We all know they will not admit this was wrong doctrinally. The fact they say they no longer M&A is a sugar-coated statement to possibly entice people back. RFR doesn't have the charisma to entice them, so she needs some mojo. It's rather kind of sickening to me that people at HQ refer to her as if she were the WOG.
I have a friend at HQ who I am in contact with to this day. Our conversation is limited because the friend is guarded with what is shared since I am no longer involved. I just hope to shed some light that God is outside twi's hedge, and He is better than I ever dreamed in my 20 years in twi.
Getting back on topic--sorry! I cannot imagine that RFR or any of the other BOT want to handle the decision of M&A. And they will not EVER admit wrong doctrine. One of the major things about twi is that it was run by a man who CONSTANTLY practiced error in his own life. Practical error ALWAYS leads to doctrinal error. Remember how many times lcm told us that in the dining room? Amazing. I cannot believe that they don't say that his teachings (Eve a lesbian to start with) is not right. But when did they ever admit they were wrong? We won't see it in this life-time.
Like many things, I think the whole beginnings of M&A was grossly overemphasized by lcm to do what HE wanted to do AND put God's stamp of approval on it. It was wrong; it hurt many; and it was not godly.
My problem is, if it was a biblical concept before, why are they not standing by it now? Are they admitting
that they were doctrinally wrong? If so, why not some blanket, general apologies to those who were wronged? If 'new research' has revealed something, why not share the learning with their whole ministry? Hey, it is in Romans, so it would be addressed to everyone, right? Another question is (rhetorical), why are not the innies asking for clarification either? Respectfully, for those still in, before rejoicing in the change, why not ask - was twi off the Word before - while M/A'ing people, OR are we off the Word now by not?
My guess is, they cannot afford to keep losing people (for #'s and $'s sake), and because the BOD were
probably sick of having to deal with each and every M/A request from the field. What say ye?
Patriot,
As I understand it from the Scriptures.......mark & avoid was utilized as a bibilcal concept in very extreme cases to protect the believers from evil seducers. A rarity, for sure. And then, one was "turned over to Satan" for the destruction of the flesh (or something like that).
First of all, twi grossly misapplied the m/a concept......and secondly, twi used it as a WEAPON OF CONTROL, to stop the flow of information and to instill fear. Clearly, twi uses biblical concepts to further their agendas......but, the boundaries and the application of mark/avoid are unsound.
Yes, twi was OFF THE WORD while m/a people to silence twi's evil doings.......and simply continue that pattern by denying this widely-used concept in the 1990s.
Twi is re-writing their history.......................................AGAIN.
Patriot, nice post and great start for your first thread :)
In answere to your question, I think that they are afraid to admit that they are fallible after so many years of demanding implicit obedience.
I believe that they are concerned about legal liability as well.
I believe that if twi were run by true Christians that they WOULD have repented and apologized for their misconduct and for the harm that they inflicted on innocent people...as is their biblical responsibility.
As long as they pretend that these things didn`t happen....or pretend that they are not responsible.....or that we were in some way responsible for what they did to us.....they are still just pretending to be christian in MY book...a genuine Christian would repent and ask for forgiveness and where possible make amends....irrigardless of the consequences to themselves.....it is what you DO if you are a christian.
Otherwise you are simply just a wannabe....just like a little kid playing religious dress up...
They cloth themselves in scriptures....they wrap themselves up in prayer and wear fancy wide brimmed hats of believing ....don a ffeathery bola ...put on mommies high heels and clomp around admiring themselves in a mirror thinking that they look/are so important and grand.....but it really is all just make believe...most of the rest of us can see how silly they look as they admire and preen.
The hypocrisy is rampant here, can you not see it "innies?"
This is why we all left, bottom line.
There is NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.
They sweep EVERYTHING under the rug!
If they don't address the wrongs and learn from it,
HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF!
NO HUMILITY
I have NEVER in my 15 years, ever heard an "apology" for anything. (oh sure, a couple of clarifications, here and there).
NOT EVEN FOR LCM"S mess up.
A freind of mine just confronted some leadership in his area, and asked why there was no apology.
Apparently, this leader says there was. He took notes, he was "at the meeting".
He must be confused with Craigs,"announcement to step down", with a true "apology".
(((((hummmmm????))))))
