Talk:The Way International/Archive 6

message: While The Way has always drawn a distinction between itself and "churches" and "denominations", some followers now consider The Way a church, and like mainstream churches the organization ordains clergy, performs weddings, has Sunday services, performs communion, and also offers at least one weeknight fellowship at the local level.
Originally this read The Way considers itself a church and ordains clergy, performs weddings, has Sunday services, performs communion, and also offers at least one weeknight fellowship at the local level.- it was modified slightly to its present form, but it has never set well with me, despite the efforts to make it NPOV. It just seems to set there...like a duck (LOL)- out of place. Why is it even there? To convince readers that The Way isn't a  cult? Seems like another one of those debates conducted within the article. I'm going to pull it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ten of Swords (talk • contribs) 21:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing of the Intro (part deux) 

message: Does the menu structure of theway.org's web site need to be duplicated here?  It is standard practice for a web site to have an "about us" page and people looking for it can find it.  And linking to yearly "Internet Articles" seems as redundant as the name of the link.
Rojs 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you rojs; we pretty much just need the one link to theway.org. Folks can navigate their way around themselves once there. Ten of Swords 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to theway.org 

message: To the new anonymous contributor:
Nice work adding the Way logo and all, but keep in mind that this is to be a NPOV article, not a commercial for TWI. With that in mind, we've had discussions about some of the things that you have changed in the article:
*Wierwille's "doctorate": there is dispute about it being a genuine doctorate. Wierwille claimed, as do his supporters, that it was a legitimate ThD, his detractors disagree. 
*Way membership (number of followers): Can you point us to a number publically stated by TWI to be the number of active followers?
*Terry Bradshaw "commercial": From all accounts that I have seen, this was a paid appearance on this program. The feature in the audiophile magazine had little if anything to do with TWI.  
I agree with changing the sentence regarding how The Way describes itself. While an outside observer would reasonably categorize TWI as a "religious group", they do not describe themselves that way. 
The regulars on this page are a mix of current Way folks, sympathetic ex-Way folks, and ex-Way folks who are, shall we say, unsympathetic! Please come to the discussion page if you are going to make any substantial changes to the article.Ten of Swords 22:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Doctor" Wierwille, membership numbers, TWI's claims etc. 

message: I tried to fix some edits that were added. I was only partially successful, but rather than make 20 edits until I hit on the desired result, I left it as it is until someone competent can fix them. Consider this a request to fix it. 
What I wanted to do was to convert the dead links to red links, or at the least to leave them as
plain text. I left them as plain text, but with markers around them, which doesn't look right.
However, it's clear they don't link to anything, and it's ridiculous to relink them back to this
article if the only information about them is right there in the paragraph where the link is.
That's a waste of bandwidth. (Link a sentence back to itself? Why, because you can?)
I also question a previous edit-which I left intact- claiming that STFI was formed in 2005. Does anyone have documentation for the year? I added a clarification that it was founded as CES. 
I also left alone the CES link that doesn't connect to their own site, but rather to the Greasespot Cafe.  I question its appropriateness, however, and want some other opinions on it.Pete Snowball 15:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it was my evil twin Tin of Swords who changed it this last timeTen of Swords 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splinter group links 

