Talk:The Way International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Way International article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Archived talk 1 Archived talk 2 Archived talk 3 Archived talk 4Archived talk 5 Archived talk 6

Contents

[edit] What should stay and what should go? (external Links)

I think that we need a consensus on what we include on external links. I just deleted a link to a website that lists references to EW Bullinger. Interesting, but not really relevant. Maybe link it on the EW Bullinger article.

In my opinion, websites that discuss TWI, good or bad should be retained. For example, stanleygoodspeed just put in a link to a website reviewing TWI publications. Appropriate IMO. GreaseSpot Cafe on the negative side, also appropriate.

We've also got links to what are referred to as TWI splinter groups or offshoots. These I think should remain. I think that an offshoot should be defined as a group that has some historical continuity with TWI, for example, a limb leader leaves TWI and hangs out his own shingle, taking some or all of his TWI followers with him. There should also be some doctrinal connection with TWI teachings, even if they have changed over time. Examples of this would be CFF & CES/STFI. Should an ex-wayfer who runs a bible study somewhere be considered an offshoot? Not in my opinion. Should a website by an ex-wayfer promoting a book por some other endeavor be considered an offshoot? Also not in my opinion. An example of the latter might be the link to The Genesis Pursuit.

Any thoughts?Ten of Swords 14:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop posting multiple links to Family Tables? All the redundant links can be reached from the home page. Also, I suspect that the anonymous linker is Stanleygoodspeed...please identify yourself when you edit...thanks! Ten of Swords 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO the latest link should go. What does it have to do with TWI? Ten of Swords (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

- Family tables need not stay as it adds NO information IMOpinion.. greasespot HAS to stay though lol of course! Lsjzl (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think Family tables does add information. There is a section on TWI history and origins that balances Grease Spot and Messiah Lutheran...IMHO...I just object to additional links being added that turn out to be Family Tables under a misleading labelTen of Swords (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Movie Critic

Michael Elliot's Christian movie critic link keep getting posted. What does this have to do with TWI? If Joe Wayguy is a mechanic, do we post the website for his garage? C'mon, if someone disagrees, join the discussionTen of Swords (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

- Yeah, no need. Some links like these were pruned out a long time ago. Get RID of it! ;) Lsjzl (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verification and Citations?

I am very surprised to see that there is no list of citations or references at the end of this article. At the very least, the items that come from The Way: Living in Love should be properly marked and formatted, yes? With all of the information listed, quotations from Dr. Wierwille, practices past and present of TWI and so forth, surely there are some newspaper articles or other documentation or verification that can be specifically attributed to the various statements presented here to make this information more compliant with Wiki standards? LovelyLillith (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that Pete Snowball has most if not all the TWI publications, perhaps he can assist with getting some citations in here. I'll start doing my own digging, but I've got limited time. Ten of Swords (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I got started on a few things, but we need Pete or someone who has access to books to supply the rest of the citations. I'll scour around for some flks who may be helpfulTen of Swords (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that obtaining some of the material may be difficult, but if we have no attributable documentation for specific quotes, we shouldn't leave it in, which is why I've inserted more citation tags to any place that has a book reference. It can always be readded later. Also, some of the references don't have enough detail, such as the OK weather records - the first mention of "this day" regarding snow is too vague (which day?) and the actual link doesn't go to any factual weather table, simply a statement of "OK meteorological records". The plagiarism accusation simply links to a main page of that website, I didn't see the specific area in which the texts were compared. Linking to the facts of these items would be helpful. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the Oklahoma weather reports and I know I have the specific dates around here somewhere. Added back in reference to The Way: Living in Love since it referenced the book and the page number. I fixed the link on the plagiarism charges, it now links directly to the page with the side-by-side comparisons. Ten of Swords (talk)

[edit] Date of The Way's Founding

For contributor bfrank, Archived Talk 2 has a section where this is discussed. In short, no organization called "The Way" existed in 1942. Vesper Chimes/Chimes Hour Youth Caravan was begun by Wierwille in 1942 and incorporated in 1947. The Way uses 1942 to mark the beginning of their "ministry"; The Way was incorporated in 1955. This is why the article uses the wording "claims a date..." to maintain NPOV. Ten of Swords 02:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] date of The Way's founding (from the archives)

