A suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command. I don't know off hand the doctrine that backed that up, but they had it and used it all the time.
quote: Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples [unto them], and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Act 6:2
Used to justify why the corpse should go to full time status. Again, taken completely out of context and taught absolutely wrong. I guess that doesn't fit with the question, though, does it? Sorry, Abi!
"A suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command. I don't know off hand the doctrine that backed that up, but they had it and used it all the time. "
Yeah, that one really screwed me up too, cause I KNEW I was getting bad advise but had to follow it anyway. :(-->
The doctrine came from the "Don't go to Jeruselm" passages. LCM taught that the disciples followed Paul to Jerusalem even though they had REVELATION that Paul was not to go. Therefore we were to "follow our leadership to Jerusalem" even when we knew it was wrong.
There were a multitude of "wrong doctrines" in twi that screwed people up. I would tend to agree with Pirate..."believing equals receiving" was the underlying doctrine that applied to everything else they taught...and it was absolutely false and hurt more people than can be imagined.
With that said, I think that in the cases where the doctrine was NOT wrong...it was ineffectual nevertheless...Why? Because their hearts were wrong. Oftentimes, they used the "right doctrine" for the wrong reasons...a good example of that would be their teachings on getting "rewards"...Twi turned this into a selfish competition...who would get the most?...people were motivated by what THEY would get...their hearts were wrong about most everything.
If you have a problem with your brother or sister, go to them first; if there is no response, then bring a witness or two, and only if after the confrontation with witnesses do you bring it before the whole church. The result of "Neglecting to hear the Church" would be that the non-listener would be "as a heathen man and a publican" (where the application of M&A came in)
There wasn't anything wrong with this IMHO, of course you go to the person that you have a problem with first. Probably 90% of the time two people can get it all worked out one-on-one. Most of the rest of the time bringing in a neutral witness solves the problem. Going to "the church" would most likely be reserved for the hard core trouble makers, who want problems.
The way I saw it applied was different:
A leader would notice that "Joe Believer" was in some way not living up to "The Standard of the Word". "Larry Leader" would then "confront" this person about there lack of meekness, slothfulness or what have you. This was not a loving admonition, but an attempt to control.
Some time later, "Larry Leader" would notice that insufficient change had been made in the area that was "confronted". Larry would then hand-pick some "witnesses". He would fill them in on all points of the previous "confrontation", and convince them how "off the Word" Joe Believer was.
The second "confrontation" would take place, often with Larry Leader trying to trip up Joe Believer and catch him in contradictions. Added to the original violation was "disobeying leadership".
Joe Believer has no opportunity to convince anyone that his actions weren't "off the Word", or that Larry Leader was wrong in any way. Anything that Joe says is held against him.
Frequently Larry Leader unilaterally escalted the "confrontation" to third stage and Joe was put on probation or M&A'd immediately.
The Doctrine was a framework for people to resolve their differences, the practice was a method used by "leadership" to control peoples' lives.
Well, where to start....it might be more of a challenge to determine what they DIDN'T get wrong in their doctrine.
When I think of TWI, the first thing I consider was a statement attributed to Gamaliel, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
I think we are all seeing the results of their error.
First off, I think that the doctrinal error (or deceit...remaining to be determined) was widespread. How VPW could think that he was smarter than 2,000 years of Christian thought in so many areas is simply beyond me.
His very basis for interpretation of scriptures, using a variant of the ultra-dispensationalist mindset, imo led to his error. His total disregard of the integrity of the scripture helped compound that. Disregard, you may ask? Well, if he didn't like something, he interpreted the h3ll out of it in order to make it fit his mold. He openly deleted scriptures (one in particular that I can consider) when they couldn't be twisted around to meet his ends. His world-famous "literal according to usage" expression allowed him to twist God's Word to fit his meaning.
