Steve Lortz

Mr. Hammeroni - You wrote, "With Loy at the helm, he could 'lead' the company into a financial condition unparalleled since the first century." Since Bally's was NOT IN BUSINESS in the first century, I see the truth of your statement :-) Love, Steve

Garth - Here are three more synonyms for judgment; perception, "aisthesis" and common sense. They all describe the mental action required to form a "sentence". If logic operates by comparing and contrasting "sentences", which it does, then judgment, "aisthesis", perception, or common sense HAS to precede logic. I can form syllogisms that are logically valid, but untrue, because they are based on flawed premises (sentences that don't accord with objective reality). Now this whole sidebar discussion illustrates an important thing to keep in mind about discourse. I used the word "judgment". If you had been sharp, you would have asked something like "What do you mean by "judgment"? If I had been sharp, I would have said something like "I think you've mistaken what I meant by 'judgment'. In what sense are you using the word?" These are called "probing questions", and are used to assure agreement on basic definitions and principles. I was using the word "judgment" as a term of art, as it is used in the formal study of logic. It accords most nearly with your dictionary definition #2.a. Thanks for the dialogue, Garth! I'll address some of the other points you and Raf have raised sometime in the next few days. Art is long and time is fleeting. Love, Steve P.S. - We really do train our students to think like this! It's fun to actually exercise the skill in the real world :-D

So, what happens when a person doesn't fear the Lord? I need to make a few points clear before launching into this particular consideration: I believe the fear of God can be taught, I believe the fear of God is something a person chooses, I don't think a person either fears the Lord, or doesn't fear the Lord, as a matter of who they are, for their whole life long. I think there are times when we who think about it do it, and other times when we don't. I think fearing God is something we have to keep doing, thought by thought. I don't think the catagories of "those who fear God" and "those who don't" are absolute. I think those terms refer to a person's predominant habit of mind, not necessarily to every particular decision. I don't think "not fearing God" is the same thing as having a reprobate mind. A person who doesn't fear God is still exercising a form of judgment, even if erroneously. But the person who knowingly surrenders his responsibility to judge loses it, barring repentance and an act of God's mercy and grace. Those things being said, let's look at Psalm 36. I'm going to use the NIV to avoid some KJV archaisms. Remember, the fear of God moves us to submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the critique of the living Word of God. We need to do this because our hearts themselves are deceitful. Whatever things come out of our hearts seem right to us, whether they actually are or not, because we are the ones who put those things in there to begin with, through our habitual thinking. Fear stems from a recognition of differences in power. "There is no fear of God before his eyes." "Before his eyes" indicates what a person pays habitual attention to. A person who does not fear God habitually ignores the difference in power between himself and God. "For in his eyes he flatters himself too much to detect or hate his sin." In order for a person to ignore the diffence in power between himself and God, he either has to falsely elevate himself, in his own estimation, to the same power level as God, or falsely reduce God's power to the same level as his own. He flatters himself. Since he is not willing to submit the thoughts and intents of his heart to the critique of God's living Word, he cannot DETECT the evil in his own heart, and hence, cannot hate it. "The words of his mouth are wicked and deceitful: he has ceased to be wise and to do good." The words of his mouth are wicked because they are WRONG. Have they always been wrong? Not necessarily. The verse says he has "ceased to be wise". There may well have been a time when the words that came out of his mouth were RIGHT. It may well be the SAME words still coming out of his mouth, but the time for them has passed, or the need of application has changed. "Even on his bed he plots evil." In the innermost part of his being, when nobody else is around, he still thinks wrong things, because many of the thoughts and intents of his heart are still wrong. How would he know the difference? "He commits himself to a sinful course." He makes bad decisions, and sticks to them. "...and does not reject what is wrong." How COULD he reject it? He can't even recognize it, because he trusts his own heart more than he trusts the living Word of God! Next time... hypocrisy. Love, Steve