I was there, I didn't hear ol Rosie come out and cry, and say
"we are so sowry for all ya'all's hurt, who were kicked out unjustly, who Craig yelled/screamed/bullied, we are totally sowry. We just didn't see it, we thought he was doing the Word, we were blinded, and we will do our best to never allow this kind of mistreament of God's people again. All ya'll that have left and would like to start anew, please come back, lets make a fresh start.......what he did was wrong, we do NOT condone it, .............."
Wouldn't this have been more honest? This was NOT DONE!
Ahhhhh I just get so mad even typing this...............((((ug))))
My problem is, if it was a biblical concept before, why are they not standing by it now? Are they admitting that they were doctrinally wrong? If so, why not some blanket, general apologies to those who were wronged? If 'new research' has revealed something, why not share the learning with their whole ministry? Hey, it is in Romans, so it would be addressed to everyone, right? Another question is (rhetorical), why are not the innies asking for clarification either? Respectfully, for those still in, before rejoicing in the change, why not ask - was twi off the Word before - while M/A'ing people, OR are we off the Word now by not?
Excellent topic, Patriot!
I, too, want to know why some of the innies are ignoring the hypocrisy and questions that this change of "doctrine" should be raising in their brains. I know a lot of very intelligent people in TWI, some are extremely successful business people, but boy oh boy are they stoo-pid when it comes to finances and playing ostrich with TWIt doctrine. :blink:
I think that this is where the brainwashing or cognitive dissonance arguments come into play with the kool-aid drinkers. They are so conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to just accept whatever comes out of HQ, and so conditioned to ignore those questions in their heads because, "RFR (insert concerned leadership name here) walks with God...." My ex is a prime example of this. I don't know what it would take for him to ever bad mouth TWI, much less Moneyhands or any other leadership in TWI.
TWI leadership doesn't even try to justify the change in doctrine because they know that no one is going to question them on it. Those who do will be shamed and made embarrassed to question such decisions. Even so the comment, "Heck, we can't say we were wrong. It would open us up to too many lawsuits!" :unsure: That's exactly what my ex said when we discussed the debt policy. They KNOW TWI is full of it, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, they just continue to justify these changes.... HELLOOOOOO, IF your church has to tiptoe around because of trying to avoid lawsuits, doncha think just maybe something's wrong with your church??
Let's set aside for this thread, whether M/A is wrong to do or not. That would be a good topic in
the doctrinal section (Romans 16:17&18). I want to focus on how twi's shift in a practical / moral way.
Hello Patriot:
M & A is a biblical practise for the wicked ones, the very bad doers. Or the doers of very bad things, it is correct to M& A Homos, rapist, and other tipe of criminals and sinners.
TWI M & A good people, good believers that were inconform, so the application was wrong from TWI.
M & A is a biblical practise for the wicked ones, the very bad doers. Or the doers of very bad things, it is correct to M& A Homos, rapist, and other tipe of criminals and sinners.
TWI M & A good people, good believers that were inconform, so the application was wrong from TWI.
TheMex:
Think about this for a minute...it is correct to M&A homos, rapists, and other types of criminals and sinners?
How do you expect those people ever to be delivered if you can't show them the way?
Mat 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
Luk 7:24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind?
Luk 7:25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts.
Luk 7:26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Luk 7:27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.'
Luk 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Luk 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John;
Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
Luk 7:31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
Luk 7:32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Luk 7:34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
Luk 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
Luk 7:36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table.
Luk 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,
Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner."
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"
Luk 7:41 "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Luk 7:43 Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."
Luk 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
Luk 7:45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Luk 7:48 And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Luk 7:49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?"
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Mark and avoid is for people who hurt others. I always thought it was physical hurt. Rape, child molesting being the main examples.
Funny to me how LCM pushed M&A so hard when he was the one who was hurting the people.
And didn't twi shelter or protect in some way a known child molester? I think there was a thread on that somewhere.
So you could get away with sexually predatory habits but you get the boot if you have to work on a fellowship night and can't change your shift, or you don't give more than the tithe.
or the worst, if you disagreed with LCM/VPW/ any leadership you were bound for M&A status.
Think about this for a minute...it is correct to M&A homos, rapists, and other types of criminals and sinners?
How do you expect those people ever to be delivered if you can't show them the way?
