Talk:The Way International/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Way International
I am very curious about the various editors' relationships to or experiences with TWI as it seems these must be strongly influencing this conversation. As a newer member of this discussion, is this something which would or should be disclosed here or would I be better to ask each of them privately?. AlanMcL 00:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You may ask them privately if you wish. However, it is relatively easy to determine all sorts of things about the various editors by reviewing the discussion page, and the edits they've performed or reverted. Pete Snowball 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate question is: should former officials of TWI- say, those who have held Limb Coordinator status or higher- excuse themselves from editing due to inherent impartiality? For example, if someone took over the state of Texas in 1989 when LCM fired the state's leader? It is very easy, after having climbed the ladder that high, to miss when one is attempting to be accurate, but is accidentally adding a bias to the edits...Pete Snowball 10:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Good question, Pete; but we ALL bring our biases here, I admit that I have them, I would guess that you do as well. However some folks do a better job of presenting information from a neutral perspective than others. Ten of Swords 16:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think more recent edits have proven I have a legitimate point about people who've taught Sunday Night Services and their inability to maintain a degree of neutrality.... Any chance he'll dialogue with us here, or do you think he'll just do a bunch of editing and leave?Pete Snowball 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we've a few more editors wanting to turn this article into a TWI commercial again. Ten of Swords 03:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Check out the revert I had to do on the American Christian Press article.. both sides were rather blatant. I can't believe it lasted for so long! Lsjzl 23:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) I did...wow! Ten of Swords 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Beliefs and Practices
While I think it's important that the basic doctrines of The Way are outlined here, to give readers an idea of what The Way is; I think that incluidng the "adoption of children" section is a bit obscure. The "5 Gift Ministries" section IS relevant IMHO since it connects to their whole theory of leadership. Unless we're going to print summaries of every segment of PFAL, why is 'adoption of children" included?Ten of Swords 14:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
So, Stanley, is this article going to be a recap of PFAL? I can see why the major doctrinal points are invluded, but it looks like you're getting into a very detailed synopsis of everything Wierwille taught.
Just curious (for now)Ten of Swords 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
TWI's been specific about speaking in tongues being the SOLE proof of salvation. (This is not the same as saying that only those who speak in tongues are saved-which some members have held, but was never released as an official policy that I'm aware of.) I restored that phrasing. If someone has a reason to remove it, they're welcome to TELL US. Pete Snowball 18:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The current leadership maintains that speaking in tongues is an "undeniable" proof of the new birth. Everyone I have ever spoken with from TWI has specifically said that people can be born-again WITHOUT speaking in tongues. Even Dr. Wierwille in PFAL said you can "dechomai" the gift of holy spirit (subjectively receive it) or "lambano" it (objectively manifest it in a way that others can see). Stanleygoodspeed777 05:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And VPW always said it was the SOLE proof. These 2 comments are not contradictory to each other. Was there a point you were making here?Pete Snowball 19:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Nature of Jesus
"They also maintain that the 19 prayers Jesus Christ prayed in the Gospels prove that he is an individual distinct from God and not God himself." - Is this from the book or something? Obviously I can't know everything that is maintained obviously but just wondered where this is from? Thanks! Lsjzl 23:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
How Much is Enough?
I'd like to discuss how much information we should have in each of the "Beliefs and Practices" subsections.
While I think that it's important that the areas where TWI differs from mainstream, or orthodox Christianity are highlighted and that these ideas are presented in a neutral fashion, i.e. not spinning them as either "truth" or "heresy", some of the subsections are like mini "teachings". I hasten to add that the person who added them to the article did a good job of retaining a NPOV, so that's not the issue.
An example of what I'm talking about are the subsections on tithing, gift ministries, adminstrations and sonship rights. There's just too much. Examples of what I would consider good, concise subsections are "The Dead Are Dead" and "Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost". The point is made without belaboring it.