message: I changed the description on the link to the Greasespot Cafe messageboards. Apparently, some current member resented that the Family Tables messageboard is noted to be restricted to current members-
that is, only those currently in TWI are allowed to sign up/register for the board, and only those who have signed up (who are all current members) can read the entire board, or post in it at all. In plain English, only current members of TWI can post there.  So, someone decided to attempt to fuzz this distinction by adding a note about the Greasespot Cafe's messageboard. It is technically true that the board-like almost every board online-requires posters to sign up before being allowed to post.  It is misleading to claim this is worth commenting on, because it's standard operating procedure for all messageboards, along with "read the rules before posting", "don't spam the board", and "don't post explicit materials or links to them".  It is worth commenting on if a board does NOT require any of those. The Greasespot Cafe does not require ANY prerequisite for signing up-and this is something it shares in common with almost every messageboard online.  Anyone can decide they want to sign up, and sign up. They need not be connected with any organization of any kind.
To require membership in an organization in order to participate in a messageboard is rare and thus  noteworthy.  Further, to note it in the links will SAVE TIME for the readers of this article who would otherwise try to sign up for such a board. One would think that board staff of that board would say "thank you" for saving them the trouble of refusing membership to people who don't know their rules.  (I don't think the person who objected is on their staff.) 
I didn't delete their note on the Greasespot Cafe, but I did translate it to plain English. Now, it's unnecessary, and highlights the differences between the two boards.  However, someone felt emotional enough on the subject to make a note in the first place, so I left it up, clarified.  I'm only trying to be respectful of everyone's feelings, here.
Pete Snowball 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Lsjzl:
I've a few comments on your latest edits -
*Deleting "only" - I would say that leaving "only" in emphasizes Wierwille's frustation with his denomination. No matter what side one is on, it demonstrates Wierwille's impatience with his church - I think it should be put back in
: Perhaps the word "already" before frustrated but still leaving out the word "only"? Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is a personal thing but, to keep Wikipedia International based and not US-centric, we can't call cities then states, but in other countries call them by their city then country name. It should be the same standard I thought? Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can get the other documentation that would be great regardless, but for sure the class was not always identical. I don't know if this means much as I did not take both classes and can't get copies to compare but maybe word it so it does appear that at first it could have been identical and then changed later? etc. Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm. What you say can make sense, however it may also be used to try and point TO his controlling nature and the idea that only then was he sure others would follow his directives (as automoton) which of course we can't truly know.. I didn't see that it added anything to the documentation here. Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless centralizing that control was the reason AND only end of this move to incorporate the regions, pointing this out over anything else is non-NPOV I would think and again isn't necessary but is rather someone's POV even if it could be interpreted either way. That is I think. The tone here of all my responses is of course conversational. I doubt you and I have ever really had differences (if you don't mind a personal note) so I hope you get what I mean whatever we (or others) end up agreeing on! :D Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: My issue is that the inclusion of the explanation as it stands reads as if Wierwille was saying that in the Bible, when it is capitalized it means God and when it is not it means otherwise. Which is skimming rather lightly and sorta missing his point. If it is necessary for inclusion I prefer some more detail otherwise just pull it out. Lsjzl 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lsjzl's new edits 

message: *"most of the Way Corps were told that it was an accredited college. The accreditation was supposed to be through the Rome City campus" 
So, what's the purpose of this edit? Their "colleges" were undoubtedly unacredited. TWI doesn't deny that they're unacredited. I undid it mainly because the purpose seems to muddy the waters, or soften a supposed negative.  
*Founding date: this has been hashed over several times. There is a discussion about it in the archives. The Vesper Chimes radio broadcast was founded in 1942. TWI was not incorporated until 1955
*" In the early seventies Wierwille added to this account that God confirmed this promise by making it snow on an otherwise clear day" vs. "and to confirm this promise made snow appear to Wierwille on an otherwise clear day". 
We don't know that the snow fell, we don't know that it didn't. We know that Wierwille said that it did. Saying that it definitely was a miracle is definitely not NPOV. 
*Deletion of "Despite this promise to be taught by God himself, Wierwille was again ready to give up on his mission a decade later; his "ministry" was still confined to his pastoral assignment and his radio program." 
- this wording has been hashed out among editors both sympathetic to TWI and hostile with every effort to remain NPOV
*"he initially called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and soon changed to "Power for Abundant Living", though it was similar to Leonard's class, including names of characters such as Maggie Muggins."vs. "Both B.G. Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class and VP Wierwille's "Power for Abundant Living" classes are very similar, including names of characters such as Maggie Muggins." 
- the revision waters down the fact that Leonard's class preceeded Wierwille's. What other reason is there for making this change?
*Filming of the Advanced Class
Why the revision? The Advanced Class was not necessarily a "newer version"
*Four crucified.
I undid this addition '"which account for four seperate criminals being killed, reading all four Gospel accounts in harmony together show the timing of these crucifictions." because TWI's interpretation is not universally agreed upon. Just reading the verses do not show the timing, TWI's interpretation shows this timing. The revision was not NPOV. The purpose of this article is not to justify and explain TWI's teachings, but to present them in a neutral fashion
*Plurality giving....a general example switched for a specific one...why?
*Gift Ministries - the term isn't found in the bible, why the deletion?
*7 Administrations - okay, animal sacrifice is an example...any specific reason for the change?
*Sonship Rights - the term isn't found in the bible, again, why the deletion?
*Thorn in the flesh - we have hashed out the approach to presenting TWI doctrine, i.e., not turning these sections into teachings, or explaining every position. TWI's position is accurately presented.
*Cry of Triumph - another attempt to paint TWI teaching in a more favorable light?
*Original Sin of Mankind - since Wierwille explicitly and clearly taught in Christian Family & Sex that the original sin was masturbation, why the deletion? The representation of Martindale's teaching was watered down as well
The wording of much of this page has been wrangled over on this discussion page with still active TWI members as well as ex-TWI folks not sympathetic to TWI participating. Jump in on the discussion page so we can come to a consensus. Wording which is slanted either for or against TWI will be changed. This does not mean that some things can't be seen in either a positive or negative light. 
It appears that some of the changes made were done in order to soften a possible negative interpretation. 
Ten of Swords 00:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  galenyoung & waycorps21 edits and revisions 

