"Out There" PHONED him and spoke to him PERSONALLY on this.
======
"Out There":
"When I received the Loyalty letter in the mail I immediately called LCM and by some miracle
after leaving a message he actually called me back.
When I asked if this letter
was a call to blindly follow him
he said I had been doing this all along.
I then told him thats what he thinks he could 'kiss my foot'.
It appears here that Outthere objects to Craig's request for loyalty. But where's the godly reproof and correction about Craig's walk of 1989? Any specifics?
Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989.
So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden?
I would add, even blind obedience was in the context of moving the Word, as Craig wrote in his letter:
I expect godly, loving, honest obedience and support according to God's Word and nothing beyond that.
So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden?
It was NEVER reasonable, and it wasn't carnal "all of a sudden." It was carnal when VPW did it. It was carnal every single time it was done, whether by VPW or LCM.
One thing you seem to be missing is that regardless of your defense of LCM's letter, people saw through it. People knew this letter for what it proved to be, and that means looking beyond what's actually on the page and seeing what was really happening.
Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989.
So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden?
Sorry could not let this one slide. Since when was blind loyality a Corps principle? There were five and NONE thats 0, nadda,of them had a thing to do with blind loyality. In contrast though the first one
1. Acquire an in depth spiritual perception and awareness.
Would seem at be saying not blindly following but an in depth awareness another words knowing what is going on,making deliberate decisions based on knowledge. not lost in the dark blindly following.
It was a Corps teaching I heard back in 75-76. If you are uncomfortable with "corp principle", then I'll say it was a "corps teaching".
I viewed blind obedience as something like a chain of command, something like in the military. I believe the corps had some military attributes about it. i.e. One was expected to follow the direction of leadership.
This was all in the context of moving the Word. ("blind" doesn't mean go jump off the roof.) Of course, if the leadership was wrong, and you could prove that according to the word, or, offer specific godly reproof and correction, then you were/are perfectly within your rights to object to the "order", and hold your ground.
Problem I saw back then was, folks were not offering any godly reproof or correction, just objecting to the chain of command concept, with no specifics. At least that was what I experienced in NY.
I asked my twig coordinators to write down specifically all the problems, the beefs, they had with Craig and the BOT. We learned that if you have a problem with someone, you go directly to that person with it, and not behind their back. But they refused to do it. So that's another thing, I couldn't stand with folks who couldn't give a fig about what I asked and thought was a reasonable request. I asked the limb coordinator too. No specifics.
Raf wrote:
It was NEVER reasonable, and it wasn't carnal "all of a sudden."
I strongly disagree, at least in the context of all this.
Ask yourself this question, and please, try to be honest about it.
If VF would have stayed, and made the commitment to stand with Craig in moving the Word, would you have still left?
He would have conVINCEd everyone to stay and move the Word, that's exactly what would have happened for a few more years.
Yes I would have left if things were to continue in the same unscriptural, ungodly manner that they were and were heading toward. It was clear that no change was forthcoming.
Call it what it was a teaching there is a difference in the two.
I asked my twig coordinators to write down specifically all the problems, the beefs, they had with Craig and the BOT. We learned that if you have a problem with someone, you go directly to that person with it, and not behind their back. But they refused to do it
Perhaps they witnessed first-hand what happened to those who did..
But.. I still think the loyalty oath was asking far too much, especially compared with the loyalty these poor staffers enjoyed from headquarters..
Raf --- I forgot to thank you for the link to the LOY-alty letter. Thanks! :)
God’s Word says that knowledge puffeth up and charity edifieth. Where is your heart going? Where is your tenderness, love and compassion? Where is your “longsuffering and doctrine”? I see very little, if any, in many of the lives of those who have become so inclined. Love covers a multitude of sins, not knowledge, or personality, or techniques, or discipline. Jesus taught his men they’d be recognized as his disciples by their love, not their adamancy, egotism or knowledge.
I have been patient and longsuffering many times to a fault….. Some adamantly believe that I have not changed and am out of alignment and harmony with God and His Word. I have done all I know to do to live and share the Word of God. If that’s not enough evidence to convince you that I have changed, then I have nothing else to do but to invite you to leave.
Oldies --- please look at the bolded words in the first paragraph, and tell me honestly if you thinck lcm actually lived out that principle, or just mouthed it to look good? If twi was going down the drain because of the *sins* of the believers (lack of believing in leadership, refusing to abs, reaping the consequences of unbelief, yada, yada) -- makes sense to me he would (if what he said was what he actually practiced) not have gone the *face-melting* route.
Face-melting ain't love -- no matter how you slice the pie.
Now --- you also said that this letter was a *plea* from lcm for a second chance.
I don't think so!
HE DID MAKE A PLEA FOR A SECOND CHANCE in Nov. of 1986, which sounded a whole lot different from this here LOY-alty letter.
A snippet here -----
Dear Way Corps Believer:
This letter is long overdue. I need to and want to offer an apology to you for my continued neglect at not addressing certain ministry issues sooner and my lack of honesty in dealing with them due to pride, fear, and indecision.
Personally, I have allowed considerable erosion of my spirituality and genuine godly believing by my increasing lack of adherence to God's written word over the past number of years. II Corinthians 11:3 expresses it:
II Cor 11:3 ---
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,
so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ
I have been beguiled. I have not maintained the day-by-day discipline necessary to totally believe God's written word in order to eradicate these subtle habits of unbelief. I have been confronted very lovingly from God's word. I am still struggling to radically change unscriptural habit patterns so that the truth can make me free and bring to pass a complete restoratiion , enabling me to function as the president that Dr Wierwille installed me to be.
Radical change is required on my part ............
The letter from '86 was a clear apology (probably meant little, but it was said). I bet it REALLY rankled when he (lcm) started receiving all the adverse letters in '87! :D
The LOY-alty letter was a *my way or the high-way* letter -- plain and simple. He had *subtile habits*, yet needed *radical change* in the first letter.