I'd like to get some consensus on this, rather than wholesale deletions.Ten of Swords 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for that. The article is just too long in a sense but I see what you mean about consensus. Don't want to remove things just to shorten them, but is all the info needed? Gotcha. Lsjzl 19:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC) One avenue that could be considered to resolve the problem is to start a new article devoted just to the doctrine of TWI and present in this article an NPOV summary of the doctrine. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Here are a few suggestions for shortening the subsections without diluting the meaning of the Way-specific beliefs and without making a "teaching" out of itTen of Swords 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested shortening: "The Nature of Jesus Christ":
The Way teaches that Jesus Christ had no existence before birth except in the mind of God. That though Jesus was a perfect sinless man, he was only a man, not God.
Wierwille asserted that God and Jesus Christ are separate, independently-thinking entities who are literally father and son. He holds that Jesus Christ did not exist until God created a fertilized egg in Mary's womb and that he did not have any consciousness until she gave birth to him.
Regarding the Holy Spirit, Wierwille taught that there was a distinction between "The Holy Spirit" and "holy spirit". The former refers directly to God the Father while the latter refers to an emanation or power from God (a.k.a. "the gift of holy spirit").Ten of Swords 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Sweet. Not that I am the be-all end-all of Way knowledge but that 19 prayers thing always struck me as an odd thing to point out. It almost felt like including it meant it was a HUGE section of Way belief. Lsjzl 14:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC) DoneTen of Swords 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Shortening: "Four Crucified With Christ":
The Way teaches that Jesus was raised on Saturday and that there were four people crucified with Him, not two. Wierwille points out different Greek words were used for those crucified with Jesus in the different gospel accounts, as well as discrepancies in timing, statements, and actions of the characters in the narrative.Ten of Swords 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
koolLsjzl 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC) DoneTen of Swords 21:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Combining of "The Gathering Together" and "The Dead Are Dead" - Death & Resurrection
Only those born-again (i.e., believers who lived after Pentecost) will be gathered together with Jesus Christ upon his return. Everyone who died before the day of Pentecost (including the men and women of the Old Testament), everyone who has lived after Pentecost and are not born-again, and those who live in the tribulation period will be raised in the "Resurrection of the Just" or the "Resurrection of the Unjust". Until that time the dead are not conscious or in any way "alive" until the resurrections or "gathering together". Ten of Swords 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Again. Nice work Tennnnnnnnnnnn! Lsjzl 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) DoneTen of Swords 21:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested shortening of "Tithing"
The Way teaches tithing (giving 10% of one's income) as a minimum requirement of giving. Additional giving is called "abundant sharing". An additional term, "plurality giving", was coined to refer to calculating the amount of money you need to live on, and giving all the rest. Ten of Swords 03:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought about mentioning that neither tithing nor abundant sharing was required, but that it was strongly encouraged as a condition of participation. Technically you could particiapte to some degree without giving, but practically you couldn't. Thoughts?Ten of Swords 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC) As much as I hate the phrase, wasn't tithing considered one of those "check up from the neck up" things? So yeah, though not required and yes I do know some who don't give "faithfully" but still attend and are in semi-leader positions... to not ever tithe would be seen as not "believing (acting on) God's word". It's odd to write out. The official line is that they don't keep track (in terms of knowing how much you gave and how it has been 3 weeks or 4 or 5 or 6 or 17 since you last gave) but in a sense you are going to notice that someone hasn't when you fill out the tax forms etc. People as individuals are different than an organization. So yeah I agree basically then with what you mean there. Lsjzl 16:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC) My experience was that if you weren't putting enough money in the horn o' plenty to at least look like you were giving 10%+ you were hounded by "leadership". But that was my own experience, and I doubt that I can document that it was an official policy that one "had to" abundantly share. Maybe this:
There was no "official" requirement to tithe or abundantly share, but the concept was strongly promoted, and those who didn't were not considered to be "doing the Word". Wierwille included his booklet on abundant sharing, "Christians Should Be Prosperous", in his foundational class materials. Martindale frequently promoted increasing one's proportion of giving in Sunday Teachings.Ten of Swords 18:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Done...but would not object to the last part being removed or changedTen of Swords 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
How about combining "Manifestations" and "Speaking in Tongues"? - Manifestations of Holy Spirits/Speaking in Tongues
The Way teaches that there are nine "manifestations of holy spirit" (not "gifts" as other denominations describe them) and that every Christian has the inherent ability to operate all nine. These "manifestations" are listed in 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 King James Version. The Way maintains that speaking in tongues energizes and enables the "effectual operation" of the other 8 manifestations.