Garth, You wrote, Ahh ooopsie! Not quite. It is logic should precede judgement. I.e., you use logic to render a judgement. Informed and mature logic. Using judgement to render 'logic' is like making a decision before you have all the relevent and consistant information. And, as so often is in cases like this, this results in stubborness and 'blind faith' to embrace and be loyal to that decision rendered irrespective of what logic can convey. Sorry Charlie. .... Reality is like that, pain in the assets as that might be. ;)--> Where did you learn logic, Garth? Mental Action - Simple Apprehension Verbal Expression - Term Mental Action - Judgment Verbal Expression - Proposition Mental Action - Deductive Inference Verbal Expression - Syllogism Mental Action - Rhetoric Verbal Expression - Thesis When we exercise simple apprehension, we assign names to things and experiences. These names are "terms". When we exercise judgment, we recognize relationships between things. The statement of a judgment is a "proposition", or a sentence composed of terms that states the relation between things. When we exercise logic, we use a formalized set of rules to gain new knowledge from that which is already known, by comparing and contrasting propositions. This is called "deductive inference". The verbal expression of deductive inference is a "syllogism", which consists of three propositions. Each of these propositions is a sentence which expresses a judgment. When we exercise rhetoric, we propose an answer to some question. Cicero's description, "the practical application of knowledge for the guidance of human affairs" seems to me to be the best definition of rhetoric. The verbal expression of a thesis is usually in the form of a proposition, which may be simple or complex, an exposition of arguments for the thesis, a rebuttal of the obvious arguments against the thesis, and a conclusion which reiterates the thesis statement. Logic is a tool for presenting, attacking and defending a thesis. You have mistaken my use of the word "judgment" for what happens when a person decides either to accept or reject a thesis. Judgment, the ability to recognize and accurately describe the relations between things, precedes both logic and rhetoric. If the judgment is flawed, both logic and rhetoric are flawed. Yepper, Garth... reality is like that, pain in the assests as that might be. ;-D Love, Steve [edited to correct terminology - Steve]

Jerry - God bless you, sir! It's been too long since I heard from you. The dialogues you and I used to have are some of my fondest internet memories. I hope everything has been going well with you! You wrote, This is what I wrote, I'm not equating the Scripture with the Lord in every sense. The Lord is living in and of himself. The written Word only lives when we combine our consideration of it with the kind of conversational relationship with the Lord that you recommend. I believe God put His written Word into objective reality so that we would have an objective standard to test our subjective experiences against. Without an ongoing conversation with God, we could lapse into hypocritcal legalism. But if we talk to spirits without an objective standard, we can fall into emotionalistic spiritualism. If one were to follow my premise, he would INDEED have to check his heartfelt beliefs against the Scripture. Checking your heartfelt beliefs against the Scripture doesn't necessarily mean having a fluent, non-contradictory grasp of the whole book. For the most part, it doesn't require concordances and retemories. "Don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal. Do unto other as you would have them do unto you." There isn't much difficult about that. What do you talk with God about? I talk with Him about what's in my heart, and what's in His Word. I've learned most about the Bible by doing that. Breaking out the concordance only confirms or denies what I think God is teaching me. And that has been VERY VALUABLE at times when I've mistaken what I thought I was being taught. That's part of the reason I asked people to point out verses they think might confirm or disaffirm what I'm teaching. I may be wrong. God knows how much and what parts of the Scripture each one of us knows. He knows how to work with each one of us, if we allow Him to. Thank you, Jerry! Love, Steve

