.
I guess what I am saying is that I think these latter works were ghost written- without attribution.
Any other comments?
wasn't born to follow-
false doctrines
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Oldiesman, you are definitely correct to say that it is unfair to say that docvic(praise be his name) was born again of the wrong seed. The only way someone can know this is by revelation from God, no matter WHAT the fruit evident in docvic's(praise be his name) life.
BUT it is equally correct to say that we DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT HE WAS BORN AGAIN OF GOD'S SPIRIT.
We heard him SIT. But to me it always sound really fake, and it was always the same 7 or 8 words - after so many years of SIT, one would think that he would be better at it.
So in order to know that he absolutely HAD received salvation, you and I would have to receive revelation from God.
We just don't know either way, without God telling us.
I think, though, that a person can be called a FIGURATIVE child of the devil - meaning that although that person may have gotten born again, that person's actions benefit the adversary. And I think that it is an at least somewhat applicable appellation in this case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies, Dot,
Thank you both for enduring my nanny-complex.
I apologize for the derail, Dot.
I'm trying to find the Kenyon chapter from which Wierwille lifted "How to Be a Christian" from the green book. Some obvious ripoffs there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
No way to investigate this one I guess, but now I'm wondering whenVic Wierwille started going by VP? Could it have been in '53 shortly after taking a certain class from a certain obscure minister in Calgary?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Shaz, no, no, no, no. VP's sinning was not ok as stated already...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Steve, the only way I can fathom VP not being born again is if the bible itself is false. I'd bet on a stack of bibles and everything I own that VP was born again. I'd bet my own salvation on it. Why? He taught Romans 10:9,10 and John 3:16 for years, convincingly for years, and years, and he spoke in tongues. He wrote books on the redemption powers of Jesus Christ. Back in Session 5 of PFAL... a man simply can't teach that convincingly how to get saved and not be saved himself; what's the point? He teaches for years how to get multitudes saved yet he's not saved himself? That's too far out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
There are many ministers out there that get people born again and aren't themselves. I got born again in the Catholic church!
I'll say it again, the only way you can know absolutely is if God tells you. So you heard him SIT. Me too. But that can be faked! And out of all the tongues that I've heard, his sounded as fake as the fakiest.
As far as how he was able to teach like that - he got his style and substance from other teachers! A man can't sell you a toothbrush with one bristle without being sincere! Sincerity is no guarantee of the truth.
WRT him teaching convincingly, that is irrelevant. There have been many many convincing teachers throughout time.
WRT what's the point? It's been repeatedly made - CIF. Cash. Moola. Money. Mammon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Honest question:
How was VPW (or whomever was responsible for the idea) right when he said that his version of SIT was proof of born again?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Frankly Oldies, the issue of whether or not VPW was born again, either of God or of the devil, is largely irrelevent. Yes Virginia, I said irrelevent! Especially to those who suffered under his abuses.
Because what good is it, from many angles be it spiritual or material, that he is born again, and is doing this crap to his followers, huh? I mean, isn't this a lot like that section in I John that talks about what good is it to say you love God but hate your brother? Same principle here. What good is it for him to be born again, and even 'teach the Word' as it were, if he abuses and screws over people like all this?
Answer: It isn't! At all! And by what his life & example illustrates, even if it includes the 'getting born again', 'speaking in tongues', 'teaching the Word', etc., isn't worth following after, defending, or even seriously considering by any mature, thinking, free person. Or like he said in the PFAL class, "I wouldn't go to church with you either!"
And if that makes me an 'unbeliever filled with hate and deception', ... ((shrug)) ... so you still have a valid point to make? Please make it.
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Umm, Oldiesman, perhaps you don't intend it this way, but your posts about docvic(praise be his name) sound as if you are staking your personal worth on his reputation.
It sounds as if you need for him to be some kind of hero in order to have validation for your own life.
Like I said, you probably don't intend it that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CircleGame
IMF777 - I enjoyed that link comparing BG Leonard & VP Wierwille - what is the larger website name??
Everyone else - re: VPW - he is DEAD, his books still live on, some/most plagerized??He influenced people who influenced you (for good and/or for bad...blessings and/or hurts) and for some the influence was direct. (and hurtful)Others who were directly "blessed" aren't posting here....they should be able to....just like people who were directly hurt.The posts and links about BG Leonard clear up a lot of grey areas in my mind re the Way and why it was both good and bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
When you have two real women telling you to your face that Wierwille sexually assaulted them, independently of each other and without the other's knowledge, and with ZERO evidence that they are anything less than truthful, one would have to be an utter fool not to listen carefully to what they had to say.
They did not "ask for it."
They did not "secretly want it." (Rumor has it that VPW was hung like a hamster anyway...)
Wierwille was not "just being a man." Any man who forces or coerces a woman into having sex when she is not a 100% willing participant is not a man, he is a goddamned rapist. Period.