In the 2nd -- he merely says:
" I have done all I know to do to live and share the Word of God. If that’s not enough evidence to convince you that I have changed, then I have nothing else to do but to invite you to leave."
He offers no proof, just claims he's *been there, done that.
And he expected all to believe he had done what was necessary to make the radical changes, to the subtile habits, in his life -- that would take twi into the next century.
It was a Corps teaching I heard back in 75-76. If you are uncomfortable with "corp principle", then I'll say it was a "corps teaching".
Oldies -- I thought we were talking about the LOY-alty letter, and related stuff. I see you have made comments about the past years *not being relevant to the conversation*.
Don't bring up 75-76 (I was there then as well), and then complain about early 80's stuff, ok?? :)
Perhaps they witnessed first-hand what happened to those who did..
They didn't. Otherwise, they would have told me about it. We were very close.
However, even if they had, that incident could have been one of the issues they were upset about and something to address the BOT with.
I dunno.. I didn't really see it like he ASKED for another chance to "prove" himself.. more like.. he DEMANDED it.
Well, first, any employer has a right to demand loyalty and obedience from his/her employees.
Second, it was in the context of "moving the Word", which at one time was twi's Prime Objective.
Perhaps this isn't a good example, but I also sometimes see it as something like being an officer in the military; there you have a Prime Objective, and you certainly would want to obey your commanding officer's orders when in the act of obtaining the Prime Objective, he gives a command.
Oldies --- please look at the bolded words in the first paragraph, and tell me honestly if you thinck lcm actually lived out that principle, or just mouthed it to look good?
He lived it at times, I saw him walk in love, and at this point in his life he certainly could have been too.
And walking in love isn't always a pat on the back to people. Sometimes it could be a kick in the butt.
But I also have a letter from VF in my Way Memorabilia collection (forgot what date) where he writes that "barring none, Craig has more love of God in him than anyone", or words to that effect. I'm not joking. This was, of course, before the time period when VF started following Chris Geer.
Oldies -- I thought we were talking about the LOY-alty letter, and related stuff. I see you have made comments about the past years *not being relevant to the conversation*.
Don't bring up 75-76 (I was there then as well), and then complain about early 80's stuff, ok??
David
I wasn't the first to mention "blind obedience" on this thread, if that is what you were referring to.
Most of the leaders tried very hard to support lcm....he just wouldn`t have ANY of it....most knew that things had been very wrong at hq for years and were eager to help get the ministry back on the right track.
...but they were simply maligned and thrown out.........he didn`t WANT to be questioned, confronted, required to behave within the standards of morality dictated biblically of a leader....
He decided that HE wasn`t in the wrong...and ANYBODY who didn`t see it that way was required to leave at once.
By demanding a loyalty oath, He made damned sure that any whom had the moral character and integrety to hold him to a Godly standard, plus the courage to speak up....were made out to be the villains ....in order to keep people from considering......
Oldies MAYBE these leaders figured nothing they said to you would make any difference....many of us found ways to excuse craigs behavior no matter how heinous.
Many of us when we were treated vilely .... didn`t *rat* out the ministry because we were trying desperatly to prove that we were not evil and posessed...out in left field....like they said would happen if we became hard hearted or stiff necked...their words for any who dared disagree when confronted by the blatant evil.
Breaking *lock box* was evil..... critisizing the ministry was evil...... revealing the sins of the man of God were considered viscious back biting evil....most just tried their best to stand on their principles without succumbing to what was declared the fate of any who left.......to have sat down with you Oldies and describe every little detail of the evil witnessed with you would have been considered back biting and disloyal ....folks back then were STILL fighting for the ministry .
You have to think about it....WHAT would have happened if all of us had ignored our moral obligation... lied and penned a loyalty oath letter to this lunatic.....WHAT would have happened if LCM had had ALL of the support and power that he craved and claimed was his due????
What if we had all aquieced to his every whim so as not to be thrown out and remain in good standing ????? Does anyone HONESTLY believe that he would have changed his behavior one iota?
Oh HECK no....he would have been just that much more secure in his evil practices...we are NOT talking about a spiritual Godly man here....
He would have still been behaving in an ungodly manner....requiring corps girls to participate in sex acts that they personally found loathsome....following his predesessors standard of casting any who refused out of the corpes, out of the ministry and telling everyone that those who had frustrated his desires were so posessed that to even SPEAK with them was to risk contamination....yeah this stuff really happened...
He would have STILL been manipulating and requiring married women to commit adultery with him in order to retain their spiritual status and jobs....
This guy was out of control...and all of the power and all of the unquestioning support would have changed nothing....Good LORD he had had all of those things for a decade unquestioned, had been the beneficiary of millions of hours of prayer and more money than he could possibly find ways to spend...........and yet he STILL was behaving viley, destroying people on a whim, acting without aprising himself of the facts resulting in great harm to peoples lives....throwing tempertantrums,
This a man who supposedly worked for God almighty who was more viscious and damaging to christian people than the vilest of unbelievers.....there was NOTHING that we could have done to have convinced him to follow the path of a man of the spirit....he chose otherwise....
If we had given him that which he required, we would have been selling our souls into darkness...and still we would have been unable to change the course that lcm had charted.
You have to think about it....WHAT would have happened if all of us had ignored our moral obligation... lied and penned a loyalty oath letter to this lunatic.....WHAT would have happened if LCM had had ALL of the support and power that he craved and claimed was his due????
Simple answer.. their honest, sincere, loving lives would be used to bring even more innocent God seeking people into that pile of dung..
I don't know where you were Oldies.. but these people saw loyster for what he was.. all the way through his years of insanity, vileness and abuse.. from my perspective, I stayed because this crap was carefully covered up..