So, here's where we left off: How about... !!!FEAR!!! Gasp! Specifically... the!!!!!! FEAR OF GOD!!!!!! Oh NOOOooooOOOOOoooOOOOoooooo!?! We can't FEAR God! FEAR is the law of believing operating in reverse. FEAR is "F"alse "E"vidence "A"ppearing "R"eal. FEAR is never a good thing. FEAR always encases. FEAR always enslaves. FEAR always binds. Sure, the Bible uses the word "phobos", but in relation to God, that doesn't mean "FEAR" fear, it only means "respect". We tip our hats to Him if we meet Him on the street. We stand up and give Him our seats on the bus. When we speak to Him, we call Him "Sir", and use a respectful tone of voice. Are those things right? If not, then why do they SOUND so right to those of us who were influenced by TWI? Perhaps because they were things we internalized? In reality, what IS fear? It is an emotion, a mental prompting that urges us to move. Fear is triggered when we recognize that something, in some way, has more power than we have, and can potentially hurt us. Fear urges us to move in such a way that we come into a safe relation with that which we fear. Fear, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. It is a protective feature God designed into us. Fear becomes destructive only when we fear the wrong things, or move in such a way that we don't come into a safe relation. Now, part of my definition of something that triggers fear was "and can potentially hurt us." Is that a reasonable thing to say about God? Does He have the power to hurt us? Here we have the admonitions "trust in the Lord" and "fear the Lord" in the same song, almost within a breath of each other. Aren't they contradictory? The double account of creation in Genesis emphasizes two aspects of God. First, His power in bringing creation to pass, and second, the love that He has toward His creation. Power and love, they go together in God. It's like the illustration Wierwille used to give, about the man with a flat tire. If I came along and said "I want to help you, but I don't have a jack" I would have the love, but not the power. If I came along and said "I've got a jack, but I'm not going to help YOU" I'd have the power, but not the love. Without God's love, His power wouldn't just be fearful, but insanely terrifying. Without God's power, His love would be uselessly wimpy. When we recognize God's power, we know that He DOES have the ability to hurt us and we fear Him. When we recognize His love, we know that He isn't going to hurt us, even though he has the power to do so, and we trust Him. Remember that business in Proverbs 3:7, "Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord and depart from evil"? What does it mean to be "wise in thine own eyes"? It means to trust that the thoughts and intents of your own heart are ALWAYS right. What does it mean to "fear the Lord"? it means to submit the thoughts and intents of your heart to the critique of the living Word of God. With this understanding of the fear of God, let's look at another passage, When we fear the Lord, when we recognize His power, we become willing to submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to His critique. If a particular thought is right, He will let us know, and we can retain that thought. If a particular intent is wrong, then His critique will reprove us, and we can correct that intent. What happens when a person DOESN'T fear the Lord? More later. Love, Steve

Garth - My post wasn't intended as a complete response to Raf's post. I intend to address his points, but I'm not going to until after I've developed my full thought on the "Internalization" thread. I didn't want Raf to think I was high-hatting him. You wrote, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations." Au contrare, my dear friend. Here is where rational logic fits into the scheme of things: Mental Action - Simple Apprehension Verbal Expression - Term Mental Action - Judgment Verbal Expression - Proposition Mental Action - Deductive Inference Verbal Expression - Syllogism Mental Action - Rhetoric Verbal Expression - Thesis Judgment precedes logic. If your logic is based on flawed judgment, your syllogism may be logically valid, yet in reality, unsound. An assumption is a guess that a person makes when he needs to take a decision, yet has incomplete knowledge. None of us have complete knowledge. There is an element of blind faith at the foundation of every logical system. Love, Steve

Thanks, Yanagisawa! More from me in the morning. Love, Steve

Raf - I need to complete my thought on the "Internalization" thread before returning to the topic here, but let me say this: Words have meanings. Meanings lead to thoughts. Thoughts lead to actions. Actions have consequences. This is something we teach our students over and over again, in ALL their classes. Love, Steve

In our culture we often hear this advice, "Just follow your heart." There's only one problem with that, The heart is deceitful !?! How can that be? Every thought and intent that comes out of a person's HEART seems right to that person, because he, through the habitual use of his own MIND, put those thoughts and intents in there to begin with. The heart is uncritically receptive to the habits of the mind. When those thoughts and intents come back out, they don't seem like things that should be subject to analysis. They seem self-evident. They seem true. They just seem right. When Hitler was committing his atrocities, he thought in his heart that he was doing the right things. That's how the habitual thoughts of his mind had conditioned the thoughts of his heart. If my heart can't tell whether it's thoughts and intents are good or bad, how can I know that I'm not saying and doing evil, all the while believing myself to be saying and doing what's right? Jeremiah 17:9 asked, who can know the heart? Proverbs 21:2 supplied the answer, the Lord ponders the heart. The living Word of God is a critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts. Now "the living Word of God" is not just the ink on the page, the letter of the law. In order for the written Word to live, the things written in it must be compared and contrasted with the things God is communicating to us by means of His spirit. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall a matter be established. Where the written Word of God and the spirit of God working in us agree, then the matter is established. When a thought or intent of our heart rises up into our consciousness, we need to compare and contrast that thought or intent with matters established by the living Word of God. The living Word gives us critiques of the content of our hearts. In order to know and do God's will, we have to submit the thoughts and intents of our hearts to the critique of the living Word of God. But... every way of a man is right in his own eyes. What could possibly move a person to submit what seems so right to ANYBODY'S critque? Think about that. Love, Steve