According to Wierwille, speaking in tongues is " ... the believer's external manifestation in the senses world of the internal reality and presence of the power of the holy spirit". According to The Way, speaking in tongues can only be interpreted in a meeting where other believers are present and can never be interpreted in a believer's private prayer life. Numerous benefits that derive from speaking in tongues are taught. Ten of Swords 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I pretty much mean "condense" every place I've said "shorten" ; - ) Ten of Swords 16:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC) DoneTen of Swords 21:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Condensed "5 Gift Ministries"
The Way teaches that there are five "gift ministries", or abilities of service, that Jesus Christ gave to the Church. They derive their list of "ministries" (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) from Ephesians 4:11, although the exact term "gift ministries" is not found in the bible. The Way holds that these five "abilities of service" are inherent capabilities in every believer, and are gifts from God to the church.Ten of Swords 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DoneTen of Swords 22:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggested Condensed 7 Administrations
The Way teaches that there are seven administrations, or distinct periods of time governed by certain promises and commands God has given Man at key points in history. Therefore there are parts of the bible that are written to us in this "administration" and other parts that are not, but are "for our learning".Ten of Swords 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DoneTen of Swords 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion for condensed "Sonship Rights"
The Way teaches that every Christian has five basic rights as sons and daughters of God. These fundamental rights are righteousness, redemption, justification, sanctification, and the ministry of reconciliation. Ten of Swords 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
DoneTen of Swords 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Combine Eternal Life Cannot Be Lost" with "Adoption of Children"?
The whole section on "adoption of children" is really an extention of the belief that eternal life cannot be lost, wouldn'tcha say?Ten of Swords 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The Way also teaches that once a person is saved, he cannot lose the spirit through any sinful acts since it is eternal life. 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. To illustrate this The Way refers to the "adoption of children" spoken of in Ephesians 1:5 which they teach is a reference to a Roman law stating that biological children could have their inheritance revoked, but adopted children could not (see : Adoption in Ephesians and Galatians, Ref. #30)their fathers could never (and most would never) take their inheritance away (because of the sacrifice, cost, and love invested in making them legally their own). They maintain that this verse says that once a person is born-again they can never lose eternal life. They assert that rewards can be lost, but not eternal life.Ten of Swords DoneTen of Swords 22:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Combine "Death & Ressurection" with "Heaven & Paradise"?
Only those born-again (i.e., believers who lived after Pentecost) will be gathered together with Jesus Christ upon his return. Everyone who died before the day of Pentecost (including the men and women of the Old Testament), everyone who has lived after Pentecost and are not born-again, and those who live in the tribulation period will be raised in the "Resurrection of the Just" or the "Resurrection of the Unjust". Until that time the dead are not conscious or in any way "alive" until the resurrections or "gathering together". Regarding Luke 23:43 ...And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise." The Way teaches that it is more accurately translated, "Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise." (Note the placement of the comma) They point out that the resurrections of the just and the unjust, as well as the gathering of the Church to Christ, are still future events. Ten of Swords 23:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
DoneTen of Swords 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Darby and his dispensationalism
I don't recall ever hearing Darby mentioned nor ever seeing him noted in any Way written materials. While I don't doubt that his "dispensationalism" and Wierwille's differ, did TWI "reject" Darby?Ten of Swords 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I took out the sentence, since it neither explained what it meant by any teaching of Darby's, nor "apocalyptic dispensationalism" (nor that that's supposed to mean), nor where they disagree. The subject of Darby's teachings is relevant to an article on Darby or his teachings, and no connection between that and this article was ever drawn. Thus the idea that TWI "rejected" Darby or this other subject are SPECULATION, AND is IRRELEVANT to this article. Furthermore, it's sometimes popular to attribute to Darby doctrines which he NEVER taught, which means invoking his name is often an attempt to insult or operate misdirection. So, I see many reasons to leave them out of this article. If someone can answer ALL my objections, they're welcome to do so, and we'll see if there really IS some relevance to it-otherwise, it seems thrown in.Pete Snowball 13:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing Unflattering Comments
Suspending of the ROA because of at least a suspicion of sexual activities among the teenagers was stated by Martindale himself to be one of his reasons...so why take it out? The same with the allegations of sexual misconduct. True, these allegations have never seen the inside of a courtroom, but it's indisputable that the allegations themselves contributed to the change in Presidency of TWI. I agree with the restoration of these comments because they are demonstrable reasons for change within TWI.