I noted in 2 places that TWI counts their incorporation as happening in 1942, with Wierwille's Vesper Chimes radio show(and added its later name, Chimes Hour). Other than Wierwille starting TWI and starting the radio show, they have virtually NOTHING in common. Further, the date of paperwork containing the name "The Way" seems to change depending on who's talking. (I'll provide some specifics when I find where I left them.) Previously, the listing stated that 1942 WAS TWI's start. Pete Snowball 13:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Way_International/Archive_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten of Swords (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also noted that on the Victor Paul Wierwille page the following:
"In 1942 he started the precursor to TWI, Vesper Chimes, which was a radio show broadcast from Lima, Ohio. He incorporated TWI in 1955, taking the name from Acts 9:2, which was used by early Christians."
The book "Born Again to Serve" by Dorothea Kipp Wierwille (ISBN 0-910068-79-8) says that "On June 12, 1955 the Board of Trustees submitted a resolution to the Board of Directors to amend and revise the constitution of The Way. Our original charter of incorporation had been filed Octorber 30, 1947, No 204759, with the Ohio secretary of state."

Not sure how this can be used but thought it would add to the conversation at least. Lsjzl 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems that there were several overlapping dates. Vesper Chimes/Chimes Hour Youth Caravan was operating for at least a decade while Wierwille was a working minster for several E&R Churches. There is no indication that Wierwille thought of it as a separate organization, more like a "youth ministry". If the original incorporation date of 1947 was correct, was it indeed incorporated as "The Way"? I can see Wierwille thinking ahead to an independent ministry at some point, since he was regularly teaching PFAL from 1952 or 53, and deeded the farm to "The Way" in 1955 while he was still an active minister in the E&R Church, which he did not leave until 1957.
For that matter, was The Way any more than a vehicle to promote PFAL before the influx of "members" in the late 60's and early 70's? It doesn't appear from reading Dorothea Wierwille's book that there was any kind of control over or accountability from non New Knoxville area groups who utilized PFAL before the filming of PFAL and the creation of the Way Corps. So founding dates are going to be open to interpretation.Ten of Swords 18:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just checked John Juedes' site: the information that he has shows that "The Chimes Hour Youth Caravan" was incorporated in 1947. Ten of Swords 22:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is why the wording is "claims a founding date" rather than "was founded". No organization called "The Way" existed from 1942 through 1955, nor did the "Way International" post 1955 resemble in any fashion a youth ministry radio program. Rather than speculate on Wierwille's motivation in back dating the founding date of "The Way", the article states when TWI says that it was founded while recognizing that it does not appear to an outside observer that it began in 1942.Ten of Swords 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Way East & The Way West

The source for this information, bfrank is Karl Kahler's book The Cult That Snapped, which contains interviews with Steve Heefner and Jimmy Doop, the founders of these groups.

For whatever reason, The Way West was incorporated separately and independently from The Way International and had its own Board of Trustees. Heefner & Doop ran PFAL but the money stayed within their organization other than fees and payments for classes & books. Heefner moved to Rye New York and founded The Way East.

At some point Wierwille convinced the other two members of the board of trustees of The Way West to vote Doop out and install Wierwille in his place. Heefner resigned before the same thing happened in The Way East. Wierwille then merged these groups with The Way International. A similar independent organization in Indiana merged voluntarily. Peter Wade's affiliated, independent organization in Australia resisted merger and remained independent, eventually severing ties with The Way International.

Other areas of "outreach" like Kansas and North Carolina were "branches" of The Way International from day one and were never independent.

Long story, but that's why the article is worded the way it is, they did not initially "incorporate with Wierwille". Ten of Swords 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martindale's "homosexual purge"

I undid the revision regarding more recent versions of "The Way of Abundance and Power". The section in which it occurs only refers to that class as part of the mention of Martindale's crusade against homosexuals, and is not primarily concerned with that class. Perhaps changes in WayAP could be mentioned in another subsection, or in the classes section.