As I was saying, I believe the Word of God calls the part of thinking that is characterized by conscious awareness, analysis and deliberate volition the "mind". It refers to the part of thinking characterized by a less direct awareness, uncritical receptivity and reflex as the "heart". We know that our minds, through the process of internalization, condition or program our hearts. I have not yet done exhaustive word studies on these things, but I believe the Bible indicates the same thing. Those things that we deliberately pay attention to, and think about as a matter of habit, condition the thoughts and intents of our hearts. What are "treasures"? They are the things to which we attach value. The things to which we attach value with our minds become the things of value in our hearts. Love, Steve P.S. - Like I said, I haven't had time to do exhaustive word studies on these things yet, so if any of you find verses you think affirm or disaffirm my line of thinking, please bring them up.

When you stop and think about it, isn't the whole GreaseSpot enterprise an exercise in reproof... of TWI and its followers (among whom some of us formerly were)? Love, Steve

On Feb. 13, '05, 14:16, still on page 13 of that thread I wrote, I think if I was starting this thread today, its title would somehow contain the phrase "the fear of God". added by Steve Lortz, March 1, 2005 There I was, driving down the street. I was in my late teens in the late '60s driving a white Ford Fairlane. It had a manual transmission with the stick on the column. I was downtown in traffic. I went to shift gears, and the stick came off in my hand. It had snapped off where the hole had been drilled for a bolt to hold the stick to the control linkage. What to do? What to do? I jammed the stick back into the hole it had come out of... wiggled it around...and... continued to drive! Fortunately, my action worked. Now those of you who've never driven a manual transmission may not realize the complexity of thinking I had to do when that stick came off in my hand. Driving a manual requires the simultaneous, coordinated operation of five separate controls with only four limbs. The left hand operates the steering wheel. The right hand operates the stick. The left foot operates the clutch pedal. The right foot operates the brake and the gas pedals. I had to continue to operate those controls. I was in traffic. I also had to be continuously aware of changing spatial positions and relative speeds. I was using my left hand to keep me in my lane, and my left foot to hold in the clutch. My right foot was hovering beteen the brake and the gas trying to figure out how to keep from rear-ending the car in front of me, or from being rear ended by the car behind. All the while my right hand was quite unexpectedly waving a now useless stick. I had to turn my attention toward doing something. What? How? I had to be single minded. I didn't have time to think about what my left hand, my left foot and my right foot were doing... Yet they continued to operate the car safely. Why? Because I had internalized the procedures required to safely operate a car with a manual transmission. What we call our "mind" works on a variety of levels of consciousness. One level is a state of focused attention characterized by analytical thought and deliberate volition. Another is an uncritically receptive state that normally works reflexively outside of our awareness. When I first learned to drive, I had to pay careful attention to each thing I did with each of my limbs. I had to work out each action on the conscious level of my thinking. But as I practiced those actions over and over, the reflexive level of my mind gradually relieved the conscious level of performing those duties. When the stick came off in my hand, the conscious part of my mind took on the task of figuring out what to do, while the reflexive part of my mind assumed the job of controlling the car. I believe the Bible discusses these two levels of mental operation and their relation with each other. I believe the Word of God calls the analytical, deliberative, conscious level the "mind"; and the uncritically receptive, reflexive, unconscious level the "heart". When the stick came off in my hand, I was figuring out what to do with my mind while my heart was continuing to drive the car. I want to keep this thread in relatively short chunks for ease of reading. I'll be back to post the next step after I grab a quick bite. Love, Steve

I received a jolt of "sunesis" last Thurday. I've spent the intervening time developing an articulation of it. It applies to the theme of this thread, but I need to start another thread just for that topic, before returning to this thread. I'm going to start the new thread tomorrow. It's title will be "Internalization". Love, Steve