Wierwille brought up a valid point: the scripture must be understood in light of what it meant in that culture and in that time. So what did he do? He brought in some obscure Indian preacher whose thoughts he could use to support his position. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but Palestine is a long ways from India. And, from what I understand, the cultures are not alike. But, could he consult the writings of the Church Fathers who were there in the culture and in the approximate time? Nope, sure couldn't...because those Church Fathers would end up steering him more so in the direction of orthodox Christianity, rather than down the path he chose.
A couple of areas where these errors manifested themselves in faulty doctrine include the way he differentiated the use of the word "faith" and the way he parsed out the different definitions of the word "holy spirit."
Honestly, there are SO MANY issues out there. But, this is not the doctrinal forum and so discussion of specifics is really not appropriate. Secondly, I honestly just don't like arguing over this stuff. I have never seen anybody convinced through argument...through inquisitiveness, yes...through argument, no.
Interesting question, Abi, but, as I said earlier, one that could really open up a bucket of worms.
Oh, the entire doctrine of the absent Christ made possible, imho, the MOG worship that practically plagued so many people and caused so much damage to so many lives.
quote:I was thinking about this today - areas where maybe the doctrine was right but the practice was wrong and/or areas where the doctrine was just wrong.
I think "absent Christ" is probably the best example of this.
In some ways, Christ is absent. "We are ambassadors for Christ." That means he's not here. "He's coming back!" That means he's not here. But the absence of Christ in TWI, the disregard for him as lord and head of the body, was a bit much (understatement). And Mark is right; it did enable the MOG worship that was prevalent in TWI.
Yep...The absent Christ doctrine opened the doors for the cursed waytree to operate. By eliminating the true head of the body, Wierwille managed to place himself in that position. Afterall, the "word" takes the place of the absent Christ...and we all knew who was "in charge" of the "word"...Grifter Vic saw himself more as Moses than he did Paul...(that's why martinfart saw himself as Joshua)...So...Instead of "holding the head"...Wierwille took the job for himself and replaced the "effectual working of the body" with the waytree hierarchy...
Allright everybody...lift your voices..."I'm so glaaaaad I'm a part of the faaaaaaamily of gaaawd, I bow doooooooown to wierwille cause he is the moggggggggggggg..."
quote: First off, I think that the doctrinal error (or deceit...remaining to be determined) was widespread. How VPW could think that he was smarter than 2,000 years of Christian thought in so many areas is simply beyond me.
Mark, when I read this, I got a flashback of the number of times the Martin Luther movie was shown - - who DID stand up to centuries of "Christian" thought when he nailed his 95 Theses to the doors of Wittenberg.
What I remembered was - - and someone here will have to help me with this - - didn't vpw nail his version of the 95 Theses (or something representative of them) on one of the anniversary dates or something????? I'm remembering something along those lines which, of course, set him up like Luther - - a historic figure standing against the paganism in Churchianity. -->
yepp. jardi, my last year in rez, fall o' 77 he goes down to the church in town at pre-dawn hours mitt Moterem-coachen und karrs mitt slavish follers und alladattt and lights up the church door and nails his "95 spielesees" on door and leaves a copy of JCING(mitt invoice, perhaps?) and noisily blows back to the 'nash, all triumpphent and such....I guess...
this was NK and it was Reformation Sunday, in the Lutheran Church at least
ps for those who still have old Way Mags gathering dust like I do, Jan/Feb '78 has pics and a blustery, bravado-laced article about "The reformer" for "Our Times".....YMMV :D-->
Recommended Posts
markomalley
Wow, Abi, this could open up a huge can of worms....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Tithing for Prosperity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Somehow being able to jump around like "Super Mario" doing "all nine ALL the time".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
Believing Equals Receiving
And if you didn't receive what you believed for, it was your fault because your believing wasn't in the right place.