Longley, are you a current Way member or leader? And does your revision mean that The Way no longer believes that the devil came into concretion as a woman and had lesbian sex with Eve or that it simply is no longer included in the WayAP class? Ten of Swords 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo Ten, I haven't taken the new class but have also not heard any teaching correcting that doctrine just that it isn't in the new Foundational. L8er Lsjzl 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks L; I got the same information from another source. If TWI had actually changed their doctrine, it would be worth mentioning IMO, but it just isn't brought up anymore.Ten of Swords

I reworded this section to remove unreferenced, potentially libelous statements attributed to Martindale in an effort to make it more NPOV. Per Wiki rules, any such statements attributed to a living person need to be referenced. The point of the section is that a "purge" occured due to the desire to get rid of homosexuals and sympathizers, not a teaching of concepts from various classes that have no listed references. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the letter from the site that was being used as a reference, redid some of the wording to correspond to what was actually in it, and reordered the paragraphs per timeline. I also again removed the "evil" definitions which neither appear in the letter nor have any references, as this section is regarding the purge itself, not class agenda. I will look up and fix the syntax of the letter reference, page no., etc. when I get a chance. LovelyLillith (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to meTen of Swords (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wierwille's Death

Is it even needed? I think it's appropriate to have it, but the information is ambiguous and doesn't really relate all that much to his death.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the way it's written is left over from an older version of this page where membership growth was immediately before Wierwille's death. Do you have any suggestions as to how it should be handled? Keep in mind we need to maintain an NPOV.Ten of Swords 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste from Wierwille's Wikipedia page, say LCM took over. That should be enough.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what's there is good enough. And this is off topic, but I heard from a friend in the Way that Way Corps was moving back to HQ. I don't have anything solid to prove the veracity of this for the article, but maybe you could manage to get something.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 02:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock of Ages/WOW Program

This may be nitpicking, but I reverted to wording that stated that "one of the purposes" of the Rock of Ages was to welcome home returning WOWs from "the original purpose..."

The first Rock of Ages is referred to in contemporary Way Magazines as "The Return of The Rock of Ages" and refers to the music portion of a weekend-long "Summer Advance" that capped that year's summer school program. At some point during the advance, Wierwille springs his idea of WOW Ambassadors, based on a pilot program spearheaded by Donnie Fugit and a handful of others that summer. Volunteers went home and came back later (October?) for their training and assignments.

It wasn't until the second Rock of Ages at the Sidney fairgrounds in 1972 that WOWs were welcomed "home".

I also reverted back to wording that described the WOW program as facilitating recruitment for TWI rather than as an evangelical program that's purpose was to "introduce people to Christ". I think that even those with the most sympathetic view of TWI would agree that "introducing people to Christ" was not what WOWs were doing.Ten of Swords 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult Accusations

It's not just fundamentalists who accuse TWI of being a cult. Not sure about the reference to Christian apologists either. I think we have an archived discussion about this. Ten of Swords 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Also I don't see how the original language was accusatory toward TWI's critics. Ten of Swords 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, it's not just fundamentalists - that's why I included mainstream Christianity as well. As far as Christian apologists - they've been calling TWI a cult since the 70's. Anytime you use the word "critics" it paints a negative picture.SkagitRiverQueen 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Spotlighting mainstrean Christianity or Christian apologists (whatever those are) implies that it is only those groups who see TWI as a cult. Maybe you'd like to propose some changes down in the Criticisms and cult allegations section?

I would agree to possibly changing "Critics" to "Some" to make the language more neutral, but I'm not convinced by your argument so far. And no, I am not involved in TWI

P.S. If you respond, put a colon before the beginning of your post, that will indent it to separate it from mineTen of Swords 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the wording without "critics" in it set for a few hours, and IMHO it's too wimpy without it. Cult status is not a given, it's an accusation by critics - obviously the group doesn't call itself a cult! A critic is one who criticizes, it's not in and of itself a negative term. Naturally the one being criticized will look askance at the critic.

