I was there from the start. 1972 in San Diego with Royal D.
Lived in the desert with the LTW family and lived at "the farm house" at Shiloh. From a child's perspective it was all fun and games until the sexual abuse. I attend TLW schools until 1984 and I can tel you that very few if any of my classmates are part of this now. The great effort to brainwash the kids apparently failed.
Anyhow, GREAT to find this forum and I can't wait to catch up on the 400 plus pages of posts. Gotta go read.

Welcome Tmason. I love it when efforts to brainwash the kids fails. You mentioned in another post/strand that you knew and loved Dan Statton. His name has come up a few times recently on the forum. JRS used to talk about Dan a lot. Whenever, JRS and Dan had a telephone conversation, JRS would share about it from the pulpit. In the 70's I flew to DC to attend a wedding and attended a service there. Then I became very ill with the flu and couldn't fly back to LA. I had been in a hotel but Dan insisted that I stay at his home while I recovered. He was so engaging. I was kind of shy then but a chatter box and I can remember having great conversations with him. I even shared some of my doubts but he convinced me otherwise. When I learned (secondhand) of the circumstances surrounding his eventual leaving TLWF and then returning, I like to think that eventually the light bulb came on for him (secondhand opinion), but he returned to be restored to TLWF so he wouldn't be estranged from his family (he was aging). According to JRS, Dan had a brilliant legal mind but Dan drank the Kool-Aid and was as sucked into it as much as any of us.

I recall JRS ministering to a family whose child had been sexually abused by a relative. JRS put his hands over the child's ears and prayed that the memory banks of the child would be healed so the child would not remember the abuse. I don't what to make of that now.

Lily,
The abused child you refer to wasn't me because I never mentioned a word to anyone until I told my wife just a few years ago. Very disturbing for me because I do not recall all of the details. Perhaps JRs prayer came true for the wrong kid.LOL
Dan taught us law at the LTW school in DC and of course a child's view of cults and the like is very limited. At the time and even now I have no hard feelings for those people whom are/where, true believers, God has a special place for those that are led astray as I now believe we all were.
Very hard for a child to acknowledge that his parents, siblings and everyone he knew, were all duped for the money. I do hold a serious dislike for money and material possessions to this day. CAPTIALISM often turns my stomach. Stunning to me when I read thsee posts how much of what my mother taught us was straight from Johns mouth.

I was thinking today about the LW principle of a "right to a higher confirmation". I recall several teachings about it from the pulpit. Maybe even a tape or two about it. The idea is that if your local shepherd (or Designated Relationship person) gives you a word or directive that you do not agree with, you have the right to submit it to another person higher up in the ladder of divine order to see if you can find someone who will agree with you.

This principle is total BS. It never works and only pays lip-service in an attempt to appear that the structure of submission in the church is fair. What really happens is that when a sheep asks for a "higher confirmation", the local shepherd types up a shepherding memo explaining what the sheep is complaining about with their "word". 99 times out of 100, the higher confirmation sides with the local shepherd. After all, shepherds know what's best for a sheep, right? In the memo, it usually outlines what is wrong with the sheep and why that person is seeing things incorrectly. (like they had a "critical spirit" or they were under demonic influence).

In my opinion, the concept of a "right to a higher confirmation" is a very false promise. They still brag about it today and how a LW member always has this right.

PS: Welcome Tmason

Tmason Wrote:

> I attended TLW schools until 1984 and
> I can tell you that very few if any of my
> classmates are part of this now. The great effort
> to brainwash the kids apparently failed

That's refreshing. I think kids spot hypocrisy easier than adults.
Welcome to the board!

puddington Wrote:

> This principle is total BS. It never works and
> only pays lip-service in an attempt to appear that
> the structure of submission in the church is fair.
> What really happens is that when a sheep asks for
> a "higher confirmation", the local shepherd types
> up a shepherding memo explaining what the sheep is
> complaining about with their "word". 99 times out
> of 100, the higher confirmation sides with the
> local shepherd.

