GS, wait that's me. Oops! Cats out of the bag now, I'm Gary. Changedagain, that talk we had over beer -- wasn't joking.

GSchaeff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I meant no disrespect,
> @lily Rose, and I apologize if I was
> condescending.

I accept your apology. I don't think you were condescending. Still it strikes me that it does take a lot of cunning to inaccurately represent the intention of someone's post to create the illusion that you are right, even if you are not right. On the other hand, it takes a great deal of intellectual honesty to carefully read what someone has written and represent it accurately before going on to distort it and then criticize it. I didn't say what you said I said. Therefore, your criticism is not persuasive and is obviously wrong.

I hope you will consider what I have said. I know it can be intimidating for members to come forward here with their stories particularly when they read posters distorting the posts of others in the forum.

I will consider that and exercise more caution in future messages. I sincerely was not attempting to distort your statement. I was merely offering caution in general based on where this forum and Fact Net have gone in the past. I should have done a better job of clarifying that. I have no desire to tone police beyond advocating reserve in general where other victims are concerned. I appreciate your posts and value the effort it takes to speak up. I hope that helps. Many of these conversations should be had face to face, reading them in message form takes the emotion out of them and it's easy to read them in the most insensitive light.

lily rose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GSchaeff Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > I meant no disrespect,
> > @lily Rose, and I apologize if I was
> > condescending.
>
> I accept your apology. I don't think you were
> condescending. Still it strikes me that it does
> take a lot of cunning to inaccurately represent
> the intention of someone's post to create the
> illusion that you are right, even if you are not
> right. On the other hand, it takes a great deal of
> intellectual honesty to carefully read what
> someone has written and represent it accurately
> before going on to distort it and then criticize
> it. I didn't say what you said I said. Therefore,
> your criticism is not persuasive and is obviously
> wrong.
>
> I hope you will consider what I have said. I know
> it can be intimidating for members to come forward
> here with their stories particularly when they
> read posters distorting the posts of others in the
> forum.


True. Well said. I remember years ago. Reading an older post by Chaos50 He had questions about John. Larry Bobo called it vomit. I thought to myself. Who does he think he is. And I stopped reading hear for a few years.

Some may find this interesting. In scouring the internet for TLWF source material, I came across the Wikipedia "talk" section of the TLWF page. I didn't realize that most Wikipedia pages have viewable tabs at the top. Wikipedia is largely an open-forum, and in the "talk" section tab, users can argue about what should be included in the article and "edits" others have made. Apparently some members/ex members have tried to delete portions of both the TLWF page and the edit section, but the wiki community is pretty faithful about preserving both the page and the conversations in the "talk" section. Reading through it I found some amusing back and forths such as:

"lsrbarton" attempting to distance TLWF from the Christmas truck ... hilarious.

"Jeremiah Mountain" arguing that it should not be called "the walk" because "nobody calls it that anymore."

"Anthony Pettit" pointing out that Gary employed the services of Christian marketer Phil Cooke to whitewash some of TLWF's more radical teachings and bring their website mission statements more in line with other pentecostal movements. This one was most interesting, I'll paste it below.

From [en.wikipedia.org]:


"Their latest inspiration is Christian marketer Phil Cooke who tries to help churches become more marketable in the Internet age. Their current web site offers a sanitized history of the Living Word Fellowship, leaving out the divorce that led to the marriage of Gary & Marilyn Hargrave and other divorces and remarriages among the leadership (sometimes multiple, as in the case with Marilyn's son and others)that led to their current status. In general, it attempts to portray the fellowship as believing most of what other Christian fellowships believe, but going deeper into Kingdom truths. They do not reference some of their fellowship's other beliefs, such as how the Kingdom of God was ushered in on December 12, 1979, seven years after John Stevens allegedly was transported into the future. Or their belief that John Stevens' death brought about the final judgment of Satan. They have also taught that their present-day apostles are exempt from Paul's requirement of having seen Jesus Christ, if they can claim to have seen the Lord Jesus Christ in the person of Marilyn Hargrave." - Anthony.pettit 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NickleandDimed - Interesting take on what I said about vomit. What I actually said was about my earlier posts on FactNet. I was the one doing the vomiting - not someone else - nor was it a reference to other's comments. Much of what I originally said, I would not say the same way now. I'm not in the same place and it just is not that helpful to others. I was wretching over what I had experienced - and I would still say that it was a necessary phase. Just like when you have the stomach flu, vomiting can be helpful. It is certainly not something anyone would want to make a lifestyle out of though. On the other hand, if you know that eating a particular food is going to make a person sick, you would warn them not to eat it - or you would not be much of a friend.