I think leaving the mention of fundamentalists, apologists or whoever else you want to throw in there, leaves the impression that the cult label is affixed only for religious reasons, which it is not. Ten of Swords 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Spotlighting mainstrean Christianity or Christian apologists (whatever those are)"
If you took the time to go to the highlighted link to the Wiki article on Christian apologetics, you would know what a Christian Apologist is before you dismiss them.
"Cult status is not a given, it's an accusation by critics"
No, in Christianity, "cult status" is not an accusation, it's based on certain criteria (and usually determined by Christian and Biblical scholars as well as sociologists and psychologists). People who have PhD's after their names consider TWI a cult, yet you seem to believe you know better how TWI should be viewed and who is actually scrutinizing them. Maybe you should look up the article on cults as well to gain an understanding about something you don't appear to grasp.
"I think leaving the mention of fundamentalists, apologists or whoever else you want to throw in there, leaves the impression that the cult label is affixed only for religious reasons, which it is not."
Well of course it is! TWI presents itself as a Christian denomination (even though they deny being a denomination), yet they do not accept the very basic tenets of Christianity that would make them truly Christian in nature. You can't decide whether a pseudo-Christian cult is precisely that based on secular precepts! TWI is a religious group, ergo, it must be judged on it's religious merits.
And something else, Ten: it's really bad form, unfair, and completely inappropriate to try and hijack an article (as you appear to be doing with this one) just because you have spent alot of time editing it. Others who may have more knowledge of and/or personal experience with the subject matter can add to an article in a way someone else cannot. SkagitRiverQueen 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me start off by saying that it's not my intention to "hijack" this article. In the interest of full disclosure (which isn't required, but would probably help our dialog) I am an ex-TWI "member" (oops...ex-follower...okay...no more attempts at humor) and have no love for the organization. If you check back and look at the earliest versions of this article you'll see that initially it was a virtual commercial for TWI. Before I started editing, many people, including at least one current TWI member, several ex-members who are nostalgic for the good old days, and others who were antagonistic toward TWI (in other words a good cross section of views) hammered out the basic structure of this article. Much of what actually bears my stamp was really a consensus arrived at with several others. This doesn't mean that what's here is sacrosanct, just that some work went into it. And consensus among various viewpoints.

Secondly, I did read the Christian apologists link and I apologize for the snide remark (oops...humor again...sorry) - I'm just missing what it has to do with anything. Maybe I need to re-read it. Which I will.

Lastly, let's look at your statement to me about cults:

No, in Christianity, "cult status" is not an accusation, it's based on certain criteria (and usually determined by Christian and Biblical scholars as well as sociologists and psychologists).

I'd be interested in what your POV is on this. Are we going to determine what's a cult and what's not? If so, then that's certainly not NPOV. "Cult" is a pejorative, not a neutral description. Mormons are listed in some of the cult books and left out of others, and I'm sure that they're not a cult in Utah! And by the way, have you noticed that there's a lot of areas of disagreement among Christians on many topics? Which "expert" shall we rely on for our doctrinal purity?

People who have PhD's after their names consider TWI a cult, yet you seem to believe you know better how TWI should be viewed and who is actually scrutinizing them.

Some of those PhD's do, sure. Can you find anywhere that I said that TWI isn't a cult? I personally believe that it is. But that is not NPOV. Your statement utilizes the logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" - where the "wise man" is referred to as the ultimate authority without fully developing the premise.


Maybe you should look up the article on cults as well to gain an understanding about something you don't appear to grasp.

Oh, I grasp it just fine. Thank you though.

Well of course it is!

Statements that begin with "of course" are often followed by unsupported assertions.

TWI presents itself as a Christian denomination (even though they deny being a denomination), yet they do not accept the very basic tenets of Christianity that would make them truly Christian in nature. You can't decide whether a pseudo-Christian cult is precisely that based on secular precepts! TWI is a religious group, ergo, it must be judged on it's religious merits.

This is where we disagree. TWI, based on its doctrines may be described as "heretical" (we had a big argument about that on the discussion page) or "unorthodox" based on set religious principles. The definition of "cult" varies depending on who you talk to; to some it is, as you say, a deviation from the religious norm, to others it describes a group that practices a set of destructive or abusive behaviors. Since you referred me to the article on cults, you know that there is more than one definition of the word "cult" and disagreement on who it applies to.

Just trying to keep it all NPOV. Ten of Swords 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Just trying to keep it all NPOV"
I do believe you are, however, with the characteristic fervor of your fellow ex-Wayfers (as well as those still in TWI), you appear to be throwing out the baby with the bath water. TWI has critics, certainly, but in a media environment (like Wiki, like the press) using the word "critics" paints a negative picture and not one of a NPOV in this case. Your original insistance that "critics" was appropriate to use smelled of a hypersensitive, over-protective and defensive Wayfer, IMO.
"The definition of "cult" varies depending on who you talk to; to some it is, as you say, a deviation from the religious norm, to others it describes a group that practices a set of destructive or abusive behaviors"
Yes, the definition does vary, but since in this case we are talking specifically about a religious group, and since religion is the basis for the group's existence, I don't see how you can deny the appropriateness of stating that those who study religious cults and their practices should not be noted! If TWI was not a religiously based organization, then the reference to Christian apologetics would not be as pertinent. But it's like you're trying to ignore the proverbial two-ton elephant in the room... What TWI does is practice spiritual abuse, which is a whole different pathology and etiology than non-religious cults. Rick Ross is a good example of someone who has alot of knowledge about cults in general, but does not speak get the pseudo-Christian cults like a Christian "insider" would. Do you see my point? SkagitRiverQueen 00:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

Added a subsection so it's easier to edit!