Regarding the allegations of "love bombing" - THE GROUP was alleged to participate in this, not just "some" in the group. So, the allegations initially appeared in the 70's...do they not continue to this day? If so, why take them out?Ten of Swords 19:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, assuming you count infidelity with a married parishioner as "sexual misconduct" (which many people would) then there are not just allegations of Martindale's sexual misconduct but admissions by Martindale. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
NPOV regarding motivations for late 80's split
Whether it was true or not, Chris Geer's "Passing of the Patriarch" made allegations of an unbiblical direction and lack of biblical leadership by Martindale. Removing references to the "oath of allegience", painting those who left as not wanting to "stand with Martindale" and being a hinderance to "the ministry", is skewing the POV toward Martindale. A NPOV does not assume that either side was/is right.Ten of Swords 19:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Removing Unflattering Doctrinal References
If we're going to turn this article into a PFAL recap...listing doctrine after doctrine, why are the "kookier" ones being edited out? (Thanks Feldspar for restoring) - by "kookie" I mean things like original sin = masturbation or lesbian sex with the Devil...these were things that were being taught, and certainly fall under the category of "controversial"
Wierwille's assertion that adoptions could not be reversed under Roman law has not been substantiated, so it is merely Wierwille's opinion. I googled Roman adoption law and could find no reference to it being irreversible. The qualifier "...that Wierwille said..." should remain.
While it is correct that Wierwille did some of his own Aramaic research (members of his former research team may credit him to less than many think) and Wierwille DID make the statements about "lama" and "lmana" in his class, why would the pointing out of a disagreement between two of TWI's published works be edited out?
Wierwille's teaching about the original sin of mankind was well known within TWI, and recorded in the class "Christian Family & Sex". Why was it deleted?
Martindale's teachings about "without form and void" and the original sin of mankind are also recorded in his Way of Abundance & Power (WayAP) class. Ten of Swords 19:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Roman Adoption (Good example of taking Wierwille's word for it)
In the beliefs and practices section, the phrase adoption of children was explained according to Wierwille's teachings. He always taught that Roman adoption law prohibited reversing or annulling the adoption whereas a natural son COULD be disinherited. In searching a number of websites regarding Roman adoption I could find no reference to the adoption being necessarily permanant or irreversible, so the section was changed to indicate that Wierwille CLAIMED or STATED that it said that. This was still accurate since he did STATE that, but my change took it out of the realm of certainty.
One poster changed it back, Pete reverted it to my change.
This small change is a good example of how it's easy to cross the line between simply reporting what TWI taught and putting the stamp of truth on some of his unsubstantiated statements. If there is no evidence that Roman adoption law said what Wierwille said it said, why put it in the article as if there where? Ten of Swords 17:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed Stanley added 2 book titles and said these books supposedly supported this position. Given his previous history of inventing things, I consider that insufficient to believe those books say that-and further, I believe he just took someone else's word for it that they do so! So, Stanley, if you actually held the books in your hands, and they contain sentences supporting this very claim, kindly provide the PAGE #, chapter, and EXACT QUOTE. This way, I can check pretty quickly when I get these books in my hand, and either SUPPORT your claim, or REFUTE your claim, pretty quickly. "Because Stanley said so" is below the standard of Wikipedia, especially when he hasn't provided HOW he knows.Pete Snowball 12:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, it's all over the internet (try a search on Roman adoption law) and DOZENS, if not scores, of books that have been written about Roman law. I'll pick out 3 or 4 internet resources and put them in an edit this week or next. As for the exact page numbers in "Family and Familia in Roman Law and Life" and "The Brothers of Romulus: Fraternal Pietas in Roman Law, Literature, and Society" I can't remember ... it's in the 7th or 8th chapter of one and the 4th or 5th chapter of the other - it's been 5 or 6 years since I read them (and it wasn't a comprehensive reading ... I was just looking for verification that the law existed). Stanleygoodspeed777 15:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC) "Stanley, I DID do the search that you recommended before changing anything and missed ANY reference to adoption being irrevocable. If it's there and I missed it, please help me out and I'll back off. Ten of Swords 15:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)"
(I copied Ten's comment here, since he seemed to have typed it in the wrong area.) Pete Snowball 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So, Stanley, you made the edit based on something you claim to have read several years ago, and don't have access to now, and you're surprised that we're demanding a higher standard? Before editing this back into the article, put your documentation here FIRST so we can check it against the actual books, please, and save the trouble of just reverting the edit until that's done. Further, this whole thing was a tiny point in all the hours and hours of doctrine. I've NEVER heard such a fuss about it as you've made in this article. Wouldn't it make more sense just to leave it out, since it's not one of the "MAIN" doctrines of TWI? Unless you're planning on splitting off a separate article "Doctrines of TWI" where you'll discuss EVERY doctrine they teach, the fixation on this particular one seems fruitless.Pete Snowball 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving my comment Pete.