Mark,
great point.
one time my mother and i were talking about this. She said that M&A was not always the best idea, only if someone was huring people. She said that there are some things that the church can't fix. People should go to rehab or somewhere else to get delivered. Her point was to use social programs where needed.
because in TWI we didn't have the expert skill needed to help certain illnesses. and inviting a rapist to your house for fellowship with young kids wasn't something she would do.
I thought she made a great point.
I would imagine larger churches have the experts and programs necassary to help in these situations. But TWI did not.
they just M&A people. Told them to read way mags and "get their heads into the word" like the way mag was going to heal them....
Think about this for a minute...it is correct to M&A homos, rapists, and other types of criminals and sinners?
How do you expect those people ever to be delivered if you can't show them the way?
Mat 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
<hr width=50%>Luk 7:24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind?
Luk 7:25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts.
Luk 7:26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Luk 7:27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.'
Luk 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Luk 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John;
Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
Luk 7:31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
Luk 7:32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Luk 7:34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
Luk 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
Luk 7:36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table.
Luk 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,
Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner."
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"
Luk 7:41 "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Luk 7:43 Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."
Luk 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
Luk 7:45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Luk 7:48 And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Luk 7:49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?"
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
<hr width=50%>
Think about it a little, themex...
To whom is address Luke? Also the context of Romans, we are talking about the body of Christ. In the Church if a born again son of God does not whant to live the standards of the good doctrine and is harmful to the others and do not want to change after a period fo time He or She should be M & A.
Although I recognize that people who did not agree with TWI doctrine or leadership, or for some other imagined reason, were "shut out" of the "household" even in the seventies, when was the M & A policy publically announced as a practice? Was it Craig? And what was the biblical principle (if any) given for instituted the practice?
Sorry for the partial derail-but I haven't found a older thread explaining when this vicious practice got started. Any help?
To whom is address Luke? Also the context of Romans, we are talking about the body of Christ. In the Church if a born again son of God does not whant to live the standards of the good doctrine and is harmful to the others and do not want to change after a period fo time He or She should be M & A.
First, I don't buy the ultradispensationalist approach that Wierwille and Co used. So your comment makes no sense on that basis.
But, even assuming that your proposition is correct and we should apply ultradispensational principles, you are telling me that in the age of grace that you should be more judgemental of people than Jesus Christ was when he was on earth?
So, during the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the homosexual to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the homosexual to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the murderer to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the murderer to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the rapist to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the rapist to the curb.
First, I don't buy the ultradispensationalist approach that Wierwille and Co used. So your comment makes no sense on that basis.
But, even assuming that your proposition is correct and we should apply ultradispensational principles, you are telling me that in the age of grace that you should be more judgemental of people than Jesus Christ was when he was on earth?
<blockquote>So, during the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the homosexual to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the homosexual to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the murderer to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the murderer to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the rapist to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the rapist to the curb.
I am not arguing that there are Biblical criteria for avoiding contact with a person. That essentially boils down to the point where an individual is attempting to lead others astray with his harmful beliefs.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
Tts 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tts 3:11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
etc., etc.
Likewise, my level of charity will be less when it comes to inviting a person into my home and exposing my family to a person than if I was going into their environment. To that degree, I can actually agree with what TheMex is saying.
Likewise, if a person constantly disrupts a public function...I can understand inviting that person to stay away unless they choose to play a constructive role...
In either of those cases, do you stop caring for that person? In either of those cases, do you stop trying to minister to that person? Or do you do only what is needed to make sure that the person is not able to infect the rest of the body with his divisive nature?
However, we're not talking about whom I would invite into my home, we're talking essentially about a shunning process when we talk about M&A, TWI style. The specific examples TheMex listed were, Homos, rapist, and other tipe of criminals and sinners. He didn't list heretics. He didn't list schismatics. When I specifically asked him:
So, during the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the homosexual to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the homosexual to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the murderer to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the murderer to the curb.
During the "Christ administration", the proper thing to do was to minister to the rapist to deliver him.
But during the "Grace administration", the proper thing to do is to kick the rapist to the curb.
The answer I got back was, and I quote, " :) ". So, I take it that this is what he means.