Regardless of how VPW might have packaged and merchandised it, the only book of any lasting relevance to the topic is usually bound in black leather, not in orange vinyl. VPW does not get a pass because he may have led some people to God.
It isn't some anonymous letter to a hatchet site. This man hurt three of your sisters in Christ, Dot, Excathedra, and his own wife. That is fact, and it is not in dispute. If some preacher expected your daughter to "service" him, I'd wager it would take three men to pull you off of the bastard.
Who deserves the real praise for your new birth? Almighty God? Or a despicable sexual criminal?
There might just be a signature in here ==v
Happy Frickin' Birthday to me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Zixar! GOOD POST! Great grasp of the obvious! Thank you for saying it all again so that maybe the deaf shall hear.
I did not say that Weirwille was born of the wrong seed or anything, I said he would sit in the second chair in hell.
So NOW Oldies will make the thread be about how I said Weirwille was a child of the devil.
So, here you go:
Sorry Raf-
Oldies
I am sick of your insults and lack of compassion and constant validation for a known sexual pervert.
If that is the kind of minister that you want-- THEN TAKE HIM. LOVE him. WORSHIP him.
All points of logic are lost on you. All compassionate attempts to teach you about the man behind the curtain fall flat.
People you want to know why the corps who knew did not make announcements? Did not warn all of you? Oldiesman and people like him are the reason. How do you tell someone like this you just saw VP naked, or you have been hanging around a research guy and you think the research maybe bogus? How do you tell people like this?
After all I said to you, all things people have brought to light. All you can then do is argue as to whether VP was born of the right seed? Because I apparently told you he wasn't.
Mike told me that I live in hell, and we were all bright enough not to try to figure out if I was born again or not.
All points of logic are lost on you. It is like talking to dry wall.
Are you really 2 drops short of being a puddle? Your depth and understanding is so "formula" like from a PFAL book.
I tell you that there were sex practices going on and you say you do not believe it. (THat calls me a liar.) So, then I give you back up proof with Marsha's letter on Jeudes site and YOU accuse me of "Worshiping Jeudes."
Its like the lights are on and no one is home. But I do not think you may be that stupid. I think you may be playing everyone with the stupid, shy, unassuming act you put on. I think you show up whenever anyone shares something bad that happened to them with VPW. But instead of defending his litney of crap your defense is as shallow as "I had a great twig." "This poster....."
Praise God you had a nice fellowship. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING THAT VPW HAS DONE.
You swing each argument to something other than defending VPW.
So here is your shot. Defend him. Without ridiculing the victims and eliminating testimony to the contrary, defend him.
You like his books? He did not write them.
You like his class? Oops, not his.
Go ahead defend him. Go ahead, tell us why you think he is so great. Tell us why even though the CHURCH has told you what he has done to God's kids, you think the things he did were okay. Or maybe you think the things he DID were NOT okay -- BUT he was Okay in spite of all the things he did.
Go ahead...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Garth:
Excellent!
Shaz:
Good post!
Steve:
Glad to see your understanding things, you said it well.
Evan
It would be interesting to see when Vic became VP!
Ckeer- good topics! Raf, what do you think?
Zixar:
Again, wonderful explaination.
Steve
I wonder if his tongue was real. We don't know.
(((Rascal))))
Greek2me - this was a great post that got lost in the battle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Dot, Oldies.
What does "child of the devil" mean to each of you? - Does it mean the same thing?
I propose that TWI's teacing on this may have been errant.
Dot has expressed her opinion that VPW was a child of the devil.
Oldies disagrees and is offended by the idea. Yet I am not fully sure what Dot means by "child of the devil". Or why Oldies takes such offense.
------ Start Edit Here ----------
Correction: Dot never outright said that VPW was a "child of the devil". This term was first used by Oldies on this thread.
Oldies seems to have presumed or taken by inference that what Dot has said about VPW is the same as saying that VPW was a "child of the devil". But Dot never actually made that statement.
-------- End of Edit -----------
So, I have started a thread in Doctrinal where we can possibly explore and discuss what child of the devil means - biblically. Maybe we can clear up things here a bit.
If you care to participate the thread is Here
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
[This message was edited by Goey on November 10, 2003 at 21:24.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Raf a History of why I do not think Oldies is open to the things here, I think YOU are just a really loving kind man.
History from an old thread, please note there is a similar pattern. Please note other posters observations:
Here are some past "Oldies did not get it" Apparently LG, who posted this thinks Oldies knows what he is doing as well:
This is what I contend he picks at things to divert us from the exposure of VPW's sick/perverted/plagerizing/abuse etc.
And here:
He makes the topic"All" when it was about VIC and tries to get the conversation off VPW and onto nit-picking about ONE word again.
Oldies quotes this person, then answers then OC responds. See a trend here?
quote:
Sexual predators are not men just falling into sin...they just do not have a weakness for the ladies.. but it is a SERIAL mind set ....