larry bobo Wrote On 8/2/2013:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "However, regarding the posts seeking info about
> John. Was he a drinker? A womanizer? That's like
> focusing on the debauchery of the prodigal son,
> "Can you tell me more about those prostitutes?",
> rather than on the forgiveness, grace, and love of
> the father. John was a man whom God used just like
> He has used anyone of us. Different calling,
> different gifts, but the same Spirit. "
>
>
> Great post! I realize vomiting may be part of the
> healing process and perhaps identifying falsehoods
> is helpful in coming to a better understanding of
> the truth, but it's not something you want to make
> a lifestyle of. Much of what I posted on Factnet
> the first few years after leaving TLWF may have
> been theraputic at the time, but they are not even
> things I think about now, much less would post.
> Whatever blessings came through John, came from
> God - and God is still alive and well. God is the
> focus - not John. Where we get ourselves into
> trouble is allowing someone to come between us and
> God. Designated relationships are nothing more
> than an attempt to take the place of God in people
> lives as well as provide a thinly veiled hierarchy
> to control those still in the fellowship.
>
> If you think of the first of the Ten Commandments
> - "You shall have no other gods before Me" as a
> relationship instead of a law, He doesn't want
> anything to come between you and Him because He is
> jealous for you. The greatest commandment is like
> it - "Love the Lord your God with all your heart
> and with all your soul and with all your mind."
> Only God can give a nature change - man can only
> point to Him. John 1:6-9 says, "There came a
> man who was sent from God; his name was John. He
> came as a witness to testify concerning that
> light, so that through him all men might believe.
> He himself was not the light; he came only as a
> witness to the light. The true light that gives
> light to every man was coming into the world."
>
> Whatever errors John may have made, his human
> nature was no different than ours. He loved God
> and many of us lived in the overflow of that love.
> He tried many times to get us to wait on the Lord
> ourselves and honestly, most of us were just too
> lazy - we preferred the spiritual welfare system.
> True spirituality is much closer to good character
> than an altered state of consciousness. John
> never could impart a nature change as many
> suggested, even though he may have helped open our
> spirits. (Opening our spirits the way we were
> taught in TLWF is closer entering the sheep pen by
> another way as a thief and a robber, and it came
> with much spiritual warfare that was totally
> unnecessary if we were really walking in
> obedience.) Many spiritual leaders in other
> religions can alter your consciousness as well -
> however, they are unable to change your heart so
> you will follow Jesus' commands. They can see
> auras but they can't keep their pants up - we had
> a little of that in TLWF as well.
>
> Many have recognized there was a point where
> John's focus shifted from God to Marilyn and the
> whole direction of TLWF shifted. Instead of John
> serving and equipping the body, the body reversed
> directions and started the upward flow. God in
> the sky was mocked in comparison to God in John.
> A hierarchy of control took over that was much
> more destructive than anything we had known in
> "old order". Instead of God's spirit bringing
> liberty, there was the oppression of drunken
> shepherds who could not run their own lives, much
> less anybody else's. If you questioned the whip
> to your back you were deemed rebellous. Perhaps
> the best lesson we can learn is to keep our focus
> on the Lord and let Him complete His work in us -
> the other task masters are not that much fun and
> don't produce anything for all that work.

paleface Wrote 8/2/2013:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Larry, with all due respect to you, this forum is
> titled Rick Ross Cult Education forum. I think it
> is beneficial for people to be free to talk and
> ask questions and learn about John. All of him.
> The Living Word has been identified as a cult and
> John, then, was a cult leader. Yes, God probably
> used him. But from the tone of your posts, you
> sound like you are rebuking some of us who are
> asking questions about him. Maybe some folks need
> to learn more about who John was in order to take
> him off a pedestal. Maybe some folks need to see
> how human and prone to error he could be. This
> should be a free forum and people should be free
> to "vomit" if they need to without feeling guilty
> for doing it. Didn't we have enough of that
> repression and fear of speaking up when were all
> in the fellowship? Not everyone's in the same
> place as you with regard to the healing process.
> Some of us are still in the "discovery" phase. I
> hope you are not *really* telling people they
> shouldn't vomit here. Peace. : )

And on another note . . .

"Good News, Church: You're Dying"

[johnpavlovitz.com]

It's taken me hours to catch up on all the posts. As always, it's enlightening.

It's taken me several months after finding this forum to realize that leaving the Walk was never the issue for me. Feeling like I was leaving JRS was. I would cringe a little at posts that seem to be critical of him when I first read them. That's changed. It's been extremely hard for me to admit that I may have been deceived by this man that I literally worshiped.

It's been helpful for me to go back in my mind to where I was at before I came into the Walk. I was 17 and it was during the "Jesus People" movement. We'd go to many churches. I remember Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and meetings in a tent. Lonnie Frisbee often spoke. Kenneth Copeland used to preach at small churches or home meetings. I never felt the need or desire to worship any of these men or put them on a pedestal. That changed when I heard JRS, although I think it was a gradual change. It has been very liberating for me to go back, even though it's been umpteen years, and reconnecting with that person I was before the Walk. I feel like I'm shedding off layers and layers of crap ... don't know how else to say it.