As comfortable as it may be to put me in a box, might I request that you don't? ; - ) We all have our biases, perhaps between your bias and mine we can reach a consensus.

I would be glad to work with you rather than against you henceforth.

Regarding your two main points:

  • I don't deny the role that an out-of-the-mainstream religious doctrine plays in making TWI a cult; however most of TWI's doctrines can be found in other places without the abuse, IMHO the way you worded your statement implied that what made TWI a cult was its minority religious beliefs. There are groups out there that are offshoots of TWI that are pretty harmless, while teaching many of the same things.
  • I still object to changing the wording from having the cult designation being a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.

Frankly, I've worked hard to keep this article from reverting to a TWI commercial, and the characterization of me as a hypersensitive, over-protective and defensive Wayfer is mite offensive. But I'll assume that you didn't mean it that way and move on.

And no, I'm not at all interested in discussing "where [I] stand now on Christianity, [my] spiritual beliefs, and what part TWI's/VPW's teachings play in [my] life today", but I appreciate the interest. Ten of Swords 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling a group a cult is an opinion. Sure PhD's, theologians and "experts" have their reasons why some groups should be classified as cults, but their reasons come from a certain POV that is far from neutral. Keeping it NPOV requires that we present both sides. I recall a textbook from Bob Jones University that my ex-wife had purchased for our home-school curriculum, it described Catholoicism as a "false religion". Obviously the Catholics would disagree. A Catholic school textbook would probably speak less than glowingly about Martin Luther. as far as deleting references to cults or beliefs that are outside the mainstream: the purpose of this article isn't to present a whitewashed, sanitized view of The Way. Cult allegations and citations of deviations from orthodoxy are legitimate. Marc Remillard 19:43, 28

September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cult Section (Again)

I've put in a blurb that states SOME denominations consider TWI a cult, and some of the reasons why THEY believe this, as well as grouped the items under headings. Regardless of whether or not TWI actually is or was a cult, some do perceive it this way and explanation is necessary, including the deprogramming that was done to some because of the fear of the families who believed this. I am not aware of the beliefs other than religious for this labeling, so if someone knows specific non-doctrinal material for cult allegations to put under a subheading, please do. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the reference to deprogramming, however, doctrinal difference is not the only barometer of cult status. One of the others is abuse, mind control and other practices that have nothing to do with doctrine. There are TWI splinter groups in existance that teach virtually the same things that TWI does, without the attempts at control. Messiah Lutheran has some insight on this. Ten of Swords (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So I restored the intro on definitions of cults with its reference to Messiah Lutheran and left your other changes/additions. I'll work up a subsection when I have timeTen of Swords (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to provide information about TWI itself, not give a definition of a cult, which as we conclude, can be in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent anyway - if you have examples of accusations of mind control, abuse, etc. specifically relating to The Way, please put them in the subheadings. We may be better served by putting in a link to the main Cult article in Wiki for those who want more info on cults in general, instead of trying to explain it here ("see 'Cults' for more information"). As far as Messiah Lutheran and Greasespot, these are already mentioned under the first subheading.LovelyLillith (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I'd like to see it remain there until I can add in the specific accusations of abuse and maybe provide a link to the cult page. Cult accusations are part of relevant information on TWI, and leaving the impression that they are simply doctrinal disagreements leaves the article incomplete. But you do bring up a good point and I'll be working on it207.91.61.98 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Ten of Swords (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
And since you've already deleted the section (I checked the discussion page before looking at your change in the article) I went ahead and added a few of the specific non-doctrinal cult allegations and references. It's far from complete, but it should suffice until I can flesh it out a bit more.
I was trying to multi-task earlier, so the editing is a bit clumsy...sorry allTen of Swords (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cross