The paperclips... ah, yes... the paperclips... But before getting into that, I perceive that I need to clarify my thesis. 1. The actions that the leaders of CES take do not line up with the words that they speak. 2. The leaders of CES seem to be oblivious to the truth that their actions do not line up with their words. 3. This blindness to their own incongruity disqualifies them from exercising responsible leadership, the same way a big dose of pain killer disqualifies a person from operating heavy machinery. Back to the paperclips: This particular teaching, published on the CES bimonthly audiotape for Sep/Oct '96, was entitled "The Mystery Revisited", and was intended to defend the traditional scheme of "administrations" CES inherited from Wierwille. Here are some notes I made at the time: Schoenheit used the example of stealing paperclips from the office to illustrate his interpretation of the word "purloin" in Titus 2:10. It was not a teaching on ethics. It was a teaching on how we need to pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture. In that very teaching Schoenheit used II Timothy 3:16 to point out that it says ALL Scripture, WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed. Now, let's apply a little bit of logic, since the CES leaders magnify it so much. If II Timothy 3:16 means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is God-breathed, then it also means ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for doctrine, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for reproof, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for correction, ALL Scripture WITHOUT EXCEPTION is profitable for instruction. Schoenheit says we can fall into error, EVEN SIN, if we don't pay attention to the smallest detail of Scripture, yet he fails to pay attention to the detail that CES Principle #15.c. contradicts II Timothy 3:16. Hey... you reader... out there in cyberland... can YOU see the contradiction? The contradiction may seem like a puny, picky thing, but the BIG THING is, why a man who professes to be a Biblical scholar CAN'T see the contradiction?????????????? Love, Steve

Raf - Perhaps I have been too sarcastic, but I don't back down from the truth of what I've said about "partnership". If I see a person in need (and sometimes just in "want"), and I have the money to give, I give. If I go to someone's service, I'll kick a few bucks into the collection plate to help cover expenses. But it was due to my experience with CES that I have pledged never again to pledge money to an organization where I can't cast a vote to throw out the leaders in charge. You guys pledged money to CES. What did they pledge to you in return? Copies of the Contender? Copies of teaching tapes? Did you read what Tzaia posted the other day? Your ABS... er... free-will regular donations at work. Raf, you wrote, "A partner is someone you team up with to get the job done." Is this the job you teamed up with Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser to get done? Are the things they are spending your money on any more ethical than Wierwille's plagiarism? Are you partners or accessories? Love, Steve P.S. - I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I hold you in very high regard, Raf. My pop was a professional newspaperman, and it was his love for the truth in the work he did that set the example for me to love the truth.

C'mon all you PARTNERS out there! Can't even one of you find out what your PARTNERS are currently teaching!?! Love, Steve (edited to remove an unwarrented outburst of snideness - Steve)

Raf - You wrote, "'Cash cows' is a pretty bitter way of saying 'free-will regular donors.'" It may well seem that way to you, Raf, but "partner" seems like a pretty deceptive and manipulative way to say "free-will regular donor" to me. If you ARE a regular donor, then that's what you are. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But if you are a REGULAR DONOR, why does CES, and all the other organizations they unconsciously imitate, use such a falsely empowering word as "partner"? This may seem like a VERY SMALL thing, as well as my beef about CES Principle #15.c., but these very small things are indicators of the attitudes of heart carried by the leaders of CES, and ALL OF US whose thoughts were influenced by Wierwille's teachings. And those attitudes of heart are something VERY BIG. If we're going to correct our attitudes of heart, we MUST pay attention to the details of the words we use, and the ways we use them. More on this later. Love, Steve