This has turned into a tempest in a teacup. It's a relatively minor point of TWI doctrine. If Wierwille had it right, it SHOULD be fairly easy to document. Ten of Swords 00:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Stanley: I see that you have posted a new reference and that it actually backs up your opinion! See, was that so hard?Ten of Swords 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you trying to do with the spacing? It looks fine to meTen of Swords 17:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The new reference clearly supports a claim that abrogation can't be revoked. However, are we discussing adoption or abrogation? http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/aulgell_5.19.shtml They don't appear to be IDENTICAL. And Wierwille himself said that things similar are not identical. Do the similarities between the two extend to this portion of the law? And is there evidence to support that? (BTW, I agree-nice to see some supporting evidence. Now we can have some intelligent dialogue.) I still want to know why this is so important to Stanley. Is there a set of people especially concerned with this doctrine (besides Stanley himself?) If so, then this gains relevance ...
Once adopted by a "paterfamilias" the inheritance cannot be revoked ... it's in the last line of the paragraph Adoption in Ephesians and Galations, Ref. #30. This scripture is a primary verse used to support the assertion that eternal life cannot be lost once saved. Stanleygoodspeed777 05:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If it's a "primary verse", how about giving us a citation of where it's used? A book, a tape, a reference on their website, something? This is news to a lot of us-pass the proof, please.Pete Snowball 19:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored the original title of this section because that was the POINT. VP Wierwille made a lot of statements that weren't, and sometimes couldn't be verified (for example the "old piece of literature" that supposedly said that illegitimate boys were bar-mitzvah'd at 12.)- many TWI members accepted what he said without question. We can put what he said into an article, but not give it a stamp of "factual" without verification - Pete's still got some issues with your citataion - why is "claimed' such a bad word?Ten of Swords 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
L.Craig Martindale
I took out a sentence saying that he "let" other people teach at events besides himself. It's ridiculously obvious. It would be worth noting if he REFUSED to let other people teach when dozens of people are supposed to take the podium, or at multiple locations simultaneously. EVERYBODY has other people do sermons or lessons SOME of the time! Is TWI supposed to be so substandard, LCM so miserable, that this needs to be stated outright? Pete Snowball 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need a section or subsection on Martindale? (See notes in the discussion on the structure of the article below) After all we do have a separate article on him and a link to it from this article. Maybe it needs to go...?Ten of Swords 17:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems common to have a few sentences on a subsection, and the link to the fuller article. We don't "need" a subsection on him, but a few lines would seem appropriate and sufficient. (That is, further expansion should be done on the main LCM article, and the current subsection may warrant trimming-down. Pete Snowball 22:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that a small subsection should remain, but that if we want to add any additional info it should go in the main article on LCMTen of Swords 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Current Member Sites
I added a notation to the Family Tables link. They're not ALLOWED to have non-current TWI members post there. (They got in trouble when they DID.) So I said as much. This will save any miscommunication when someone NOT a member tries to join because they saw the link here. Pete Snowball 12:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored the notation to the Family Tables link, and added one to the MySpace link. Both boards are rather specific-they DEMAND that all posters be current members of TWI, and ban even the most polite posters who are not, and delete their posts. Family Tables currently insists on an application for signing up, including considerable details of the person's location, fellowship leader, branch leader, and so on. The MySpace one, as far as I know, can't do that because of how MySpace is programmed, but I may be wrong. It is factual that they do these things. They have been discussed AT both boards. It has been discussed ABOUT both boards OFF those boards. Just because an editor here is poorly-informed on the subject does not limit the knowledge of the rest of us. That's one of the basic strengths of Wikipedia. Pete Snowball 18:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Unsubstantiated Allegations w/ an Anti-TWI POV
To say that allegations "continue to this day" is first, not accurate, and second, seems to be indicative of a recurring anti-TWI, anti-Wierwille POV (which just blows me away ... I've never seen or heard of a man more dedicated to studying and teaching the Bible and have never seen a ministry or church more in-depth in the biblical research behind what they teach - how you can have hostility and animosity towards this man and this group is just ... mind-boggling). (Written by Stanley.)