"However, archaeological evidence and historical records indicate that Roman executions by crucifixion were frequently done by using a cross beam fastened to a vertical pole, supporting the traditional image of the cross as being "T-Shaped"." << Was removed. Why? This is not a place to debate their theology.. sheesh. Should I go edit all the religions I don't agree with. I also move that some of the belief section needs to be edited down. A little too much on a not too huge group perhaps? Lsjzl (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah c'mon...no debating in the article! ; - ) - spoilsport! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten of Swords (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The article compares the historical [TWI] version of the cross, as against the "traditional t-shaped cross". Anyone on a trip to Israel today will see the historical [TWI] version of the cross displayed in many missions located there that teach ancient customs. galenyoung —Preceding comment was added at 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point that Lsjzl was making was that the article is not the place to debate TWI teachings and that inserting rebuttals after every statement is not according to wiki standards. The use of the word "traditional" to describe the "T" shaped cross in the article is appropriate because it is the the cross image that most people think of. Rightly or wrongly TWI presented an alternative image to the traditional one. As far as "historical" goes, most neutral articles, including the wikipedia article on crucifixion, state that there were "crosses" of several different shapes.Ten of Swords (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other theological differences

Sorry, the "but they are wrong" parts cannot stay. The Way teaches this, it isn't an article on errors of the way doctrine. Nor is there a good enough reason to spend time "refuting" their beliefs.

The following were removed:

"While all of these terms can be found in the Bible, nowhere can all five be found together, nor are they called anywhere called "rights"."

The Cry of Triumph section, though not seemingly asked for, at least has more info. (ps. it was not touched)

Also, I am not sure why the section says: "contains many of the beliefs and doctrines that set TWI doctrine apart from mainstream Christianity" yet contains a section on a belief that the bible is the word of God.. (wow not very mainstream huh?) Lsjzl (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to come back and play, I'm game for working with you at reworking the "beliefs" section...Ten of Swords (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
haha! Sometimes I forget about this page then come back. You seem to be doing quite a good job.. I mean.. hrm. Maybe I need to check on how much detail is on other pages. (Then again we don't do Wikipedia by copying other pages) I don't want to edit down too much to be seen as an insider "getting rid" of odd theology..yet I wonder if it is REALLY all needed. Lsjzl (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I kind of miss your input L. Lately I've become more of a watchdog against folks on both extremes putting in things like "Wierwille was a pedophile" or sub-literate verbal farts like "The Way are an evel kult" on one hand and remarks straight from the TWI website on the other. A lot of my edits are an honest attempt to make the article readable and NPOV, and frankly, it's not easy to keep the NPOV when I'm the only consistant editor. That's where the consensus of differing points of view helps.
What I look for when presenting TWI theology is to be as non-judgemental as possible, while not glossing over the reality that they are out of the mainstream at the least. For example, a statement like "The Way teaches that God is not a three-part being and therefore does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, but they are wrong, II Julius 12:6 says otherwise" just inserts a theological argument into the article, the Trinity (or lack of it) is far from a settled doctrine within Christianity, no matter what either side says. However, I think that the recently deleted statement: "While all of these terms can be found in the Bible, nowhere can all five be found together, nor are they called anywhere called "rights"."Is a different animal altogether because it points out that not everything in TWI doctrine is a straight reading of the bible. A possible alternative might be to prune down the section of TWI beliefs to a bullet-point list, without any reasoning or scripture backup, letting the reader draw his/her own conclusions. This would cut out not only the statements such as the ones you deleted, but also the short explanations of why TWI believes a certain doctrine, the justification for it.
I'm also considering taking out the timeline, it seemed like a good idea when I put it in, but it looks kind of clunky the more I see of itTen of Swords (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I pruned the "Beliefs" section, taking out not only some of the "rebuttal" statements, but also the explanations and justifications pro-TWI and anti-TWI.

[edit] Archives

I've started a couple of new archive pages to dump the topics that have sat idle for a while or have been resolved through consensus. Ten of Swords 01:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Palms of God

It's been awhile since I've been here, but I've been doing further research on The Way's beliefs. Over the next 2-3 months I will try to submit 2-5 more beliefs that stand out from orthodox Christianity. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stanley - Could you please review the recent exchange between Lsjzl and myself? Lsjzl, like yourself is a current TWI "member" and took exception to some of the "yeah, but TWI is wrong" sections in the article. In short, a TWI doctrine was stated with a remark as to why it was lacking in some way. Lsjzl pointed out that the article was not for debating TWI doctrine. I agreed in principle, but pointed out that neither is the article the place to propound TWI doctrine. The consensus was that TWI beliefs and doctrines could be listed, but that we would refrain from explaining those beliefs, in other words, not turning sections of the article into "mini-teachings". The description shopuld be complete enough so that a reader is clear about what the belief actually is, but that neither scriptural backup nor scriptural rebuttal would be inserted.
In light of this, I'm asking that you reconsider your recent addition.
ThanksTen of Swords (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I just re-read your newest addition. I believe the main point that you are making is already contained within the subsection "Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost". The new section doesn't really add anything substantive. Ten of Swords (talk)