Right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Owe no man anything. Debt is sin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
SIT can refresh and revive you just as well as getting a good night's sleep.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
A suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command. I don't know off hand the doctrine that backed that up, but they had it and used it all the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Reporting back - completely abused and taken out of the proper context of the scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Used to justify why the corpse should go to full time status. Again, taken completely out of context and taught absolutely wrong. I guess that doesn't fit with the question, though, does it? Sorry, Abi!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"A suggestion from leadership is tantamount to a command. I don't know off hand the doctrine that backed that up, but they had it and used it all the time. "
Yeah, that one really screwed me up too, cause I KNEW I was getting bad advise but had to follow it anyway.
:(-->
The doctrine came from the "Don't go to Jeruselm" passages. LCM taught that the disciples followed Paul to Jerusalem even though they had REVELATION that Paul was not to go. Therefore we were to "follow our leadership to Jerusalem" even when we knew it was wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
There were a multitude of "wrong doctrines" in twi that screwed people up. I would tend to agree with Pirate..."believing equals receiving" was the underlying doctrine that applied to everything else they taught...and it was absolutely false and hurt more people than can be imagined.
With that said, I think that in the cases where the doctrine was NOT wrong...it was ineffectual nevertheless...Why? Because their hearts were wrong. Oftentimes, they used the "right doctrine" for the wrong reasons...a good example of that would be their teachings on getting "rewards"...Twi turned this into a selfish competition...who would get the most?...people were motivated by what THEY would get...their hearts were wrong about most everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The 3 Levels of "Confrontation"
It was in the bible:
If you have a problem with your brother or sister, go to them first; if there is no response, then bring a witness or two, and only if after the confrontation with witnesses do you bring it before the whole church. The result of "Neglecting to hear the Church" would be that the non-listener would be "as a heathen man and a publican" (where the application of M&A came in)
There wasn't anything wrong with this IMHO, of course you go to the person that you have a problem with first. Probably 90% of the time two people can get it all worked out one-on-one. Most of the rest of the time bringing in a neutral witness solves the problem. Going to "the church" would most likely be reserved for the hard core trouble makers, who want problems.
The way I saw it applied was different:
A leader would notice that "Joe Believer" was in some way not living up to "The Standard of the Word". "Larry Leader" would then "confront" this person about there lack of meekness, slothfulness or what have you. This was not a loving admonition, but an attempt to control.
Some time later, "Larry Leader" would notice that insufficient change had been made in the area that was "confronted". Larry would then hand-pick some "witnesses". He would fill them in on all points of the previous "confrontation", and convince them how "off the Word" Joe Believer was.
The second "confrontation" would take place, often with Larry Leader trying to trip up Joe Believer and catch him in contradictions. Added to the original violation was "disobeying leadership".
Joe Believer has no opportunity to convince anyone that his actions weren't "off the Word", or that Larry Leader was wrong in any way. Anything that Joe says is held against him.
Frequently Larry Leader unilaterally escalted the "confrontation" to third stage and Joe was put on probation or M&A'd immediately.
The Doctrine was a framework for people to resolve their differences, the practice was a method used by "leadership" to control peoples' lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Well, where to start....it might be more of a challenge to determine what they DIDN'T get wrong in their doctrine.
When I think of TWI, the first thing I consider was a statement attributed to Gamaliel, "Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."
I think we are all seeing the results of their error.
First off, I think that the doctrinal error (or deceit...remaining to be determined) was widespread. How VPW could think that he was smarter than 2,000 years of Christian thought in so many areas is simply beyond me.
His very basis for interpretation of scriptures, using a variant of the ultra-dispensationalist mindset, imo led to his error. His total disregard of the integrity of the scripture helped compound that. Disregard, you may ask? Well, if he didn't like something, he interpreted the h3ll out of it in order to make it fit his mold. He openly deleted scriptures (one in particular that I can consider) when they couldn't be twisted around to meet his ends. His world-famous "literal according to usage" expression allowed him to twist God's Word to fit his meaning.