Oldies response:
This is the part that I still think hasn't been proven yet, that ALL ministers in TWI were sexual predators who weren't merely interested in (unacceptably) satisfying their sexual needs, but much more than that had this evil mind set that made their actions equal to committing rape on their prey.
It's still a little extreme, in my opinion.
posted February 01, 2003 08:26
OC responds to Oldies:
Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
OC brings the topic back.
Then Oldies responds looking for a fight:
He quotes OC quote:
Who said all, Oldone? The topic is Victor Pushead the Predator.
Then responds: Orange Cat and Evan,
I am saying all, because the premise of the argument Excathedra brought up applies to all pastors according to her article:
quote:
As with rape, a pastor's sexual or romantic involvement with a parishioner is not primarily a matter of sex or sexuality but of power and control.
If that statement is true, then you may say that about VPW and all other pastors in TWI too, right?
I think what's fair is fair, if you're going to apply that standard to VPW you might as well apply it to all of them.
A side comment to Orange Cat: you may dislike me very much, hate my guts even, but in the future if you want me to answer your questions please address me by my handle.
NOW OC RESPONDS also aware that Oldies does this stuff on purpose:
Later on down Lindy makes a great post to the nay-sayers trying to make things about something else....
Then a poster says:
Then OC writes to Raf, because Raf is a good man trying to enlighten Oldies:
Then a good point by LG:
I posted this old info to show this has been a concern and a pattern seen by other people besides me.
Now it is almost a year later. It is the same thing - different day with Oldies.
The thread was about plagerism and when it got good and hot it became about him attacking me and he and I fighting.
It became about nit-picking me.It is his MO. He is just slicker than Mike.
Draw your own conclusions.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 3:23.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Goey
I reread the entire thread and I never said that VP was a child of the devil.
Another deception by Oldiesman.
HE said that VPW was a child of God and I asked Which God?
So, just like on all the previous threads, Oldies is taking the reader away from the topic.
Long Gone and Orange Cat nailed him on his tatics about a year ago...
He is still using them....
I am going to do what I have been told to do with Mike. DO NOT FEED THE MONSTER.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 3:18.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Here ya go Goey:
The FIRST use of Child of the Devil was stated by him in speaking/yelling at Imablvr?
To Imablvr about me:
quote:
I was "blessed" at first (by BG's ministry)...
Imablvr, you were blessed at and by TWI, if you were there. Admit it, people at TWI were part of that process. Unless you were actively involved in the real BG's ministry, your statement (you were blessed by BG's ministry) is a result of another lie, that the blessings we had were there "only because of God and B.G. Leonard." What nonsense! That's a lie, similar to the lie that VPW was a child of the devil, and has a place in hell. These are lies from the Father of Lies, spewed with bold spittle from someone who demonstratively thinks only evil about VPW. Believing these lies causes you to denounce where you were even!
IMO, due to the words of Dot Matrix folks should get out their Spiritual Halitosis meter and start using it.
(A BRIEF ASIDE FROM DOT, yet Oldies said he does not remember calling "us" liars (gist))
------
I said this and he is quoting me here:
Oldies responds:
Good Lord. I think if the Devil Himself were writing this, He couldn't put his thoughts any more bold and blatant.
I profoundly disagree with these words and do not relate or acknowledge these words or experiences in any way in my time in TWI-1. They are lies, lies from the fiery pit of hell. Railing bold words of evil designed to falsely accuse one of God's children from someone who apparently thinks they are the Searcher of Hearts.
WOW, what boldness!
It demonstrates how hatred of a person, in this case VPW, blinds and distorts anything and everything VPW ever did.
Geeze no wonder why the Wierwille's don't post on here. Goodness gracious.
Dot then says
?. I say thank GOD for any good that happened, praise God for Leonard's work; and may VPW have a special place in hell for all the lives he destroyed?.
Then, I said, ?And Oldies who says Weirwille was one of GOD's children? Which God??
Answering his above comment.
He then made an issue out of me apparently saying VPW was born of the wrong seed/child of the devil. Which is something I am not even sure I believe in.
MORE FYI:
I said this and he quotes me:
?I think VPW was an evil guy doing evil things. He thinks otherwise.?
Oldies then says:
I've said on more than one occasion that VP did evil works and good works, that he was a compilation of the two. Saying he was doing only evil is distorting the record. Promoting he did evil only distorts his life and this is probably why she thinks he was a child of the devil.
He then again says I said this:
?But I still keep my mouth shut, generally, until the false accusations are so blatant (vp is a child of the devil) etc.?
I NEVER did. He accuses me twice. I kept thinking I didn't say that, and went looking and I didn't.
[This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 4:04.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Can we get back to plagerism?
Oldies you can post, but I am going around you.
I think Greek2me had a real point when he reminded us that VIC said he heard God audibly
Greek2me:
And Ex and Evan questioned the begining use of VP as Leonard used BG. Anyone know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Deleting my post here to stay on topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
((((RAF)))
I would enjoy your input on Greek2me's post.
I often questioned God's speaking audibly to VPW.
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.