Tzaia - You wrote, "Will you share your perspective on which ones [CES' "22 Principles"] are contradictory?" I could do several that require some time to digest because of the convolution, but I'll start with one that is fairly simple. It is real, not apparent, and it is not a matter of interpretational differences. Before I launch into this, the material is several years old. If some of you who still have contact with CES find that they HAVE changed some of these things, I appeal to you to inform me of any updates they have made. From CES' "22 Principles": Let's examine II Timothy 3:16&17 in light of CES Principle #6., specifically "what is said", These two verses contain one sentence, or complete thought, composed of two clauses. The clause in verse 17 indicates the purpose of the things stated in the first clause, verse 16. The information in verse 17 may or may not effect our understanding, one way OR the other, concerning the contradiction to verse 16 presented in CES' Principles, but discussion of THAT would greatly lengthen this post. Verse 16 consists of one subject, "All Scripture"; one understood verb substantive, correctly supplied by the KJV translators, "is"; two predicative adjectives, "given by inspiration of God" ["theopneustos" = "God-breathed"] and "profitable", connected by the conjunction "and" ["kai" = "and"]; and five prepositional phrases, "for ["pros" = "for"] doctrine, for ["pros"] reproof, for ["pros"] correction, for ["pros"]instruction in ["en" = "by the instrument or agency of"] righteousness" "All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction by righteousness." The four prepositional phrases beginning with "for" modify the second predicative adjective "profitable". They tell what "All Scripture" is "profitable" for. The prespositional phrase beginning with "in" modifies the word "instruction". "All Scripture" is "profitable" "for instruction" that is by the agency or instrument of righteousness. If we delete the first predicative adjective, the prepositional phrase beginning with "in", and the second clause in verse 17, we will not have the COMPLETE thought the author intended to convey, but we can draw out an ACCURATE SENSE of the portion left: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction." It would be grammatically valid for us to distribute the subject and the verb to each of the four prepositional phrases: "All Scripture is profitable for doctrine. All Scripture is profitable for reproof. All Scripture is profitable for correction. All Scripture is profitable for instruction." That is what II Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture..." That is what II Timothy 3:16 means, "All Scripture..." Yet CES Principle #15.c. says, How does CES Principle #15.c. contradict II Timothy 3:16 interpreted in light of CES Principle #6.? First, it reduces the number of things "All Scripture" is profitable for, from four to three. Then it indicates that different sections of Scripture are profitable for different things. Is CES Principle #15.c. a result of diligent research, or a blind parroting of Wierwille's tradition? Where did the idea come from? On page 1660 of "The Companion Bible" Bullinger gives "The Inter-relation of the Seven Church Epistles as Shown by the Structure as a Whole" In a highly abbreviated form, it reads, So we see that Wierwille cribbed it from Bullinger. BUT... was Bullinger being consistent? On page 146 of Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible", Bullinger presented II Timothy 3:16 as an example of "asyndeton", or "without conjunctions". Notice that there are no "ands" connecting the four "pros" phrases in the verse. Regarding "asyndeton", on page 137 (op.cit.) Bullinger wrote, "...we are not detained over the separate statements, and asked to consider each in detail, but we are hurried on over the various matters that are mentioned, as though they were of no account..." Back on page 146, specifically with reference to II Timothy 3:16, Bullinger wrote, "Here we are hurried on, and not asked to stop and consider the four things for which all Scripture is profitable..." According to Bullinger's "Figures of Speech", there are FOUR things for which ALL Scripture is profitable. "Asyndeton" tells us it's not important for us to pry into the differences between those four things. Yet in the "Companion Bible", Bullinger teaches that there are only three things for which Scripture is profitable, by equating "doctrine" with "instruction". He had to reduce the number to three in order to make his perceived structure work, and he had to violate the sense of II Timothy 3:16 to make it mean different parts of Scripture are profitable for different things. Wierwille did not quote straight from Bullinger. He taught II Timothy 3:16 as, "All Scripture is God-breathed, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, which is instruction in righteousness..." Wierwille didn't reduce the number from four to three by equating "doctrine" with "instruction" the way Bullinger did. Wierwille accomplished that sleight of hand by changing the prepositional phrase from "for instruction in righteousness" to "which is instruction in righteousness. How did he do that? Here is Ricker-Berry's translation, Weirwille reduced the number from four to three by eliminating the presposition "for" and then slipping Ricker-Berry's "which [is]" to the other side of "discipline". Was Wierwille practicing honest scholarship? Or was he handling the Word of God deceitfully? I think the answer to that question is pretty clear. CES doesn't even pretend to relate Principle #15.c. to II Timothy 3:16. They just said #15.c., so... POOF!... #15.c. was there. Why? What question of interpretation has ever depended on CES' Principle #15.c.? In Principle #15.c., CES wrests the words "doctrine", "reproof" and "correction" out of context (II Timothy 3:16) and makes them to mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text. Principle #15.c. contradicts Principle #6. Now people may very well say, "So what? What does it matter?" If CES were just another group of Bible fans saying, "Hey, this is what we think. What do you think?" it WOULDN'T matter. But that's not what CES makes itself out to be. They take as a motto, "Speaking the truth in love". Are they really speaking the truth? Is it really in love if their attention has been called to their errors, and they ignore the reproof and correction? They make a big deal about Truth versus Tradition, but they don't examine THEIR OWN DOCTRINES to eliminate the leaven of Wierwille's traditions that are still there. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! If any of you have access to current CES thinking, PLEASE let us know if they have eliminated Principle #15.c. If, on the other hand, they are continuing to propagate this particular error, please let us know THAT as well. Love, Steve