I knew someone who left.. and the only thing they said was, "you have NO IDEA what happened in those meetings.." and that was ALL they would say.. no more.. and I haven't heard from them now, for over fifteen years.. at the time, they sounded like lunatics to me.
Many tried to function in a godly manner, IN SPITE OF who was in charge..
I don't know where you were Oldies.. but these people saw loyster for what he was.. all the way through his years of insanity, vileness and abuse...
I was in NY, and I still firmly believe that had VF not followed Geer but instead allowed himself to stand with Craig to move the Word at that time, folks in NY would have stayed, on a massive scale.
VF was a man above reproach. Those who knew him, loved and respect him. Had he decided to stay, and, shall I say "win another one for the Gipper", folks would have been happy to stay.
And remember that the man Craig was in 1989 was most definitely not the man he was in 1999. He was far and above worse in 1999, and you would do well to consider that in your analysis.
The DIFFERENCE between 89 and 99 was that there were not very many people with the guts left to take a stand against his cruelty and perversions.
The cruel legalism and viscious destruction that marked the 90s were I believe, a direct result of the casting out of those tens of thousands with the integrety that made them incapable of swearing *loyalty* to lcm.
Mr. Hamm, I believe that you are correct, we WOULD have lent an air of legitimacy with our integrety and honesty....luring yet more innocent people to be used and cast aside in God`s name.
I was in NY, and I still firmly believe that had VF not followed Geer but instead allowed himself to stand with Craig to move the Word at that time, folks in NY would have stayed, on a massive scale.
VF was a man above reproach. Those who knew him, loved and respect him. Had he decided to stay, and, shall I say "win another one for the Gipper", folks would have been happy to stay.
And remember that the man Craig was in 1989 was most definitely not the man he was in 1999. He was far and above worse in 1999, and you would do well to consider that in your analysis.
Well, I was in NY also-but apparently, it was a DIFFERENT NY than YOU were in.
The problem is, we can imagine different scenarios, but to change ONE
thing affects ALL things.
See,
I was aware there were problems at hq.
What did I say?
I said-rather naively-that lcm would return to balance with some help from VF.
The very next communication I received from hq burst that bubble.
lcm fired VF.
Did VF confront lcm on Biblical issues?
Yes.
I'm not digging out all my 1989 correspondence for you.
However,
I got a copy of something someone never shredded at hq.
It was one response from VF when lcm was barking orders and
ignoring everyone.
RC also sent some telexes (remember telexes) to lcm when there
was some hope of keeping the organization intact.
NEITHER was people yelling. There was exasperation,
godly approaches, and good-faith attempts to communicate.
lcm did not choose to listen.
When rank-and-file people responded to the
"I'm firing all the staff in your state because they're evil"
letter,
they asked WHAT prompted the accusations.
They got form letters saying
"none of your business-my word is good enough for you."
This stopped me from mailing MY letter-
which I HAD drafted, and was ready for mailing.
I saw no point.
Looking back, I wish I had, just to underscore the
boilerplate fashion of the replies.
See,
when lcm drew his line in the sand,
he fired everyone who refused to give blind loyalty,
AND
savaged their reputations in every state.
He accused them of not serving God, period.
So much for the SUPPOSED idea that he would have
accepted the concept of people serving God without
serving lcm.
Either he honestly thought serving God could ONLY
come through him-
which means he needed medical attention-
or he KNEW that it was possible that one could
serve God without serving lcm, and he chose
to lie and say the opposite-
which means he allowed his OWN desires
to REPLACE godly service.
===============
So, what could VF have done?
A) Blindly serve.
This would have made him UNWORTHY of leadership.
(Just as DEMANDING blind service all by itself made
lcm UNWORTHY of leadership.)
B) Approach lcm and try to fix him.
Attempted and lcm blew a raspberry at that.
Blindly serve, VF. I don't want your input.
C) Unable to repair the situation,
refuse to pretend there werent gross, irreparable
problems.
That's just not-lying.
VF did this also.
D) When lcm DEMANDED blind loyalty or firing,
accept firing since it was less unacceptable
than blind loyalty.
VF did this also.
VF did everything reasonable.
What was he supposed to do-
take lcm in the back room with the rubber hoses?
======
So,
what if VF had chosen to stay?
Well, the problems with this are:
you've established that VF was not corrupt- "above reproach",
respected.
If he WAS worthy of respect, he would be unable to stay.
If he WAS able to stay, he would chose organic unity
and a cushy job over committments to God.
That would have been UNworthy of respect.
Would people have stayed if VF woke up one morning
and said "I'll keep the cushy job and sell out the family"?
Some would,
some would NOT.
I was prepared to leave no matter WHO stayed.
I looked things over myself, and concluded lcm was
corrupt based on what HE said and did,
and mrs lcm said and did,
and all the error propounded to prop him up by
the "blind loy" faction.
HOWEVER,
one of the signs that things could not have been
fixed was lcm saying
"I'm firing all the leadership in your state."
If lcm had not been so full of himself that this
was his decided-upon course of action,
then he wouldn't have been as completely
corrupt as he actually was,
so there would have been more of a reason
to stay-since there would have been hope
of restoring his sanity, or him stepping
down and someone else getting the job.
There WERE others who could have done
the job. VF could have done it. Ralph D.
could have done it. Walter C could have
done it.
So,
when we play "if VF had stayed",
we either rewrite the situation so that
lcm wasn't corrupt,
or we pretend lcm WASN'T corrupt.
All evidence since then proves an
ironclad case that lcm WAS corrupt.
Many people BEFORE then saw that
it was so BEFORE then.
The man lcm was in 1999 WAS the same
man lcm was in 1989.
Except he had more experience-
which should have made him WISER.
The lcm in 1989 made decisions.