Yes, 99 times out of 100 the sheep gets screwed in the situation, sometimes literally.

lily rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> puddington wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> >Merry Christmas to all you out there. May 2017
> bring you even further into freedom.
>
>
> Right back atcha puddington. Feliz Navidad
> everyone.
>
> kBOY Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > LR:
> >
> > In the A&E Scientology special, the cost of a
> > lifetime involvement with the movement was
> > repeatedly mentioned to average around
> > $250,000/person, and almost a 24/7 commitment.
> > It's hard to believe anyone had enough time to
> > have a job to fund their involvement.
>
> I remember a close friend in the 70's was working
> at the LW and using his credit card to live on. He
> went on to live at Shiloh and assisted M. When I
> caught up with him at Shiloh his credit card debt
> was $25,000.
>
> pbxguy wrote in part:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> >.....how many have led churches in the Walk over
> the years who are/were completely and entirely
> unqualified to be in any sort of leadership
> position over other human beings.
>
> That's right. There are/were those who had a
> hunger and thirst for the Lord, but no one, nada,
> zip is/was ever qualified to have a leadership
> position over another human being. According to
> NT scripture, Church leadership over
> administrating church type business should not
> include leadership over the private and personal
> lives.
>
>
> Southgate wrote in part:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------
>
> >I don't blame anyone.
>
> I appreciate you saying that. When I read the
> posts on Factnet a few years ago I was struck by
> one of the posters whose family was cast out of
> TLWF and they refused to be bitter and I thought
> to myself I want that although getting there can
> take some time.
>
>
>
> PS: I guess I am chatty Kathy tonight. Must be the
> eggnog.


I have my wife that has helped me to get over it. She always reminds me to pray for them and people that are hurt. If anyone could be bitter it would be her but she refuses to be that way.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A very happy New Years to all the ex-prophets,
> ex-men and women of God, Nephilim, Jezebels, Male
> spirits, bitter blowouts, cross-dodgers, pure
> atmosphere violators etc. that inhabit this
> board.
> I appreciate every one of you.
> Hope you enjoy this coming year. You deserve it!


I love reading your posts. Pretty much make me laugh every time. Just curious, who was the pastor when you left if you don't mind telling me.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of the cloud of witnesses, I wonder if
> John & Marilyn are getting along?
> I haven't heard anything about them speaking in
> unison. Are they at odds about which direction
> TLWF should head? Is it something more personal?
> BTW, I grew up in a family where Mom and Dad
> pulled in opposite directions, argued about
> seemingly everything, and it was no picnic. The
> kids always suffer.
> From now on, unless John and Marilyn speak as one,
> I'm not listening.


I remember when John died some people were saying they had dreams and felt his presence. Marilyn told them to stop because John hadn't contacted her, and if he was going to contact anyone it would have been her.

puddington Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was thinking today about the LW principle of a
> "right to a higher confirmation". I recall
> several teachings about it from the pulpit. Maybe
> even a tape or two about it. The idea is that if
> your local shepherd (or Designated Relationship
> person) gives you a word or directive that you do
> not agree with, you have the right to submit it to
> another person higher up in the ladder of divine
> order to see if you can find someone who will
> agree with you.
>
> This principle is total BS. It never works and
> only pays lip-service in an attempt to appear that
> the structure of submission in the church is fair.
> What really happens is that when a sheep asks for
> a "higher confirmation", the local shepherd types
> up a shepherding memo explaining what the sheep is
> complaining about with their "word". 99 times out
> of 100, the higher confirmation sides with the
> local shepherd. After all, shepherds know what's
> best for a sheep, right? In the memo, it usually
> outlines what is wrong with the sheep and why that
> person is seeing things incorrectly. (like they
> had a "critical spirit" or they were under demonic
> influence).
>
> In my opinion, the concept of a "right to a higher
> confirmation" is a very false promise. They still
> brag about it today and how a LW member always has
> this right.
>
> PS: Welcome Tmason


I'm sure a lot of that went on, but I do remember going to John about something and he went overruled the pastor. Plus, I always thought that the ultimate higher confirmation was God. I know things changes before and especially after John died.