12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

After letting it set for a day I merged your newest section with an existing section that makes the same point. After all the point of the "Palms of God" and the verse on "adoption of children" is to illustrate the belief that eternal life, aka the spirit, born-again status, etc. cannot be lost or revoked, which had already been made. I added some of your wording to the "Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost" section, but deleted the scripture references and brief explanation. IMHO stating what the belief or doctrine is is sufficient. If we go back to "mini teachings" and explanations of why TWI (or the editor) thinks a certain doctrine is correct the door is open for scriptural refutations or rebuttals of TWI beliefs as well. Ten of Swords (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

09:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we compromise and leave the section where you first put it? It details one of TWI's core beliefs and shows why they believe that. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS : I am now in a discussion with a current TWI member on the topic of "Remission" and should have a 2 paragraph submission on that subject by mid-April. Also, I might submit another 2 or 3 paragraph section on TWI's doctrine of "Scripture interprets itself" by June or July. That would be 21 TWI beliefs covered ... probably enough, but definitely not more than 25. That would allow for 2 submissions in 2009 and 2 in 2010. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly Stanley, if you really think that the explanation should stand, I'm going to go back to adding in "rebuttal" remarks on all of TWI's teachings. Do I think that's a good idea? Not really, but nor do I think that adding scriptures to justify their positions is what this article needs either. In my opinion what you're doing is going beyond "here's what they believe" to "here's why it's right" - I think that your remark in discussion "...and shows why they believe that" indicates that we disagree on how this should proceed. Again, if doctrines are going to be "supported" by scripture, in effect saying they're right, then other scriptures refuting their positions should also be inserted.
As far as compromise goes, I believe that merging the two topics and changing the wording to accomodate your wording was a compromise!
Finally, do you really think that "Palms of God" is a major TWI doctrine? Do you think we should add in every chapter from "The Bible tells Me So"? I doubt that you actually do, but think about it, do we need chapters on "When Judas Hanged Himself", "Study Be Diligent" and "The Lord's Brethren"?
It sure is ... I've heard it quoted from TWI members 30 or 40 times over the years ... I'd put it in their Top 10 core beliefs. "When Judas Hanged Himself", "Study Be Diligent" and "The Lord's Brethren" ... hell no, the only one of those I've ever heard of more than once is "Study Be Diligent" ... none of those come close to being a core belief. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
(Okay that last one wasn't really final) - And your proposal to add two more sections, 2 - 3 paragraphs each, on "remission" and "scripture interprets itself". C'mon Stan, are we turning this back into a TWI commercial?Ten of Swords (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think stating 21-25 TWI beliefs is a reasonable goal over the next 2 1/2 years ... this Wikipedia entry is #2 on the Yahoo! search engine, getting well over a hundred hits on a lot of days. That means literally thousands of people are coming to this entry to get information about TWI ... and I think they come here in large part because of the "Beliefs" section. It would go a long way towards establishing peace between me and you if you put that section back in, but I'm not going to push too hard for it right now ... when I've nailed down their 25 core beliefs then I might be a little more passionate about it.
"Remission" and "scripture interprets itself" are HUGE TWI beliefs ... they've had several magazine articles on the details of remission (which are unique to non-denominational Christianity) over the years and they have a MONTHLY section on "scripture interprets itself". Those would be excellent sections to have included. Have a good one, Ten. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 09:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I'd like to suggest to avoid a battle of opinions between you and I: let's post possible additions here first. I did this last year when I was doing some pruning and condensing and it seemed to work well. Post what you want in its entirety and let's discuss it. I've contacted a few people who have edited here in the past and asked that they start getting involved again, I'd like to see their input as well.
"Let's post possible additions here first" ... that'll work. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
One of our points of disagreement that I'd like to bring you around on is your tendency to explain why TWI believes a certain way, in effect turning a section into a mini-teaching. This involves citing scripture and stating their rationale for interpretingt it a certain way. Here's why I think that doing it that way is not NPOV:
  • It gives the impression that the TWI POV is the correct one by citing an "authority" (the bible)- oftentimes other scriptures can be cited to "prove" an opposing view
  • Giving supporting documentation is in effect doing TWI's job for them. I'm all for stating their beliefs and even pointing out how they differ from mainstream Christianity, but it's not the job of a NPOV article to bolster one group's theology.
  • Supporting or documented the "why's" of a belief opens the door to rebuttal and refutation, turning the article into a debate.
The "why" seems even more important than the "what" ... what they believe is important, but the why is the heart of what someone who is investigating, or has questions about, The Way is after ... why do they believe this dogma here, and that assertion there. Including that makes Wikipedia the most qualilfied and unique source of information about TWI on the net. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding remission and self-interpreting scripture. Okay, I'll stipulate that they are huge. The fact that they believe that the scripture interprets itself is already in there. All you need for "remission" is a simple statement.
"Scripture interprets itself is already in there" ... yeah, I missed that. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep in mind that we don't all have the same opinion about what constitutes "information" about TWI; it could easily include rationales on why their beliefs are heretical, unorthodox, non-Christian, or cultish. NPOV Stanley. Have a good one yerself!Ten of Swords (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
NCPOV ... neutral and comprehensive, my man. Take it easy, bud. Stanleygoodspeed777 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Sections That Make TWI Look Bad