The lcm in 1990 made decisions.
The lcm in 1991 made decisions.
The lcm in 1992 made decisions.
The lcm in 1993 made decisions.
The lcm in 1994 made decisions.
The lcm in 1995 made decisions.
The lcm in 1996 made decisions.
The lcm in 1997 made decisions.
The lcm in 1998 made decisions.
The lcm in 1989 decided what was MOST
important to him,
as did the lcm in each year.
lcm had a free hand, from 1990 on,
to declare the course of the ministry
EXACTLY the way he wanted with
little interference from ANYONE.
So, the 1990 twi was HIS decision-
as was the 1990, 1991, 1992....
In each year, lcm all by himself
decided the course of twi, and the
results the next year were the
result of his decisions.
The lcm of 1990 was the SAME lcm
of 1989, just more overt,
which was more overt than the lcm
of 1987-who had hidden his loyalty demands.
The lcm of 1999 was the SAME lcm
as the lcm of 1989,
except that he'd had 10 years to mold
twi as he saw fit,
and built himself up in his OWN mind
as a great leader.
That was simply a continuation of
the 1989 lcm.
The man Craig was in 1999 was entirely the man
of his own manufacture,
and the result of the freewill decisions he HIMSELF
You guys are right about the lunatic part loy was bonkers in 99,even an old timer told me she did not know
about craig.If we were as screwed up as he said we were and we were of the remant and adavanced class grads,then who were the trusted ones? only loy apparantly.
Man, this topic's got legs! It goes around every so often. As long as I'm here, some scintillating comments that will uplift everyone, I'm sure.
Oldiesman, you make a good point in that a lot of the written dissertations that circulated from, and including, the Passing of the Patriarch in early 1986 to say about 1990, were long on rhetoric and short on specific details relating to the BOT, the condition of the Way and exactly what the problems were. I was sent Vince's, or one of his, and it seemed like I'd missed a lot of background he didn't write about as it didn't contain much information or facts about his whole situation. Which I felt would have been valuable to anyone trying to make an informed decision. Compared to the orderly conductance of business in the Way most were used to there was extreme chaos over those 4 years or so.
Given that a lot of the documents that were sent out pinged off someone resigning or being fired and them leaving the Way, I don't think it unreasonable to expect a person would want some specifics, not by having to pester everyone over the phone with questions, but in the context of the letters they received. Here's what happened, here's who was involved and said, here's what I did, here's what they did and here's what I've decided. Here's the exact reasons why I'm leaving a ministry that I probably told you last week was the greatest thing since toothpaste and why I'm telling you today it's not. I've changed my mind about it, or some things and here's what they are and why.
What's so hard about that?
A lot of the letters I had forwarded to me were just like the P. of the P. That was a collection of what Geer said was VPW's last ruminations and discussions with him about the Way. How it wasn't what he'd hoped it would be, how he'd been failed and let down by those he trusted most in. How no one really stood with him or was standing with him. He named a lot of names but in that writ of Geer's there was no real presentation of much beyond that, no specifics, no statements of VPW's that would really allow a person to understand the details of exactly what was wrong and even more so exacty WHY VPW himself hadn't taken more specific action and appealed to anyone beyond a few close associates. There was also a lot of how hard Geer himself worked, despite the failings of those around him. Sound familiar?
The veracity of Geer's writings was never proven. I have no idea if that's what VPW really said to him, it was never proven beyond a couple people that said oh yeah, he came to me too but they didnt listen or they were afraid. Overall if it's what VPW said to him it sounded to me like a lot of bellyaching.
A lot of these resignation letters that went out later were similar in that they had a lot of vague accusations in them...."the BOT are idolaters"...."they're off the Word"....."I won't pimp for them anymore"...."I'm not going to follow men, I'm going to follow God".
Details, please? What exactly does that mean, please?
Most of all I felt like POP and all of this later stuff opened the door to change in the Way that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. This just brought a lot of things to the surface that were festering, things that weren't addressed at all by Geer's POP and that he took great exception to when they did come out. The whole autocratic set up of the Way was bound to fold, IMO, particularly for the reasons that most of us DID NOT know anything about, the stuff going on behind closed doors, but also because the Way was frozen in the past and had no vision for the future. It's members were growing faster and further than it's leadership. The future just came a little quicker for some.
To me, LCM's "loyalty" letter was a joke. For 3 years he hadn't earned the right to ask for anyone to follow him and he'd given up what right he had by his inability to be an effective leader. (I don't believe he was the "man of God" of the ministry or had any particular eternal claim to it's presidency as it was handed down to him. Your mileage on that may vary) On that level it didn't make him a criminal, it just meant he needed to take a break and at least, with the assistance of the rest of the ministry, sort out the chaos and bring it's people together. But he didn't realize his own state, let alone the concerns of those he worked with.
My opinion. See, I told you it would be scintillating. :lol: But really, this was a LONG time ago. I'm sure it's good to sort out some of the facts. I kind of understand why some might want to and I hope discussing it helps to resolve things. But today's a new day and these are long gone.
What went on, I wonder, in Loy's tiny, little brain between November 1986, when he wrote that apology letter that dmiller quoted, and the "loyalty demand" letter that is the main topic of discussion?
Was the first letter an attempt to jolly us along until it all blew over? The loyalty demand then being his frustration at not being to get away with his false humility?
Or did he have a moment of true sorrow and repentence at his actions, only to go back to his old ways?