That's not what my Bible says is supposed to happen with people who are in grievous sin. My Bible says that the sick are the ones who need a physician. This is not to say that their sins are to be tolerated...in fact, according to Paul's counsel to Titus, we are to rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. But rebuking a person is different than shunning the person. The only Biblical excuse I can see for shunning is if the person is causing schisms in the Church.
If I'm wrong, please show me. But that's the only cause I can see for shunning a person.
It always seemed to me that Romans 16:17 aimed at doctrinal issues and divisions, that would lead the churches Paul felt responsible for away from his teaching on salvation in the grace of Christ. Those entering the fold, "wolves" amongst the sheep.
That kind of activity could lead to abherrent behavior, the kind that would be damaging to people. But I don't see the context addressing that specifically there within the community of the church, the congregation.
I think "common sense" says that if someone is hurting people in a community it needs to be dealt with. Things like stealing, murder, rape - that doesn't need a doctrinal thesis to determine what to do about it, to me.
Paul seems to be addressing them in Romans 16:17 as he did in Galatians - hey, if they're teaching anything other than what I've taught you and leading people away from our doctrine, don't allow them free access to the group and stay away from them. The damage being done he's most concerned about is to what the people believe. I don't think there'd be any question in Paul's mind about how to handle someone who was doing real physical harm to people or at least I'd like to think so.
I never had to deal directly with the Way's Mark and Avoid stuff, but if I did I'd figure, hey. I'm the same high-quality wad of human goodness I was yesterday. It's their loss, not mine. When most of us left, the party moved down the street.
It's weird to me though, since a lot of Christians will parrot how they don't judge anyone, God judges, etc. then turn around and "mark and avoid" someone. That's judgment. I say call it what it is, don't dress it up in some "spiritual" language. Say "we don't want you disagreeing with what we believe and talking about it like you do so you can't come here anymore", if that's what you really mean.
As for sweeping stuff under the rug, the Way's got a big broom. It makes sense they'd prefer to vandalize any memory of those who know anything different than the soppy pablum they prepretrate so perposterously it would make a Sloth break dance.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
4
4
4
6
Popular Days
Jan 30
17
Feb 2
15
Feb 4
11
Feb 6
10
Top Posters In This Topic
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net 4 posts
socks 4 posts
Patriot 4 posts
themex 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 30 2006
17 posts
Feb 2 2006
15 posts
Feb 4 2006
11 posts
Feb 6 2006
10 posts
Nottawayfer
Patriot,
We all know they will not admit this was wrong doctrinally. The fact they say they no longer M&A is a sugar-coated statement to possibly entice people back. RFR doesn't have the charisma to entice them, so she needs some mojo. It's rather kind of sickening to me that people at HQ refer to her as if she were the WOG.
I have a friend at HQ who I am in contact with to this day. Our conversation is limited because the friend is guarded with what is shared since I am no longer involved. I just hope to shed some light that God is outside twi's hedge, and He is better than I ever dreamed in my 20 years in twi.
Getting back on topic--sorry! I cannot imagine that RFR or any of the other BOT want to handle the decision of M&A. And they will not EVER admit wrong doctrine. One of the major things about twi is that it was run by a man who CONSTANTLY practiced error in his own life. Practical error ALWAYS leads to doctrinal error. Remember how many times lcm told us that in the dining room? Amazing. I cannot believe that they don't say that his teachings (Eve a lesbian to start with) is not right. But when did they ever admit they were wrong? We won't see it in this life-time.
Like many things, I think the whole beginnings of M&A was grossly overemphasized by lcm to do what HE wanted to do AND put God's stamp of approval on it. It was wrong; it hurt many; and it was not godly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Patriot,
As I understand it from the Scriptures.......mark & avoid was utilized as a bibilcal concept in very extreme cases to protect the believers from evil seducers. A rarity, for sure. And then, one was "turned over to Satan" for the destruction of the flesh (or something like that).
First of all, twi grossly misapplied the m/a concept......and secondly, twi used it as a WEAPON OF CONTROL, to stop the flow of information and to instill fear. Clearly, twi uses biblical concepts to further their agendas......but, the boundaries and the application of mark/avoid are unsound.
Yes, twi was OFF THE WORD while m/a people to silence twi's evil doings.......and simply continue that pattern by denying this widely-used concept in the 1990s.