Wierwille brought up a valid point: the scripture must be understood in light of what it meant in that culture and in that time. So what did he do? He brought in some obscure Indian preacher whose thoughts he could use to support his position. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but Palestine is a long ways from India. And, from what I understand, the cultures are not alike. But, could he consult the writings of the Church Fathers who were there in the culture and in the approximate time? Nope, sure couldn't...because those Church Fathers would end up steering him more so in the direction of orthodox Christianity, rather than down the path he chose.
A couple of areas where these errors manifested themselves in faulty doctrine include the way he differentiated the use of the word "faith" and the way he parsed out the different definitions of the word "holy spirit."
Honestly, there are SO MANY issues out there. But, this is not the doctrinal forum and so discussion of specifics is really not appropriate. Secondly, I honestly just don't like arguing over this stuff. I have never seen anybody convinced through argument...through inquisitiveness, yes...through argument, no.
Interesting question, Abi, but, as I said earlier, one that could really open up a bucket of worms.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Oh, the entire doctrine of the absent Christ made possible, imho, the MOG worship that practically plagued so many people and caused so much damage to so many lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think "absent Christ" is probably the best example of this.
In some ways, Christ is absent. "We are ambassadors for Christ." That means he's not here. "He's coming back!" That means he's not here. But the absence of Christ in TWI, the disregard for him as lord and head of the body, was a bit much (understatement). And Mark is right; it did enable the MOG worship that was prevalent in TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Yep...The absent Christ doctrine opened the doors for the cursed waytree to operate. By eliminating the true head of the body, Wierwille managed to place himself in that position. Afterall, the "word" takes the place of the absent Christ...and we all knew who was "in charge" of the "word"...Grifter Vic saw himself more as Moses than he did Paul...(that's why martinfart saw himself as Joshua)...So...Instead of "holding the head"...Wierwille took the job for himself and replaced the "effectual working of the body" with the waytree hierarchy...
Allright everybody...lift your voices..."I'm so glaaaaad I'm a part of the faaaaaaamily of gaaawd, I bow doooooooown to wierwille cause he is the moggggggggggggg..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Mark said:
Mark, when I read this, I got a flashback of the number of times the Martin Luther movie was shown - - who DID stand up to centuries of "Christian" thought when he nailed his 95 Theses to the doors of Wittenberg.
What I remembered was - - and someone here will have to help me with this - - didn't vpw nail his version of the 95 Theses (or something representative of them) on one of the anniversary dates or something????? I'm remembering something along those lines which, of course, set him up like Luther - - a historic figure standing against the paganism in Churchianity.
-->
Any one remember? Alfie? Evan?? Hope??? Ferris??
J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
yepp. jardi, my last year in rez, fall o' 77 he goes down to the church in town at pre-dawn hours mitt Moterem-coachen und karrs mitt slavish follers und alladattt and lights up the church door and nails his "95 spielesees" on door and leaves a copy of JCING(mitt invoice, perhaps?) and noisily blows back to the 'nash, all triumpphent and such....I guess...
this was NK and it was Reformation Sunday, in the Lutheran Church at least
ps for those who still have old Way Mags gathering dust like I do, Jan/Feb '78 has pics and a blustery, bravado-laced article about "The reformer" for "Our Times".....YMMV
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
According to Karl Kahler's book, what he nailed to the door was:
"Jesus Christ Is Not God. Never was. Never will be."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Oh yeah, yeah! Now I remember. JCING! of course!
I could vaguely remember the pic of him nailing something to the church doors, but couldn't remember the occasion. Oh yeah, he was very triumphant!
Geesh!
--> Thanks, Alfie 
:)-->
J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tonto
Can anyone say "plagiarized feces"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
It may only be a technicality but- I thought he only taped it to the door. Probably didn't want to buy a new un=nailed door for them..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
right you are, Mr. H -- article in way rag says tape...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Thank, Raf. It's been so long ago now. Yeah, that musta gone over big with the locals.
J.
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.