message: Thanks Madmartigan for the grammar fixes! We seem to be overly fond here of the word "that", which you fixed. However, you seem to be a cheerleader for the Comma Restorationist Party ; - )
Welcome to WikipediaTen of Swords 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madmartigan Punctuation Fixes 

message: I undid the revision regarding more recent versions of "The Way of Abundance and Power". The section in which it occurs only refers to that class as part of the mention of Martindale's crusade against homosexuals, and is not primarily concerned with that class. Perhaps changes in WayAP could be mentioned in another subsection, or in the classes section.
Longley, are you a current Way member or leader? And does your revision mean that The Way no longer believes that the devil came into concretion as a woman and had lesbian sex with Eve or that it simply is no longer included in the WayAP class?
Ten of Swords 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo Ten, I haven't taken the new class but have also not heard any teaching correcting that doctrine just that it isn't in the new Foundational. L8er Lsjzl 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I reworded this section to remove unreferenced, potentially libelous statements attributed to Martindale in an effort to make it more NPOV.  Per Wiki rules, any such statements attributed to a living person need to be referenced. The point of the section is that a "purge" occured due to the desire to get rid of homosexuals and sympathizers, not a teaching of concepts from various classes that have no listed references. LovelyLillith (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks good to meTen of Swords (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martindale's "homosexual purge" 

message: Is it even needed?  I think it's appropriate to have it, but the information is ambiguous and doesn't really relate all that much to his death.Dafhgadsrhadjtb 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way it's written is left over from an older version of this page where membership growth was immediately before Wierwille's death. Do you have any suggestions as to how it should be handled? Keep in mind we need to maintain an NPOV.Ten of Swords 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wierwille's Death

message: This may be nitpicking, but I reverted to wording that stated that "one of the purposes" of the Rock of Ages was to welcome home returning WOWs from "the original purpose..."
The first Rock of Ages is referred to in contemporary Way Magazines as "The Return of The Rock of Ages" and refers to the music portion of a weekend-long "Summer Advance" that capped that year's summer school program. At some point during the advance, Wierwille springs his idea of WOW Ambassadors, based on a pilot program spearheaded by Donnie Fugit and a handful of others that summer. Volunteers went home and came back later (October?) for their training and assignments. 
It wasn't until the second Rock of Ages at the Sidney fairgrounds in 1972 that WOWs were welcomed "home". 
I also reverted back to wording that described the WOW program as facilitating recruitment for TWI rather than as an evangelical program that's purpose was to "introduce people to Christ". I think that even those with the most sympathetic view of TWI would agree that "introducing people to Christ" was not what WOWs were doing.Ten of Swords 13:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rock of Ages/WOW Program 

message: "However, archaeological evidence and historical records indicate that Roman executions by crucifixion were frequently done by using a cross beam fastened to a vertical pole, supporting the traditional image of the cross as being "T-Shaped"."  << Was removed. Why? This is not a place to debate their theology.. sheesh. Should I go edit all the religions I don't agree with. I also move that some of the belief section needs to be edited down. A little too much on a not too huge group perhaps? Lsjzl (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah c'mon...no debating in the article! ; - ) - spoilsport!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ten of Swords (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The point that Lsjzl was making was that the article is not the place to debate TWI teachings and that inserting rebuttals after every statement is not according to wiki standards. The use of the word "traditional" to describe the "T" shaped cross in the article is appropriate because it is the the cross image that most people think of. Rightly or wrongly TWI presented an alternative image to the traditional one. As far as "historical" goes, most neutral articles, including the wikipedia article on crucifixion, state that there were "crosses" of several different shapes.Ten of Swords (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Cross