We'll probably never know, but the years from 1986 - 1989 were the best chance for The Way to get beyond the pseudo-theocratic dictatorship that was TWI under Wierwille. Many leaders were willing to participate in the rebuilding of TWI, but Martindale, aided and abetted by his supporters, re-established the one man rule.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
18
54
14
Popular Days
Oct 20
37
Oct 28
35
Oct 19
28
Oct 21
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 14 posts
Raf 18 posts
oldiesman 54 posts
WordWolf 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 20 2005
37 posts
Oct 28 2005
35 posts
Oct 19 2005
28 posts
Oct 21 2005
23 posts
oldiesman
Wordwolf posted:
It appears here that Outthere objects to Craig's request for loyalty. But where's the godly reproof and correction about Craig's walk of 1989? Any specifics?Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989.
So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden?
I would add, even blind obedience was in the context of moving the Word, as Craig wrote in his letter:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It was NEVER reasonable, and it wasn't carnal "all of a sudden." It was carnal when VPW did it. It was carnal every single time it was done, whether by VPW or LCM.
One thing you seem to be missing is that regardless of your defense of LCM's letter, people saw through it. People knew this letter for what it proved to be, and that means looking beyond what's actually on the page and seeing what was really happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
[quote name='oldiesman'
Regarding blind obedience, that was there long before 1989. Of course it's reasonable to assume he wanted and expected it. Heck, that was a corps principle I heard back in 1976, long before Craig's letter of March 1989.
So therefore it doesn't make much sense why anyone would be so surprised or shocked that Craig would ask for it of his staff and corps. If one didn't agree with that principle, one was free to leave, well before 1989. Those he wrote to knew exactly what blind obedience and loyalty was all about, in fact it was a reasonable principle for them all along -- except now, when Craig asks for it, it's "carnal" all of a sudden?
Sorry could not let this one slide. Since when was blind loyality a Corps principle? There were five and NONE thats 0, nadda,of them had a thing to do with blind loyality. In contrast though the first one
1. Acquire an in depth spiritual perception and awareness.
Would seem at be saying not blindly following but an in depth awareness another words knowing what is going on,making deliberate decisions based on knowledge. not lost in the dark blindly following.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It was a Corps teaching I heard back in 75-76. If you are uncomfortable with "corp principle", then I'll say it was a "corps teaching".
I viewed blind obedience as something like a chain of command, something like in the military. I believe the corps had some military attributes about it. i.e. One was expected to follow the direction of leadership.
This was all in the context of moving the Word. ("blind" doesn't mean go jump off the roof.) Of course, if the leadership was wrong, and you could prove that according to the word, or, offer specific godly reproof and correction, then you were/are perfectly within your rights to object to the "order", and hold your ground.
Problem I saw back then was, folks were not offering any godly reproof or correction, just objecting to the chain of command concept, with no specifics. At least that was what I experienced in NY.
I asked my twig coordinators to write down specifically all the problems, the beefs, they had with Craig and the BOT. We learned that if you have a problem with someone, you go directly to that person with it, and not behind their back. But they refused to do it. So that's another thing, I couldn't stand with folks who couldn't give a fig about what I asked and thought was a reasonable request. I asked the limb coordinator too. No specifics.
Raf wrote:
I strongly disagree, at least in the context of all this.
Ask yourself this question, and please, try to be honest about it.
If VF would have stayed, and made the commitment to stand with Craig in moving the Word, would you have still left?
He would have conVINCEd everyone to stay and move the Word, that's exactly what would have happened for a few more years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Yes I would have left if things were to continue in the same unscriptural, ungodly manner that they were and were heading toward. It was clear that no change was forthcoming.
Call it what it was a teaching there is a difference in the two.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Perhaps they witnessed first-hand what happened to those who did..
But.. I still think the loyalty oath was asking far too much, especially compared with the loyalty these poor staffers enjoyed from headquarters..
Look how they were rewarded nine years later:
Financial cutbacks
No cable TV.. well, I could live fine without it..
Staffers now have to move to slums.. der veq claims they can't afford the rent anymore..
No pregnancies
No "serious pets"
Less expensive meals for staffers.. hope they liked macaroni and cheese three times a day..
Some "loyalty".. all while the ministry was ROLLING in cashola..
Where was the loyalty, and loving support for those who "labor in the word and doctrine" then?
I think loyalty perhaps is a fine and noble concept.. just it really oughta go both ways..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Raf --- I forgot to thank you for the link to the LOY-alty letter. Thanks! :)
Oldies --- please look at the bolded words in the first paragraph, and tell me honestly if you thinck lcm actually lived out that principle, or just mouthed it to look good? If twi was going down the drain because of the *sins* of the believers (lack of believing in leadership, refusing to abs, reaping the consequences of unbelief, yada, yada) -- makes sense to me he would (if what he said was what he actually practiced) not have gone the *face-melting* route.
Face-melting ain't love -- no matter how you slice the pie.
Now --- you also said that this letter was a *plea* from lcm for a second chance.
I don't think so!
HE DID MAKE A PLEA FOR A SECOND CHANCE in Nov. of 1986, which sounded a whole lot different from this here LOY-alty letter.
A snippet here -----
The letter from '86 was a clear apology (probably meant little, but it was said). I bet it REALLY rankled when he (lcm) started receiving all the adverse letters in '87! :D
The LOY-alty letter was a *my way or the high-way* letter -- plain and simple. He had *subtile habits*, yet needed *radical change* in the first letter.
In the 2nd -- he merely says:
" I have done all I know to do to live and share the Word of God. If that’s not enough evidence to convince you that I have changed, then I have nothing else to do but to invite you to leave."
He offers no proof, just claims he's *been there, done that.
And he expected all to believe he had done what was necessary to make the radical changes, to the subtile habits, in his life -- that would take twi into the next century.
Right.
Have a good day.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oldies -- I thought we were talking about the LOY-alty letter, and related stuff. I see you have made comments about the past years *not being relevant to the conversation*.