Twi is re-writing their history.......................................AGAIN.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Patriot, nice post and great start for your first thread :)
In answere to your question, I think that they are afraid to admit that they are fallible after so many years of demanding implicit obedience.
I believe that they are concerned about legal liability as well.
I believe that if twi were run by true Christians that they WOULD have repented and apologized for their misconduct and for the harm that they inflicted on innocent people...as is their biblical responsibility.
As long as they pretend that these things didn`t happen....or pretend that they are not responsible.....or that we were in some way responsible for what they did to us.....they are still just pretending to be christian in MY book...a genuine Christian would repent and ask for forgiveness and where possible make amends....irrigardless of the consequences to themselves.....it is what you DO if you are a christian.
Otherwise you are simply just a wannabe....just like a little kid playing religious dress up...
They cloth themselves in scriptures....they wrap themselves up in prayer and wear fancy wide brimmed hats of believing ....don a ffeathery bola ...put on mommies high heels and clomp around admiring themselves in a mirror thinking that they look/are so important and grand.....but it really is all just make believe...most of the rest of us can see how silly they look as they admire and preen.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
The hypocrisy is rampant here, can you not see it "innies?"
This is why we all left, bottom line.
There is NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.
They sweep EVERYTHING under the rug!
If they don't address the wrongs and learn from it,
HISTORY WILL REPEAT ITSELF!
NO HUMILITY
I have NEVER in my 15 years, ever heard an "apology" for anything. (oh sure, a couple of clarifications, here and there).
NOT EVEN FOR LCM"S mess up.
A freind of mine just confronted some leadership in his area, and asked why there was no apology.
Apparently, this leader says there was. He took notes, he was "at the meeting".
He must be confused with Craigs,"announcement to step down", with a true "apology".
(((((hummmmm????))))))
I was there, I didn't hear ol Rosie come out and cry, and say
"we are so sowry for all ya'all's hurt, who were kicked out unjustly, who Craig yelled/screamed/bullied, we are totally sowry. We just didn't see it, we thought he was doing the Word, we were blinded, and we will do our best to never allow this kind of mistreament of God's people again. All ya'll that have left and would like to start anew, please come back, lets make a fresh start.......what he did was wrong, we do NOT condone it, .............."
Wouldn't this have been more honest? This was NOT DONE!
Ahhhhh I just get so mad even typing this...............((((ug))))
bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I, too, want to know why some of the innies are ignoring the hypocrisy and questions that this change of "doctrine" should be raising in their brains. I know a lot of very intelligent people in TWI, some are extremely successful business people, but boy oh boy are they stoo-pid when it comes to finances and playing ostrich with TWIt doctrine. :blink:
I think that this is where the brainwashing or cognitive dissonance arguments come into play with the kool-aid drinkers. They are so conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to just accept whatever comes out of HQ, and so conditioned to ignore those questions in their heads because, "RFR (insert concerned leadership name here) walks with God...." My ex is a prime example of this. I don't know what it would take for him to ever bad mouth TWI, much less Moneyhands or any other leadership in TWI.
TWI leadership doesn't even try to justify the change in doctrine because they know that no one is going to question them on it. Those who do will be shamed and made embarrassed to question such decisions. Even so the comment, "Heck, we can't say we were wrong. It would open us up to too many lawsuits!" :unsure: That's exactly what my ex said when we discussed the debt policy. They KNOW TWI is full of it, but instead of recognizing it for what it is, they just continue to justify these changes.... HELLOOOOOO, IF your church has to tiptoe around because of trying to avoid lawsuits, doncha think just maybe something's wrong with your church??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Hello Patriot:
M & A is a biblical practise for the wicked ones, the very bad doers. Or the doers of very bad things, it is correct to M& A Homos, rapist, and other tipe of criminals and sinners.
TWI M & A good people, good believers that were inconform, so the application was wrong from TWI.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
TheMex:
Think about this for a minute...it is correct to M&A homos, rapists, and other types of criminals and sinners?
How do you expect those people ever to be delivered if you can't show them the way?
Mat 9:10 And as he sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples.
Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
Luk 7:24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed shaken by the wind?
Luk 7:25 What then did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft clothing? Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts.
Luk 7:26 What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.
Luk 7:27 This is he of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.'
Luk 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."
Luk 7:29 (When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John;
Luk 7:30 but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.)
Luk 7:31 "To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like?