The allegations continue to this day, your lack of information on them notwithstanding. As to what is indicative, we've hewn to what can be PROVEN, since including the details of the people whose lives were supposedly destroyed by VPW HIMSELF and LCM HIMSELF are not appropriate for Wikipedia, whether true or not. We haven't been trying to sneak them in, either. You, however, have had little difficulty labelling TWI's doctrines as "the truth", calling official documents (like LCM's admissions he engaged in improper sexual activity) lies, deletion of DOCUMENTED things you don't like (such as teachings by VPW and LCM which don't cast them in a favorable light), and the like. When something we dislike is documented, we leave it there. When something you dislike is documented, you seek to delete it. Most people can see the difference.
Oh, and if you haven't "seen or heard of a man more dedicated to studying and teaching the Bible and have never seen a ministry or church more in-depth in biblical research behind what they teach", then I'd recommend getting around some. Do you REALLY want to know why we have "hostility and animosity"-or are determined to show that there's a negative side to his story- or don't you? I'm amazed you have been determined to not know ANY of the reasons-a quick websearch will show MANY of them.... Pete Snowball 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not Stanley, it is possible to present an NPOV on TWI while having a personal POV that is either for or against. I can readily admit that TWI taught tens of thousands, possibly as many as 100,000, in their PFAL class. But if you change one word you have this:
"TWI helped tens of thousands, possibly as many as 100,000, in their PFAL class" - which I would strongly disagree with, just as you would disagree with:
"TWI harmed tens of thousands, possibly as many as 100,000, in their PFAL class"
So we stay with the original, which is factually true. It doesn't matter if you have never "seen or heard of a man more dedicated to studying and teaching the Bible and have never seen a ministry or church more in-depth in biblical research behind what they teach", and it doesn't matter what I think.
At times Wierwille made statements that he did not document. Many TWI followers were fine with that and took his word for it. In their personal lives that's fine, but not in compiling a NPOV article. Ten of Swords 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
What are called the "Way paparazzi" really don't have an NPOV point of view. They're mad because of something one individual did to them 20 years ago (or even just because of something they read (about TWI) that has no bearing on their own life) and then they spend half their life "throwing bricks at the lighthouse". That's not really a credible POV. What is the CURRENT leadership speaking and teaching? THAT should be the primary focus of an article about The Way International. Stanleygoodspeed777 05:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Who uses "Way Papparrazzi" besides you, Stanley? I disagree that the article should be solely what current leaders are saying, and apparently so do you, or you wouldn't be trying to add all of these links to audio recordings of Wierwille's teachings. Ten of Swords 22:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
For sure Ten. There is no reason to limit any article solely to what is being said now. We have never been at war with Oceana... Lsjzl 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Nice Orwell referenceTen of Swords 00:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Structure of the article
There's a couple of things that I think would make it more readable: (Stanley already started this by putting subtitles in the Beliefs and Practices section)
Eliminate the subtitle "controversial teachings" and subtitle each subsection. One reason is that the doctrine in that section isn't any more "controversial" than the other stuff and I wonder if we're putting a pejorative label on it by using the term "controversial".