Don't bring up 75-76 (I was there then as well), and then complain about early 80's stuff, ok?? :)
David
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
No matter what year you are citing, it fits's like a hand in a glove, or a foot in the mouth, or whatever. :)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
"But David this glove don't fit see I can't get my hand into it" -O J
Well if it don't fit you must acquit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
However, even if they had, that incident could have been one of the issues they were upset about and something to address the BOT with.
Well, first, any employer has a right to demand loyalty and obedience from his/her employees.Second, it was in the context of "moving the Word", which at one time was twi's Prime Objective.
Perhaps this isn't a good example, but I also sometimes see it as something like being an officer in the military; there you have a Prime Objective, and you certainly would want to obey your commanding officer's orders when in the act of obtaining the Prime Objective, he gives a command.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And walking in love isn't always a pat on the back to people. Sometimes it could be a kick in the butt.
But I also have a letter from VF in my Way Memorabilia collection (forgot what date) where he writes that "barring none, Craig has more love of God in him than anyone", or words to that effect. I'm not joking. This was, of course, before the time period when VF started following Chris Geer.
I wasn't the first to mention "blind obedience" on this thread, if that is what you were referring to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Most of the leaders tried very hard to support lcm....he just wouldn`t have ANY of it....most knew that things had been very wrong at hq for years and were eager to help get the ministry back on the right track.
...but they were simply maligned and thrown out.........he didn`t WANT to be questioned, confronted, required to behave within the standards of morality dictated biblically of a leader....
He decided that HE wasn`t in the wrong...and ANYBODY who didn`t see it that way was required to leave at once.
By demanding a loyalty oath, He made damned sure that any whom had the moral character and integrety to hold him to a Godly standard, plus the courage to speak up....were made out to be the villains ....in order to keep people from considering......
Oldies MAYBE these leaders figured nothing they said to you would make any difference....many of us found ways to excuse craigs behavior no matter how heinous.
Many of us when we were treated vilely .... didn`t *rat* out the ministry because we were trying desperatly to prove that we were not evil and posessed...out in left field....like they said would happen if we became hard hearted or stiff necked...their words for any who dared disagree when confronted by the blatant evil.
Breaking *lock box* was evil..... critisizing the ministry was evil...... revealing the sins of the man of God were considered viscious back biting evil....most just tried their best to stand on their principles without succumbing to what was declared the fate of any who left.......to have sat down with you Oldies and describe every little detail of the evil witnessed with you would have been considered back biting and disloyal ....folks back then were STILL fighting for the ministry .
You have to think about it....WHAT would have happened if all of us had ignored our moral obligation... lied and penned a loyalty oath letter to this lunatic.....WHAT would have happened if LCM had had ALL of the support and power that he craved and claimed was his due????
What if we had all aquieced to his every whim so as not to be thrown out and remain in good standing ????? Does anyone HONESTLY believe that he would have changed his behavior one iota?
Oh HECK no....he would have been just that much more secure in his evil practices...we are NOT talking about a spiritual Godly man here....
He would have still been behaving in an ungodly manner....requiring corps girls to participate in sex acts that they personally found loathsome....following his predesessors standard of casting any who refused out of the corpes, out of the ministry and telling everyone that those who had frustrated his desires were so posessed that to even SPEAK with them was to risk contamination....yeah this stuff really happened...
He would have STILL been manipulating and requiring married women to commit adultery with him in order to retain their spiritual status and jobs....
This guy was out of control...and all of the power and all of the unquestioning support would have changed nothing....Good LORD he had had all of those things for a decade unquestioned, had been the beneficiary of millions of hours of prayer and more money than he could possibly find ways to spend...........and yet he STILL was behaving viley, destroying people on a whim, acting without aprising himself of the facts resulting in great harm to peoples lives....throwing tempertantrums,
This a man who supposedly worked for God almighty who was more viscious and damaging to christian people than the vilest of unbelievers.....there was NOTHING that we could have done to have convinced him to follow the path of a man of the spirit....he chose otherwise....
If we had given him that which he required, we would have been selling our souls into darkness...and still we would have been unable to change the course that lcm had charted.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Simple answer.. their honest, sincere, loving lives would be used to bring even more innocent God seeking people into that pile of dung..
I don't know where you were Oldies.. but these people saw loyster for what he was.. all the way through his years of insanity, vileness and abuse.. from my perspective, I stayed because this crap was carefully covered up..
I knew someone who left.. and the only thing they said was, "you have NO IDEA what happened in those meetings.." and that was ALL they would say.. no more.. and I haven't heard from them now, for over fifteen years.. at the time, they sounded like lunatics to me.
Many tried to function in a godly manner, IN SPITE OF who was in charge..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just one more point..
BOTH of my WOW brothers went in the corps.. and we were as close as a group of folks could get prior to this. They told me.. nothing. Period..
Even those who left.. for YEARS would not tell me anything..
Probably under threat of expulsion, death or worse..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Awesome post Rascal. Sums it up wonderfully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
VF was a man above reproach. Those who knew him, loved and respect him. Had he decided to stay, and, shall I say "win another one for the Gipper", folks would have been happy to stay.
And remember that the man Craig was in 1989 was most definitely not the man he was in 1999. He was far and above worse in 1999, and you would do well to consider that in your analysis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Same guy ...same moraly bankrupt character.
The DIFFERENCE between 89 and 99 was that there were not very many people with the guts left to take a stand against his cruelty and perversions.
The cruel legalism and viscious destruction that marked the 90s were I believe, a direct result of the casting out of those tens of thousands with the integrety that made them incapable of swearing *loyalty* to lcm.
Mr. Hamm, I believe that you are correct, we WOULD have lent an air of legitimacy with our integrety and honesty....luring yet more innocent people to be used and cast aside in God`s name.
Thankyou Sunesis.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well.. barring accidents and miracles.. my opinion:
Ten years is not nearly enough time to change a man's true character.
True.. he was more vile, more abusive, more of a womanizer and rapist as he went on..