Luk 7:32 They are like children sitting in the market place and calling to one another, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.'
Luk 7:33 For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, 'He has a demon.'
Luk 7:34 The Son of man has come eating and drinking; and you say, 'Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'
Luk 7:35 Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."
Luk 7:36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table.
Luk 7:37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment,
Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner."
Luk 7:40 And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"
Luk 7:41 "A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty.
Luk 7:42 When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Luk 7:43 Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."
Luk 7:44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
Luk 7:45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet.
Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
Luk 7:47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Luk 7:48 And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
Luk 7:49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?"
Luk 7:50 And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
Think about it a little, themex...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Mark and avoid is for people who hurt others. I always thought it was physical hurt. Rape, child molesting being the main examples.
Funny to me how LCM pushed M&A so hard when he was the one who was hurting the people.
And didn't twi shelter or protect in some way a known child molester? I think there was a thread on that somewhere.
So you could get away with sexually predatory habits but you get the boot if you have to work on a fellowship night and can't change your shift, or you don't give more than the tithe.
or the worst, if you disagreed with LCM/VPW/ any leadership you were bound for M&A status.
a complete joke that organiztion is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Mark,
great point.
one time my mother and i were talking about this. She said that M&A was not always the best idea, only if someone was huring people. She said that there are some things that the church can't fix. People should go to rehab or somewhere else to get delivered. Her point was to use social programs where needed.
because in TWI we didn't have the expert skill needed to help certain illnesses. and inviting a rapist to your house for fellowship with young kids wasn't something she would do.
I thought she made a great point.
I would imagine larger churches have the experts and programs necassary to help in these situations. But TWI did not.
they just M&A people. Told them to read way mags and "get their heads into the word" like the way mag was going to heal them....
total joke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
To whom is address Luke? Also the context of Romans, we are talking about the body of Christ. In the Church if a born again son of God does not whant to live the standards of the good doctrine and is harmful to the others and do not want to change after a period fo time He or She should be M & A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
MEX.........................sure love you, and your accent........
question:
Who are we to "copy" or "mimic" or ....ahhhh our "example"?
Jesus yes, remember him? It is not about "who it is addressed to?" It is about "being like Jesus Christ!"
and "to whom it is addressed" is for the doctrinal section if you want to ask about that!
I understand if someone WON"T get help and is hurting people, but this is NOT how M & A was used for.
imo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
Although I recognize that people who did not agree with TWI doctrine or leadership, or for some other imagined reason, were "shut out" of the "household" even in the seventies, when was the M & A policy publically announced as a practice? Was it Craig? And what was the biblical principle (if any) given for instituted the practice?
Sorry for the partial derail-but I haven't found a older thread explaining when this vicious practice got started. Any help?
Edited by topoftheworldLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
First, I don't buy the ultradispensationalist approach that Wierwille and Co used. So your comment makes no sense on that basis.
But, even assuming that your proposition is correct and we should apply ultradispensational principles, you are telling me that in the age of grace that you should be more judgemental of people than Jesus Christ was when he was on earth?
"You are welcome at the Way..."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
Love you to Bliss.
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeFromCults
No more Mark & Avoid in TWI???
Yeah... Right.
Wait 'til their membership goes up. Right now, because their membership is dwindling, they are losing $$$.
So, they gotta do something to curtail that $$$ hemorraghe (sp?) while at the same time, attract new people.
I wouldn't be surprised if TWI had been there and done that before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patriot
In light of twi trying to "attract new people"....
How many of their foundational classes are only "legal"
because of their children turning 12? They may want to try
like some banks - open a new account, keep it open for 90 days,
and they give you an American Express gift check.
If new people will attend their meetings on time for 90 days, give them
a new toaster....or something.
Edited by PatriotLink to comment
Share on other sites
jackdaniels
Great post Patriot.
just because they say it is no longer around, they just keep it quieter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mark --- I'm gonna go out on a limb here;
And say ---isn't it ok to M & A all these folks, after you have confronted them?
And they refuse to follow the Gospel?
(For those who know which way I *lean*
I am NOT singling out certain *categories* here.)
What I AM ASKING --- is if one has truely confronted another with the Gospel
(Such as the verses you provided, Mark),
How can one be wrong in NOT following through,
and marking, and avoiding those who refuse to listen??