Somebody who hasn't been signing their edits has been deleting whole sections that reflect poorly on TWI. While I'm sure that those sections weren't perfect, how about a little discussion first? (and thanks to whoever has been going through and correcting the spelling!)Ten of Swords (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted an edit that changed "religious" group to "christian" group. The intro plainly states that TWI describes itself as a Christian group. "Religious" describes TWI accurately.Ten of Swords (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and how is it that at the bottom of the page it says that "The Myth of Six Million" book does not deny the holocaust, but on that wikipedia article it says it does? It is a little ridiculous that they would just come in and change it like that.164.107.199.234 (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

It would appear that a fair amount of article info seems biased against TWI, or at least to be coming from a non-neutral POV. Statements to let the reader know that the references (such as Karl Kahler, someone who is speaking from a negative personal experience, instead of a journalist's POV) are being made from those who may be more hostile (or favorable) toward TWI should be listed where appropriate, so the reader can take their perhaps less than neutral perspectives into consideration. This is why I put in the brief statement that he is ex-Way.LovelyLillith (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about I.D.ing Kahler as ex-Way.
I'd disagree with you about the information being biased, information is either true or false, documented or undocumented; but would concede that some of us editors are biased against TWI. In my opinion including information that paints TWI negatively balances the information that portrays TWI as nothing but wonderful and benevolant, resulting in an overall neutral point of view. I do appreciate your apparently disinterested POV that you bring to this article though, and can't argue with your admonition to cite sources. Ten of Swords (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of quotation marks

Hey, I have been taking out a plethora of quotation marks in the beliefs sections. I understand that the way has many wayisms that merit them, but i do not feel that "manifestations of the holy spirit" was that hard of a thing to grasp for non-wayfers.Dafhgadsrhadjtb (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I haven't looked at all of your edits, but it's my feeling that the quaotations may be overdoneTen of Swords (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore... Eternal life cannot be lost "Once a person is saved, or born again, he cannot lose the spirit through any sinful acts since it is eternal life. They have established an eternal relationship with God whereby they communicate and interact with Him as a son or daughter to a father. A principle called "renewing your mind" is taught as a way for a person to discipline his thoughts and actions in alignment with the Bible. "

I felt that everything in this sub-section had nothing to do with the topic, save for the first sentence, so I got rid of it. I suggest making another topic to discuss the doctrine that was lost. Also, is there really a need to use so many wayisms in this article? I understand that if youve talked to one, youve talked to em all, but i think that many of those terms need to be replaced with their understandable equivalents.Dafhgadsrhadjtb (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It is my feeling that the sections should be bref and to the point. The awkward wording on theat section was the result of a tug-of-war between Stanleygoodspeeed and myselfTen of Swords (talk)

[edit] Seven Administrations

I realized I'd perhaps not added enough explanation on this edit and some of the others I did throughout the section. IMO, the entire section contextually is about The Way's POV when explaining its doctrines, so additional statements of "The Way believes ____" are redundant, which is why I've removed them. Also, The Way is not the only group which believes in multiple administrations/dispensations - see this link for some examples. http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1627 LovelyLillith (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catchTen of Swords (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)