I think we may be splitting hairs here.. trying to define where it all started.
Personally, I think he had the same character for those ten "long" years, only he just happened to get more brazen and careless..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Well, I was in NY also-but apparently, it was a DIFFERENT NY than YOU were in.
The problem is, we can imagine different scenarios, but to change ONE
thing affects ALL things.
See,
I was aware there were problems at hq.
What did I say?
I said-rather naively-that lcm would return to balance with some help from VF.
The very next communication I received from hq burst that bubble.
lcm fired VF.
Did VF confront lcm on Biblical issues?
Yes.
I'm not digging out all my 1989 correspondence for you.
However,
I got a copy of something someone never shredded at hq.
It was one response from VF when lcm was barking orders and
ignoring everyone.
RC also sent some telexes (remember telexes) to lcm when there
was some hope of keeping the organization intact.
NEITHER was people yelling. There was exasperation,
godly approaches, and good-faith attempts to communicate.
lcm did not choose to listen.
When rank-and-file people responded to the
"I'm firing all the staff in your state because they're evil"
letter,
they asked WHAT prompted the accusations.
They got form letters saying
"none of your business-my word is good enough for you."
This stopped me from mailing MY letter-
which I HAD drafted, and was ready for mailing.
I saw no point.
Looking back, I wish I had, just to underscore the
boilerplate fashion of the replies.
See,
when lcm drew his line in the sand,
he fired everyone who refused to give blind loyalty,
AND
savaged their reputations in every state.
He accused them of not serving God, period.
So much for the SUPPOSED idea that he would have
accepted the concept of people serving God without
serving lcm.
Either he honestly thought serving God could ONLY
come through him-
which means he needed medical attention-
or he KNEW that it was possible that one could
serve God without serving lcm, and he chose
to lie and say the opposite-
which means he allowed his OWN desires
to REPLACE godly service.
===============
So, what could VF have done?
A) Blindly serve.
This would have made him UNWORTHY of leadership.
(Just as DEMANDING blind service all by itself made
lcm UNWORTHY of leadership.)
B) Approach lcm and try to fix him.
Attempted and lcm blew a raspberry at that.
Blindly serve, VF. I don't want your input.
C) Unable to repair the situation,
refuse to pretend there werent gross, irreparable
problems.
That's just not-lying.
VF did this also.
D) When lcm DEMANDED blind loyalty or firing,
accept firing since it was less unacceptable
than blind loyalty.
VF did this also.
VF did everything reasonable.
What was he supposed to do-
take lcm in the back room with the rubber hoses?
======
So,
what if VF had chosen to stay?
Well, the problems with this are:
you've established that VF was not corrupt- "above reproach",
respected.
If he WAS worthy of respect, he would be unable to stay.
If he WAS able to stay, he would chose organic unity
and a cushy job over committments to God.
That would have been UNworthy of respect.
Would people have stayed if VF woke up one morning
and said "I'll keep the cushy job and sell out the family"?
Some would,
some would NOT.
I was prepared to leave no matter WHO stayed.
I looked things over myself, and concluded lcm was
corrupt based on what HE said and did,
and mrs lcm said and did,
and all the error propounded to prop him up by
the "blind loy" faction.
HOWEVER,
one of the signs that things could not have been
fixed was lcm saying
"I'm firing all the leadership in your state."
If lcm had not been so full of himself that this
was his decided-upon course of action,
then he wouldn't have been as completely
corrupt as he actually was,
so there would have been more of a reason
to stay-since there would have been hope
of restoring his sanity, or him stepping
down and someone else getting the job.
There WERE others who could have done
the job. VF could have done it. Ralph D.
could have done it. Walter C could have
done it.
So,
when we play "if VF had stayed",
we either rewrite the situation so that
lcm wasn't corrupt,
or we pretend lcm WASN'T corrupt.
All evidence since then proves an
ironclad case that lcm WAS corrupt.
Many people BEFORE then saw that
it was so BEFORE then.
The man lcm was in 1999 WAS the same
man lcm was in 1989.
Except he had more experience-
which should have made him WISER.
The lcm in 1989 made decisions.
The lcm in 1990 made decisions.
The lcm in 1991 made decisions.
The lcm in 1992 made decisions.
The lcm in 1993 made decisions.
The lcm in 1994 made decisions.
The lcm in 1995 made decisions.
The lcm in 1996 made decisions.
The lcm in 1997 made decisions.
The lcm in 1998 made decisions.
The lcm in 1989 decided what was MOST
important to him,
as did the lcm in each year.
lcm had a free hand, from 1990 on,
to declare the course of the ministry
EXACTLY the way he wanted with
little interference from ANYONE.
So, the 1990 twi was HIS decision-
as was the 1990, 1991, 1992....
In each year, lcm all by himself
decided the course of twi, and the
results the next year were the
result of his decisions.
The lcm of 1990 was the SAME lcm
of 1989, just more overt,
which was more overt than the lcm
of 1987-who had hidden his loyalty demands.
The lcm of 1999 was the SAME lcm
as the lcm of 1989,
except that he'd had 10 years to mold
twi as he saw fit,
and built himself up in his OWN mind
as a great leader.
That was simply a continuation of
the 1989 lcm.
The man Craig was in 1999 was entirely the man
of his own manufacture,
and the result of the freewill decisions he HIMSELF
had made the past decade,
and you would do well to actually
ANALYZE the situation, period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
frank123lol
You guys are right about the lunatic part loy was bonkers in 99,even an old timer told me she did not know
about craig.If we were as screwed up as he said we were and we were of the remant and adavanced class grads,then who were the trusted ones? only loy apparantly.
:( :( :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oldiesman:
"The didn't [tell me about the crap going on...]
Otherwise, they would have told me about it. We were very close."