I will grant you --- twi mangled this immensely.
But don't you think it can be done correctly?
Like Jesus did??
I think it can, though I am loathe to implement it,
cause I constantly question my own motives.
(yea -- color me insecure!!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*alters the quote to try to translate it*
I think that's roughly what themex was saying. I just did one of those paraphrases like
the "Living Bible" or whatever. Like them, my intention was to preserve the meaning.
For the most part, I agree with themex.
We DO have a responsibility for insulating the family from the WORST of
offenders. We can pray for people, try to help them, get them professional
help, sit with them and listen while they work thru problems, be there as
they struggle to overcome temptations or addictions or other things.
However, in some cases, the person is unwilling to change, or unable to
change. In those cases, we must remember as well that we have a
responsibility to the other Christians.
Few people (outside of twi elite) would argue against removing criminals from
positions of leadership over other Christians. Keeping them around where they
can prey upon the people as a whole, however, is a different issue, and one
that should not be swept under the rug.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
David,
I am not arguing that there are Biblical criteria for avoiding contact with a person. That essentially boils down to the point where an individual is attempting to lead others astray with his harmful beliefs.
Rom 16:17 I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
Tts 3:10 As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
Tts 3:11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
etc., etc.
Likewise, my level of charity will be less when it comes to inviting a person into my home and exposing my family to a person than if I was going into their environment. To that degree, I can actually agree with what TheMex is saying.
Likewise, if a person constantly disrupts a public function...I can understand inviting that person to stay away unless they choose to play a constructive role...
In either of those cases, do you stop caring for that person? In either of those cases, do you stop trying to minister to that person? Or do you do only what is needed to make sure that the person is not able to infect the rest of the body with his divisive nature?
However, we're not talking about whom I would invite into my home, we're talking essentially about a shunning process when we talk about M&A, TWI style. The specific examples TheMex listed were, Homos, rapist, and other tipe of criminals and sinners. He didn't list heretics. He didn't list schismatics. When I specifically asked him:
The answer I got back was, and I quote, " :) ". So, I take it that this is what he means.
That's not what my Bible says is supposed to happen with people who are in grievous sin. My Bible says that the sick are the ones who need a physician. This is not to say that their sins are to be tolerated...in fact, according to Paul's counsel to Titus, we are to rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. But rebuking a person is different than shunning the person. The only Biblical excuse I can see for shunning is if the person is causing schisms in the Church.
If I'm wrong, please show me. But that's the only cause I can see for shunning a person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
themex
:D
Very good translation! That is what I want to said. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
It always seemed to me that Romans 16:17 aimed at doctrinal issues and divisions, that would lead the churches Paul felt responsible for away from his teaching on salvation in the grace of Christ. Those entering the fold, "wolves" amongst the sheep.
That kind of activity could lead to abherrent behavior, the kind that would be damaging to people. But I don't see the context addressing that specifically there within the community of the church, the congregation.
I think "common sense" says that if someone is hurting people in a community it needs to be dealt with. Things like stealing, murder, rape - that doesn't need a doctrinal thesis to determine what to do about it, to me.
Paul seems to be addressing them in Romans 16:17 as he did in Galatians - hey, if they're teaching anything other than what I've taught you and leading people away from our doctrine, don't allow them free access to the group and stay away from them. The damage being done he's most concerned about is to what the people believe. I don't think there'd be any question in Paul's mind about how to handle someone who was doing real physical harm to people or at least I'd like to think so.
I never had to deal directly with the Way's Mark and Avoid stuff, but if I did I'd figure, hey. I'm the same high-quality wad of human goodness I was yesterday. It's their loss, not mine. When most of us left, the party moved down the street.
It's weird to me though, since a lot of Christians will parrot how they don't judge anyone, God judges, etc. then turn around and "mark and avoid" someone. That's judgment. I say call it what it is, don't dress it up in some "spiritual" language. Say "we don't want you disagreeing with what we believe and talking about it like you do so you can't come here anymore", if that's what you really mean.
As for sweeping stuff under the rug, the Way's got a big broom. It makes sense they'd prefer to vandalize any memory of those who know anything different than the soppy pablum they prepretrate so perposterously it would make a Sloth break dance.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
methinks that the people who marked and avoided should have been the ones who should have been marked and avoided
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.