larry bobo wrote:
_______________________
> Reepicheep – Are you serious in implying that God
> has not limited Himself to speak in King James, as
> He did through John in the early days of The Walk?
> How can we lowly congregants possibly distinguish
> true words from God from the ramblings of men? At
> least it’s not in Latin! After all, if Jesus
> spoke in King James and we want to be like him,
> should we not do the same when we are feeling
> especially religious? :)

Lol, Larry. Actually, it did make things simpler back then. If John/Brother Stevens/JRS started speaking in King James English, that's God talking, and you'd BETTER listen. The sermons were anointed utterance and you SHOULD listen.

I used to feel the most extraordinary anointing when I prophesied in an Italian accent. "The Lord has prepared for you a table of resurrection life, sonship, and spaghetti." Sorry about that.

lily rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I used to feel the most extraordinary anointing
> when I prophesied in an Italian accent. "The Lord
> has prepared for you a table of resurrection life,
> sonship, and spaghetti." Sorry about that.

Haha! I always felt the most anointing when I just kept quiet. Or prophesied in Pig Latin. That was always a big hit.

Ciao!

corboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No one has to answer any of these questions about
> the back room meetings Puddington mentions.
>
> I came up with the questions just in case they
> help clarify what people remember and wish to
> describe.
>
> Since those back room meetings were kept a secret,
> no one who was not in those meetings can have full
> knowledge about LW -- or have knowledge of
> the entire cost of discipleship.
>
> If new trolls arrive, one can ask if they attended
> back room meetings or knew that any such
> meetings took place.
>
> LW Back Room Meetings - More
> Questions
>
> 1) About the backroom meetings:
>
> A) Did the meetings happen on schedule? Or were
> they called suddenly, with no warning?
>
> B) Did the meetings start and end at reasonable
> times, or did you run short on sleep?
>
> C) During meetings were you treated courteously
>
> D) During meetings could everyone share his or her
> ideas and concerns openly and with no worry about
> loss of standing
>
> E) Was the physical setting convenient to get to,
> comfortable? Could you eat, take breaks, go the
> the bathroom when needed?
>
> F) Did the meetings interfere with family, work,
> getting sleep?
>
> G) Were records kept for what was proposed,
> decisions made, votes?
>
> Puddington wrote that those invited to the secret
> backroom meetings "Worked at the LW building, Blix
> house or be an elder in good standing with
> Marilyn"
>
> Q 2)What did you have to do to be
>
> A)invited or allowed to work at the LW building
>
> B) invited or allowed to work at Blix house
>
> C become an elder in good standing with Marilyn?
>
>
> Question 3: Could you decide you no longer wished
> to participate in the backroom meetings?
>
> Question 4: Did anyone ever find ways (illness,
> family business, etc) to avoid attending backroom
> meetings?
>
> Question 5:
>
> A) Did you enjoy backroom meetings?
>
> B) Were you ever afraid to go to backroom
> meetings?
>
> C) Did you ever do or witness anything at backroom
> meetings you later regretted?

These additional questions that corboy posted have had me thinking about the whole concept of backroom meetings. There were many and various kinds of backroom meetings, from the local ministries (leaders) meetings before services to the highest levels. There were special Apostolic Company (APCO) meetings that generally took place after Feast times or after other special gatherings. There were Apostolic Company Coordinators meetings. There were ministries conferences where local pastors and their lead ministries met with JRS or later G&M (usually yearly). There were special meetings around the time that the corporation rules changed. There were many sundry meetings which were by invitation only. The general congregants may have been aware of some, but not all of this type of gathering. Apostle Dog talked about a special shepherd's conference when G&M were demanding absolute submission, deference, and possibly worship of Marilyn after John's death.

Some people who post here may have been part of some backroom meetings at times, but not wish to say so. Leadership in TLWF or the Walk was such a tenuous thing, at best. Whatever state you found yourself in over the years, you were still a servant or slave of the highest leaders. If you were any type of leader, you could be removed at any time for any reason or no reason. Witness the undignified (and unexpected) removal of Dan Statton from APCO and all other forms of leadership during a Feast of Tabernacles service. (He was even set out of the fellowship.) This took place without warning in front of the general congregation at the Valley Church (CLW). And don't forget about John Miller's exit. He was an APCO Coordinator. In fact, several at that level (Ted Shohfi, Mike Schermerhorn) simply vanished from the fellowship with no explanation. Being a leader at any level was a double-edged sword.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2018 11:11PM by Reepicheep.

Reepicheep said, Leadership in the LW was tenuous at best. A few years before John's death. He removed Gruenberg as pastor of the Honolulu Church. Not excommunicated from the LW. Gruenberg went through it. Congregants reported to John. That Honolulu had become a clique. And Gruenberg was part of it. John said pastors should not be socializing with members. The way Gruenberg did. BTW, I recall reading Gruenberg's sons posts about John. Jerimiah posted that his dad said. The fact that his dad and other ministries. Didn't have ministry training or Bible education was irrelevant. They had faith. Just like Jesus's disciples. What a stretch.

Some in the congregation snitched on Gruenberg. They spoke up. But under G&M. IMO the system became. More fear based for the leadership.

I didn't know Craig well, but the impression I had of him based on relatively few encounters was that he operated from a place of integrity. Maybe what John was referring to as socializing, was just someone allowing himself to be accessible.

changedagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't know Craig well, but the impression I had
> of him based on relatively few encounters was that
> he operated from a place of integrity. Maybe what
> John was referring to as socializing, was just
> someone allowing himself to be accessible.

That was my impression too, changedagain. From my experience, I would venture a guess that more former leaders were shown the door or put on the back burner for crossing the wrong person (JRS, G&M, et. al.) than for harming sheep.

Reepicheep Wrote:

> That was my impression too, changedagain. From my
> experience, I would venture a guess that more
> former leaders were shown the door or put on the
> back burner for crossing the wrong person (JRS,
> G&M, et. al.) than for harming sheep.

Yes, no doubt about it.

Gruenberg would hangout at night spots. with a few buddies from the church. Or they would get together at each others homes on a regular basis. These were not church meetings. John said forming a clique was not how pastors were to shepherd their flock. It had nothing to do with integrity or accessibility. Gruenberg obviously didn't know. That was John's standard for being a pastor. There was no training. Of course, the clique didn't harm the sheep. But John went ahead and removed Gruenberg. He could have just counseled him. Told him to end the clique. Instead he removed Gruenberg. It humiliated Gruenberg. No one thought he should have been removed. To me, that kind of discipline was part of the 10% rat poison.

NickleandDimed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But John went ahead and removed
> Gruenberg. He could have just counseled him. Told
> him to end the clique. Instead he removed
> Gruenberg. It humiliated Gruenberg. No one thought
> he should have been removed. To me, that kind of
> discipline was part of the 10% rat poison.

The root problem was that the big ruling clique made a decision about a pastor that had somehow fallen out of favor. Craig Gruenberg later on was the main worship leader in CLW for quite a few years, but never was the principal pastor of a church again, as far as I know. Probably wasn't mean enough. And he probably actually believed that being in charge of one of the churches meant that he should care for the people. Maybe no one had yet enlightened him regarding the 90% (focus of his energy on J&M) 10% (focus on the local church and flock) principle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/13/2018 10:14PM by Reepicheep.