kBOY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sordid details can be found on pages 130-137
> in the Woodrow Nichols expose, 'THE WALK of JOHN
> ROBERT STEVENS'. There is plenty of guilt to
> spread around, and much to be ashamed of. What is
> most surprising is that the promotion of
> fundraising for Shiloh followed shortly after many
> had just been fleeced by the mine debacle. Those
> who forget history are bound to repeat it.

Looks like it starts on Page 115. This is interesting to me as well since I left TLW (the first time) in 1972 and returned in 1974 (only to leave again -- for the last time in around 1978 or somewhere thereabouts). I missed "the Mine thing", I guess.

This looks like an interesting history. Not sure what Nichols' biases are but it looks like an interesting read. Those who haven't found it, just Google Woodrow Nichols: The Walk of John Robert Stevens.

Jewel

kBOY, I started reading the Nichols paper. Trying to find info about the mine, but got completely distracted by the account of the church split that happened in the Valley Church in 1967. Wow, sound familiar? This stuff has been going on for a long time.

Nichols paper:

[www.reflectionsfromthewall.net]

PALEFACE:

Did you happen to notice that the concerted effort to pray against Martha started in 1963! Any reference made to the ‘glory days’ of TLW will be hard pressed to live down all of the inglorious history it will have to rewrite.

Sorry in advance to changedagain for dabbling in the biblical scholarship stuff but I too have dug into early church history trying to regain my bearings after crashing and burning in TLWF. I read a lot and in the last couple of months have read “Mishnah and the Words of Jesus”, ”Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes”, “New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus”, “The Didache”, “Paul and Jesus”, “Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes”, “Junia Is Not Alone”, and “Paul and the Faithfulness of God”. I’m well aware of the conflicts between the early apostles and Paul, the many issues in various translations, and the many church systems that have been built in Jesus’ name to serve personal agendas. I just want us not to lose sight of the fact that the Way, the Truth, and the Life is a real person and not a doctrine.

In spite of all the issues, I’m so fascinated that enough of Jesus’ teaching has made it through the centuries that if a person really wants to come to him, there is enough correct information to do so. I would also suggest that without a new nature or as Jesus said, being born again, you can’t even see the kingdom of God. It’s not our brain power but our obedience that opens the door – and it’s available to anyone. TLWF is not the kingdom of God, and the wounds suffered under its regime do not invalidate Jesus’ words. If we keep asking, seeking, and knocking, the narrow path will become evident even in the midst of many conflicting voices. I find it a curious thing that we were willing to put up with the babblings of a DR that hurt us and yet find it so difficult to follow Jesus who can actually bring us life. He is much more than just a good teacher and he can also empower us to do what we could never do in our own ability.

LB:

It is interesting that this topic keeps circling back, but should not be a surprise to anyone (except maybe CHANGEDAGAIN). Each of us found our way to TLW as ones hungry for TRUTH, harvested whatever food-value there was, and proceeded to discard the chaff. As our journey continues, we have simply assessed a diet we thought was nutrient-rich, only to realize it was full of empty calories.

It is healthy for us now to share our discoveries, each the fish, throw out the bones, and continue together as companions enroute to the PROMISED LAND, where the LOVE FEAST is the only thing on the menu.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2016 04:22AM by kBOY.

Wasn't it about 1963 when Marilyn was put over the editing or whatever in Living Word? I think that was about right. I know she supposedly had an "abusive husband" but I also heard that her husband's biggest offense was not having a real revelation of John Robert Stevens. Or, perhaps his revelation wasn't a match of Marilyn's revelation of John Robert Stevens.

Apostle Dog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wasn't it about 1963 when Marilyn was put over the
> editing or whatever in Living Word? I think that
> was about right. I know she supposedly had an
> "abusive husband" but I also heard that her
> husband's biggest offense was not having a real
> revelation of John Robert Stevens.

It does seem a little too coincidental, AD--that the prayers against Martha, according to Nicols, started the same year Marilyn obtained a position in the fellowship. Also, I too have heard the account of her Marilyn's first husband being 'abusive'. But then again, I also recall a pastor I was close to being labeled as such after his marriage dissolved and he left the fellowship, and I never saw any signs that this was the case. Perhaps my male nature was blocking my perception of what really was going on--not sure.

