Tmason:

“The Kingdom Mine was in fact located in the desert NE of Las Vegas in the Meadow Valley Wash. Between Carp and Elgin along the west side of the Union Pacific line you can still see evidence of the settlement.”

---------------

There are many miles between Carp & Elgin along the Meadow Valley Wash. I Googled (satellite) the area specifically checking out the west side of the Union Pacific line. I don’t think I’ve found it yet or what I do see (shacks, vehicles, trailers, railroad stuff) may not be it. Is it closer to Carp, midway between Carp & Elgin or is there some specific way to nail it down? One of my favorite past times is Google Satellite.

Thanks, FCSLC.

TheJewel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I never knew R.D. Cronquist except to see him
> sometimes at South Gate. He would put his chair
> right next to the pulpit on the platform and sit
> right in front of all the others on the platform.
> That always seemed strange to me."
>
>
> Yea RD definitely had a strange streak. I always
> thought he wanted to be on par with JRS in some
> way, which is what I suspect you were picking up
> on. He had a very flamboyant personality but was a
> few cards short of a full deck, IMO.
>
> I once had an appointment with him for
> relationship counseling with a girl I was dating
> at the time. We got a few minutes together with
> him then he did a session with each one of us
> seperately. She later told me that at the finish
> of her "one-on-one" session, it got a bit more
> one-on-one than either of us expected. As she told
> it, he took her into a full body hug, told her he
> questioned her claim to virginity and told her "I
> could make it with you if I wanted". Of course I
> wasn't in the office to witness this but I tend to
> believe her account, although I was skeptical at
> the time.
>
> I suspect this was more of the cold reading stuff
> that was prevelent in the group, an effort to
> trick someone into revealing something that he
> could then claim God showed him -- many even
> believing himself that god did.
>
> Needless to say, The girl was a bit shaken by
> this, as was I. I remember having trouble
> believing her story at the time. After reading
> through all this stuff, I suspect there are more
> stories like this lurking out there.


I sure there was crap like that going on at different locations. Not to bring up the whole unequal yoke thing so people could dump their spouse for someone else. I guess I did bring it up. ;) Unfortunately this crap goes on everywhere. Not to give an excuse for any of it.

Yes, the Walk had its share of pervert ministries. Even though JRS laid hands on the ministries and spoke flowery prophesies, sexual abuse was not curbed and IMO some of the perv ministries probably thought they were entitled.


Larry Bobo, wanted to thank you for the clarification on the marriage ceremony to Marilyn. Time wise, it seems Gary hadn't even declared M to be the Lamp of Israel yet so the ministries couldn't have been thinking they were marrying the "presence of the Lord" or did they? Having been raised Catholic, I recall the nuns had a mystical marriage to Christ and they even wore wedding bands. I think David Koresch (impersonating Christ) twisted and took the metaphors about the Bride of Christ in the scriptures to an extreme and convinced women in his cult marry him.

I just finished a conversation regarding the sexual abuse that occurred in the Walk, that was made known to the congregations, involved 2 Apostles. If that's incorrect plz let us know (in a nice way though).That's part of the history of the Walk. As Southgate said, it happens in other places too. I think what makes it happening in the Walk unique was that many were under the impression that when JRS laid hands on an Apostle the anointing was so heavy duty that the ministries some how were consecrated. That wasn't the case at all and while under the spell I believed that for a while. It was part of the deception or as Larry calls it Lala land.

RE: Marrying Marilyn

There were 2 special services some time - I think in 1988 - one in Southgate and I believe a 2nd service of the same took place the same day in the valley church. Dan S. as an apostolic ministry led the service and led the people - with the support of the apostolic ministry and the shepherds - which was purposed for the members to marry Marilyn. I do not remember if G & M were present but I am pretty sure they were not present. It was to ceremonially secure the oneness and loyalty of the people in their relationship with and to Marilyn. The people were led to vow themselves in marriage to Marilyn and the communion was served to seal this mental and spiritual union.

Communion was served to seal this vow and spiritual marriage to M. I did not participate but witnessed it taking place. I was already beginning to break free from the kind of relationship with the ministry that existed at that time.

After many of the members of the congregation's - loyalty, faithfulness , oneness and devotion to M -
was secured thru this act of marrying M. ,

later on I believe also in 1988 during special services that were called , the people were led to surrender their free wills - to agree to obey the ministry, to trust and relate to the ministry - as if the ministry was the Lord Himself and to allow the ministry to rule over every aspect of their lives - which was presented to the members as being their acceptable service and worship of God. .

This kind of a relationship between the ministry and the members was presented by Dan, as being - a free will offering. Only those who would cheerfully and willingly enter into this relationship with the ministry were wanted. It was said that those who chose not to enter into this relationship would not be criticized or judged negatively for not entering into this "relationship" of obedience to the ministry. In other words if you chose not to enter into this kind of a relationship with the ministry - you would not be related to - as 2nd class member of the church.

Dan specifically went over the ramifications of what would be required of a member who made this commitment so that those who chose to enter into this relationship with the ministry - would understand clearly what they were agreeing and vowing themselves to.