Here's a thought for partners of CES. In a legal partnership, the partnership as a whole is bound by the decisions of ANY of the partners (except for partners who are formally silent). That is, the partners share not only in responsibility for the assests and liabilities of their organization, they also share in determining what the organization says and does. The partners have authority within the partnership. How much authority can YOU exercise within CES? For instance, CES has published a list of 22 principles for interpreting the Bible. Say you are examing these principles and you realize several of them are contradictory. You realize those principles derive, not from an examination of the truth, but from a thoughtless acceptance of tradition taught in PFAL. You point this out to your other "partners", with valid, sound, scriptural evidence for your position. Your "partners" refuse to even consider what you have to say. For form's sake, they may sit there and listen to you, nodding appreciatively... but nothing changes. They continue to teach erroneous tradition, all the while bloviating about the importance of truth. What authority can you - as a CES "partner" - exercise to correct error? Do the legal owners of the CES corporation really see you as partners? or as organizational cash-cows? Love, Steve

Tzaia - It's good to know you're still alive and kickin'! We'll have to get together sometime and use those serving utensils again, and catch up on what's been happening. Love, Steve

Tzaia - If I'm remembering rightly, my wife and I spent some good times at your house in the mid- to late-'90s. If that's so, then God bless you!, and welcome to the GreaseSpot Cafe. If it isn't, then God bless you!, and welcome to the GreaseSpot Cafe. Love, Steve

I used to be involved with CES. I withdrew all support from them back in '96. In the late-'80s and early-'90s, they were doing a lot to rethink the things we had been taught in TWI. But once they published something, that was it. No more rethinking, no matter how stupid the position was. God CAN'T have fore-knowledge, otherwise we'd be able to blame God. We CAN'T trust what Paul wrote in Romans, because he hadn't yet had the Momentus experience at Jerusalem that broke his "Jewish mindset". Since the mid-'90s (and their own Momentus experiences), they have been trying to construct a new, improved version of TWI. They have lost sight of the truth, and are busy building another religious empire. Love, Steve

My wife and I (after having left TWI) spent some time hanging out with a couple who had left the WWCoG. The break up of Armstrong's organization began before WWCoG turned back to orthodoxy. Turning back to orthodoxy was one of the things the leaders did in attempting to control damage. There are probably as many ex-WWCoG people out there, with as many different interpretations of their experiences, as there are ex-TWI people. Love, Steve

I don't have any personal horror stories about L.E.A.D. My dad loved to camp and we went out nearly every summer. When I was in the Navy, I had backpacking gear, and I'd go out sometimes when we had a long weekend. I backpacked by myself up in the Adironacks and on the island of Maui. I wanted to hike across Haleakala crater, but never got around to it. I went L.E.A.D. in the mid-'80s, once with a non-corps group in the Black Hills during my apprentice year. We were there on L.E.A.D. when we got word that Wierwille had died. I went again to Tinnie during the second block of my first year in residence. I actually hitch-hiked three times. The first time, we only made it to Amarillo by the deadline, so we turned around and went back to Emporia. The second time, we made it all the way to Roswell, but we were still late, and had to go back to Gunnison. It took us a long time to get back (I think it was four days) but we had some fun on the way. My partner was hispanic, which I think saved my fundio in some of the little towns north of Santa Fe. One evening we were picked up by an hispanic professor from the university. He took us to the old hacienda of his family's sheep ranch and let us spend the night. It was cool! I got along well with my L.E.A.D. group supervisor, who gave me my evaluation while I was on "duo". I dropped out at the end of that block (shortly after the Corps night where G**r read POP). I didn't have any other means to get back home from Gunnison, so I hitch-hiked alone, and then sent TWI money to ship the gear I had boxed up. That was the scariest time I ever hitched, and haven't done it again since. It was highly irresponsible and deplorable for Wierwille and his yes-men to send women and girls out on the road. There was a BIG difference between the non-WC and the WC sessions. We didn't have to hitch hike, for one thing. The non-WC session was considerate and enjoyable. The focus of the WC session was on getting the results, no matter what it took, positive or NEGATIVE. I did okay in the woods, because I already had the skills. but looking back, it seems now to me to have been an exercise in the end justifying the means. My L.E.A.D. experiences exerted a major influence on my decision, while on Lightbearers, to manipulate people. I am sorry for that. Love, Steve