LB said, "I just want us not to lose sight of the fact that the Way, the Truth, and the Life is a real person and not a doctrine."

Not to cause a stir, but a fact can be defined as 'a piece of information presented as having objective reality'.

I'm pretty sure there are precious few of those in the bible. While likely being the most important book in world history due to its staying power and wide publication and study, the bible has failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny in almost every instance. Faith, by definition, is not fact. Years ago, We chose to believe the content we read and heard when we were Walk attendees, and we continue to choose to believe those precepts and tenets of our particular faiths, or lack of same.

I humbly offer the view that when, as an example, the words "fact" and "Jesus" are applied in relating sentences, one should be aware that the phrases are to be understood merely as opinion.

To illustrate, "It is a fact that Donald Trump is over the top crazy". Well, not really. You may feel he is a real nut-bag, but there has been no scientific assessment published to verify any psychological disorder.

Or the inverse, "It is a fact that the sun will rise tomorrow". While technically incorrect, (due to us revolving around the sun instead of the other way round), it is easily verifiable that this is so, and requires no inference of faith.

Just sayin.

pbxguy --

Good comment (translation: my "opinion" is pretty much aligned :-) ). It sounds like you have come to the same spot I have come to which is trying to look for some outside evidence that there is anything worth applying energy to in any of this. I have seen "The Walk" and now, thanks to this board, I have a pretty good perspective view "from the outside". There were definitely a lot of things going on "inside" that I never knew about (even though I was "inside" at the time some of it was going on).

I started reading the Nichols work and about one chapter in, I feel like I am listening to Bill O'Reiley on Fox News talk about the Democrats. Not that I am defending The Walk and JRS, I am OK with calling it a "cult" but not because of the biblical stuff. I approach it more from the perspective of the fruit in people's lives. A lot of people got hurt in this thing. For me, if I am going to call that thing over "there" a cult, then I feel that over "here" where I sit, I need to be arguing from a perspective of sitting in something that is "correct" and I am just not that pompous and arrogant any more (hopefully I never was). I plan to dial my BS filter up to "11" and slog through the remainder of Nichols thing looking for the facts and events which I DO find interesting hopefully the BS filter will filter out the “opinion”.

I am curious what people think with regard to JRS, do you think he deliberately set out to deceive? I am reluctant to accept that myself, I think he became a victim of his own "marketing" or of drinking his own cool aid so-to-speak.


As for "The Donald" (since you brought it up :-) ). He not so much a "nut-bag" as he is an expert marketer and salesman and he clearly understands the first principle of sales which is: the first thing a salesman sells is himself. He has figured out what a particular bunch of people want to hear and he is telling them that (over and over and over and over). If you say something often enough and forcefully enough, people begin to believe it. Think about what a magnificent leader in TLW he would have made. He would fit right in :-).

LB, I would be interested in what you feel you learned about Jesus from those books you listed -- then again maybe it would take a book in itself :-). If I were to pick up one of them, which would you recommend? I did follow up on one of them and interestingly enough, it was written by a guy from the Nazarene University where my wife went to school.

"I am curious what people think with regard to JRS, do you think he deliberately set out to deceive? I am reluctant to accept that myself, I think he became a victim of his own "marketing" or of drinking his own cool aid so-to-speak."

I think I agree that JRS was a victim of his own marketing. I don't think he deliberately set out to deceive. I think he actually thought that whenever he had a thought, it was God having the same thought . I think he believed that he was the special Elijah or whatever that would usher in the Kingdom of God, AND, I think he believed that he could not be wrong about anything. I think he had a huge ego and having all the young people around him feeding on his every word, especially the young women, really fed that ego and made it even more huge. The part about Jesus appearing to him and commissioning him to be THE apostle of apostles, I don't know if that was an illusion coming from his own ego running wild, or if some entity did appear to him. I know that the mind can imagine all sorts of things. But no, I don't think he intentionally deceived. I think that came later when the dynamic duo the John Stevens put in charge because they inflated his ego better than anybody else, that may well have been deliberate.