There's also some duplication that can be cleaned up as well; for example, I think that the Way's teaching on the Trinity (or lack of the same) is covered in three different places.
Also, where do we want to the section on L Craig Martindale? Right now it's plopped into the middle of "Beliefs and Practices" - any suggestions?
None of this should cause any argument, but I thought I'd throw it out if anyone else wanted to help clean things up a bit.Ten of Swords 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Cutting down
(you can help!) 1. To start trimming this long page down I removed the semi-complete list of published works. This already exists under another page and was simply linked to. Lsjzl 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Removed this:
"The following year, the one-year Word Over the World (WOW) missionary program was replaced by the four-month "Way Disciples" outreach program. Way Disciple outreach group 1 left after the Rock of Ages in September of 1995 and returned to New Knoxville on December 16. The second group followed the next January. Current groups are sent from the annual Anniversary meeting in October on six month assignments."
From the ROA section. Not really required as is on the Rock of Ages Festival page. But one thing that is missing from this article is a way to link it to the Way Disciple program wikisheet.. maybe another heading? (Though we are trying to cut down the overall size of this doc if necessary..) Lsjzl 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- "*Belizean BRC Bookstore" link was removed - why an Ebay bookstore should be linked to is beyond me. Lsjzl 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- "*The Christian Critic's Movie Parables - http://www.christiancritic.com/" was removed. Yes his bio says he is a current member and that his reviews get mentioned in Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB etc. But I doubt on his own he would be notable nor really does it help this article. I am tempted to say the same thing for the cortright pages on the 4 crucified and Mark and Avoid links. Lsjzl 13:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
USMC
(It should be noted that Wierwille lacked any experience, background, or interaction with the USMC, and thus based any claims about them on their media image and third-hand reports at best.) .. was removed for discussion.
I am not clear on why it should be noted? Is there some claim here to the contrary that needs to be corrected? I believe the way the article states the inspiration for the Way Corps doesn't leave any other impression. Lsjzl 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it should be noted because The Way Corps bore little if any resemblence to The Marine Corps. The inspiration comment, in my opinion, leaves the impression that The Way Corps were trained in some fashion like The Marine Corps. Ten of Swords 02:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(According to Wierwille, The Way Corps was started out of inspiration from his observations of the United States Marine Corps and their commitment to duty, their examples of valor, and their indomitable will to achieve victory in spite of the odds against them. He claimed his vision for graduates of this program was ministers who would live, speak, and teach a lifestyle of what he called "It is written".)
Pete's comment balances this statement...I pulled it, but if the consensus is to put it back...well, I'm easyTen of Swords 03:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Note
Please place new items at the bottom of the page. Lsjzl 16:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Dark matter
Removed this section:
Interestingly, his theory would explain exactly what dark matter is ... it would explain where the bulk of the unseen mass in the universe is and in what form it is.
as it smacks of Original Research (in a sense)
To be honest so does other parts like the capitalization of words about lama, but anyway I recorded this here in case the author wishes to discuss. Lsjzl 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Closing line of opening
Critics charge that the beliefs of the group are not consistent with orthodox Christian beliefs, and some accuse the group of being a cult.
Doesn't this say the same thing as if it is a different idea? maybe change the end to "which is one of the reasons some accuse this group of being a cult." or "which some take to mean that this group is a cult." Which is awkwardly worded but just an idea. Lsjzl 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Inconsistancy with Christian orthodoxy and cult status are related, but not universally. Some equate cults with practices and abuses, rather than beliefs, while others use beliefs as their guidelineTen of Swords 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Gotcha, so in reality it seems that the way the line is stated does ensure that both points are made. Lsjzl 04:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
TIN of Swords?
I don't know who Tin of Swords is, but it's not me.
Couldn't you have picked a handle that didn't look so much like mine?Ten of Swords 17:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC) But that wouldn't allow them to pretend they were you, and congratulate themself on their own cleverness...Pete Snowball 15:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm...I just noticed that the link to Grease Spot Cafe labelled as a link to Christian Educational Services was initially added by Stanleygoodspeed, and later put back in by Tin of Swords....hmmmTen of Swords