===
Mr Hammeroni:
"BOTH of my WOW brothers went in the corps..and we were as close as a group of folks could get
prior to this.
They told me...nothing. Period.
Even those who left...for YEARS would not tell me anything.
Probably under threat of expulsion, death or worse.
========
Well,
don't let that bother you, Mr Hamm.
Oldiesman didn't see it, it didn't happen.
Oldiesman wasn't told good reasons, there were no good reasons.
Oldiesman didnt see abuse of power, there was no abuse of power.
That's what he meant,
and, of course, he'll continue to deny that's exactly where he's going.
NONE of us had good reasons for leaving,
because OLDIESMAN had no good reasons for leaving.
ME AND RAF went to hq ourselves,
evaluated the situations,
listened to lcm and the others,
and made up our own minds and left.
We were in NY.
According to Oldiesman,
people in NY never left as a result of making up their
own minds.
Maybe this means we weren't from NY,
or it means we're lying.
Either way, Oldiesman refuses to accept that some of us
made better-informed decisions than him.
The killer is that he had the SAME opportunity as
me and Raf did to kick the tires, check for fingerprints,
check the tire-tracks from Rockingham, etc.
Having that opportunity,
Raf and I investigated.
Oldiesman did not.
Oldiesman then concluded that there was
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION to draw a conclusion.
Oldiesman's "investigation" stopped pretty quick.
But it allowed him to make the decision that made
him comfortable. He got to hang around with his
family, who, coincidentally, also made the same
decision.
You can work out the ramifications of that yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Man, this topic's got legs! It goes around every so often. As long as I'm here, some scintillating comments that will uplift everyone, I'm sure.
Oldiesman, you make a good point in that a lot of the written dissertations that circulated from, and including, the Passing of the Patriarch in early 1986 to say about 1990, were long on rhetoric and short on specific details relating to the BOT, the condition of the Way and exactly what the problems were. I was sent Vince's, or one of his, and it seemed like I'd missed a lot of background he didn't write about as it didn't contain much information or facts about his whole situation. Which I felt would have been valuable to anyone trying to make an informed decision. Compared to the orderly conductance of business in the Way most were used to there was extreme chaos over those 4 years or so.
Given that a lot of the documents that were sent out pinged off someone resigning or being fired and them leaving the Way, I don't think it unreasonable to expect a person would want some specifics, not by having to pester everyone over the phone with questions, but in the context of the letters they received. Here's what happened, here's who was involved and said, here's what I did, here's what they did and here's what I've decided. Here's the exact reasons why I'm leaving a ministry that I probably told you last week was the greatest thing since toothpaste and why I'm telling you today it's not. I've changed my mind about it, or some things and here's what they are and why.
What's so hard about that?
A lot of the letters I had forwarded to me were just like the P. of the P. That was a collection of what Geer said was VPW's last ruminations and discussions with him about the Way. How it wasn't what he'd hoped it would be, how he'd been failed and let down by those he trusted most in. How no one really stood with him or was standing with him. He named a lot of names but in that writ of Geer's there was no real presentation of much beyond that, no specifics, no statements of VPW's that would really allow a person to understand the details of exactly what was wrong and even more so exacty WHY VPW himself hadn't taken more specific action and appealed to anyone beyond a few close associates. There was also a lot of how hard Geer himself worked, despite the failings of those around him. Sound familiar?
The veracity of Geer's writings was never proven. I have no idea if that's what VPW really said to him, it was never proven beyond a couple people that said oh yeah, he came to me too but they didnt listen or they were afraid. Overall if it's what VPW said to him it sounded to me like a lot of bellyaching.
A lot of these resignation letters that went out later were similar in that they had a lot of vague accusations in them...."the BOT are idolaters"...."they're off the Word"....."I won't pimp for them anymore"...."I'm not going to follow men, I'm going to follow God".
Details, please? What exactly does that mean, please?
Most of all I felt like POP and all of this later stuff opened the door to change in the Way that was going to happen sooner or later anyway. This just brought a lot of things to the surface that were festering, things that weren't addressed at all by Geer's POP and that he took great exception to when they did come out. The whole autocratic set up of the Way was bound to fold, IMO, particularly for the reasons that most of us DID NOT know anything about, the stuff going on behind closed doors, but also because the Way was frozen in the past and had no vision for the future. It's members were growing faster and further than it's leadership. The future just came a little quicker for some.
To me, LCM's "loyalty" letter was a joke. For 3 years he hadn't earned the right to ask for anyone to follow him and he'd given up what right he had by his inability to be an effective leader. (I don't believe he was the "man of God" of the ministry or had any particular eternal claim to it's presidency as it was handed down to him. Your mileage on that may vary) On that level it didn't make him a criminal, it just meant he needed to take a break and at least, with the assistance of the rest of the ministry, sort out the chaos and bring it's people together. But he didn't realize his own state, let alone the concerns of those he worked with.
My opinion. See, I told you it would be scintillating. :lol: But really, this was a LONG time ago. I'm sure it's good to sort out some of the facts. I kind of understand why some might want to and I hope discussing it helps to resolve things. But today's a new day and these are long gone.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
What went on, I wonder, in Loy's tiny, little brain between November 1986, when he wrote that apology letter that dmiller quoted, and the "loyalty demand" letter that is the main topic of discussion?
Was the first letter an attempt to jolly us along until it all blew over? The loyalty demand then being his frustration at not being to get away with his false humility?
Or did he have a moment of true sorrow and repentence at his actions, only to go back to his old ways?
We'll probably never know, but the years from 1986 - 1989 were the best chance for The Way to get beyond the pseudo-theocratic dictatorship that was TWI under Wierwille. Many leaders were willing to participate in the rebuilding of TWI, but Martindale, aided and abetted by his supporters, re-established the one man rule.
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.