I think time was given to think about it - and at another service - a ceremony was performed to enter into this relationship and the members who chose to enter into this relationship with the ministry sealed their agreement and vow with the communion. ( It had to have been at a regular main service that this ceremony took place and not by special invitation because I was at the service and had already decided not to involve myself in this kind of a relationship with the ministry. And if it was by special invitation where the people were told in advance - what was going to take place - I would not have went to the service.

I was present at the service but I had chosen not to enter into this kind of a relationship with the ministry. I was already breaking free from the ministry and moving towards bringing an end to their position as being a spiritual authority over me .

However I believe at this service - it is where a definite divide between the members was created and established by the ministry. For not long after - It became evident who was and was not giving themselves to be obedient to the will of the ministry - in the relationships and friendships that existed between the members.And the shepherds knew who the members were who were not submitting what they wished to do - to the shepherds.

In the course of living my life and making my own decisions , I remember being asked by a member or members -"Did you submit that to the shepherds."

I believe the ministry believed that they were being hindered - because the people as a whole were seen as being a mixed multitude. I believe G&M & apco believed - if they just had members who were of one mind and of one heart and who were given wholly to do the will of G&M/ the shepherds and elders , then they ( the ministry) could obtain the manifestation of what they believed was their spiritual objectives.

Not having complete control of ( all ) the members - not long after these things - the ministry forgot they had used the Lord and had presented it as being a free will offering -( to all of the members) and that if any one chose not to enter into this relationship of obedience to the ministry ) that these members would not be related to as 2nd class members.

They did not keep their word - and the result was that they began getting rid of any one who they considered not to be loyal to G&M and willingly obedient to the ministry or those who were considered to be a further hindrance to obtaining what they were believing for , ( the ministry) began destroying the relationships between members, husbands, wives and children.

Invisible your post Re: Marrying Marilyn was amazing and very thorough. It answered many questions I had about what was the basis on which G&M determined one's loyalty to G&M. Thank you.

Marrying Marilyn with the cross being the dowry.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/30/2017 04:15PM by lily rose.

Thank you Invisible for that post. I had forgotten a lot of the details of that time, circa 1988. I think I blocked it out of my memory. Those were awful years for me. I recall the sermons and Dan leading the charge. It was supposed to be a “commitment to Marilyn, unto death”. It was sold to us as a total commitment, like a marriage, but even more. It was a commitment with your life, even if it meant giving it up.

I recall really struggling with those messages and Dan’s request to “sign up”. I started to feel like it was sounding too much like Jim Jones to me. I really struggled with it. You could say I had a “flinch” with that word. And then I felt guilty for having the flinch. I felt like I was part of the mixed multitude and was not fit for the Kingdom. Something was in deep conflict within me. I should have left then, but like an idiot, I stayed longer.

I find it timely that this “marriage to Marilyn and the shepherds” comes up amongst the posts about sexual abuse against the congregation. The two topics are totally related. I recall RD saying he could seduce any woman in the church if he wanted to. He bragged about it. He said it was because of his mystical, spiritual powers. He claimed he knew exactly what to do. (Which I thought was both silly and gross).

But the empowering of shepherds over sheep does indeed create a power than can be abused. I know of several instances where a “designated relationship” or a shepherd/sheep relationship went into sexual abuse. It is an abuse of clerical powers over a person. These happened between men and women and between men and men. What happens is that the sheep does not want to be rejected. Does not want to be labeled as “ungiven”, so they are willing to do anything to honor the “Christ in the flesh” person over them. This can even mean them doing sexual acts, unwillingly. To me, it is the same as pedophillia. The abuse of power is very clear. And when these situations happened (and continue to happen in the LW), the whole thing is hushed up and kept quiet. Because to expose it would bring a black eye to the whole ministry and a bad mark to the whole practice of active shepherding. The shepherd doing the abuse if often left in the power position. Nothing changes. Nothing is learned.

As it has been said on this forum many times: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Regarding the marriage to Marilyn. I forgot to mention this: it wasn't Dan's idea. He was just the hatchet man. The foundation of this doctrine was laid out by G&M in the Feast of Tabernacles messages from 1987. As I recall.

puddington, great post. And your comment about sexual abuse being an abuse of power is spot on. I also recall that outrageous RD comment although I heard it second hand and not from the source.

In thinking about Invisible's post, I wonder given the efforts of G&M to find the right ingredients to bring forth the Kingdom such as marrying Marilyn and loyalty and obedience vows to G&M, has the leadership ever taken a look at themselves as being the problem by their own disobedience to the full counsel of God in elevating themselves, not having the heart of a servant, and lording it over the little people etc.

Tmason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> My time at the euphemistic "mine" and my memories
> thereof are the point for me at which the real
> pain began and so going there and sharing those
> memories with an audience that can relate should
> be cathartic but isnt.
> If you want to know about what happened in the
> desert in the early seventies you just let me
> know. Otherwise, I will seek that therapy
> elsewhere.
> Best again,


Tmason, you can post what you want here as long as the content has to do with the strand and you follow the forum rules. You may get a little bantering from the members but I think you are up for the challenge.