Steve Lortz

I second Raf's nomination. Too many things have come up here for me to deal with at this time and on this thread. As soon as my schedule permits, I'll start a thread on the doctrinal forum re-examining some of the things we took for granted as "truth" in TWI... many of which we still take for granted without any scriptural support whatsoever. I was up early and late yesterday, with a faculty meeting before school started and a parent/teacher meeting in the evening. Many of us hung around after the formal meeting was over discussing everything from the implications of quantum mechanics to the lust for certainty. It was good, and we didn't get into fights, despite all our different religious backgrounds. Gotta go sleep. Love, Steve

"Rapture" is a word. People use it when they talk about the Bible. Therefore, "rapture" is a biblical word. *** Geeze loueeze! With that kind of reasoning, how can you guys fault Mike for saying PFAL is God-breathed? *** PFAL has words in it. Some of them say something or other about something being God-breathed. Therefore, PFAL is God-breathed. *** Get a clue people. Stage magicians make a living by misdirecting peoples' attention. They know that the human eye is attracted to motion. They make a broad sweeping motion with one hand, while working their chicanery through unobtrusive movements of the other. Wierwille swindled us, folks. Dispensationalism was... not an important... not a major... but a NECESSARY... component of that swindle. Wierwille couldn't have done what he did so well without dispensationalism. And dispensationalism doesn't work without using the unbiblical word "rapture", to distract peoples' attention from what's actually written in the Bible. Wierwille didn't invent the swindle, and he isn't the only one who has practiced it. The Irvingites were the first ones to use "rapture" the way we might recognize it today, as the first part of a two-stage appearing. They did so in 1830. Darby lifted it from them and used it to postulate a pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church". Darby's main theme was that the "Church" is completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. No prophecies "addressed to Israel" could be applied to the "Church". Therefore, Darby had to get the "Church" out of here before the tribulation. "Voila!" Darby exclaims on the lime-lit stage, using his right hand to proudly wave the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church" over his head. With his left hand, he surruptitiously pockets our genuinely biblical heritage. He pockets the promise of resurrection and return to the land. He pockets the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31. He pockets Paul's conception of the Church; as the believing remnant of Israel under the New Testament, with believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, grafted in on the same basis as the remnant of Israel, by grace through faith. If you really get honest with the logical conclusion of dispensationalism, Darby surruptitiously pockets the cross of Christ. Scofield found out he could turn a profit by selling Bibles. Ordinarily, that would have been a difficult thing to do, because you can't copyright the good old King Jimmy. However, if you mix your notes in there with the text, you CAN copyright YOUR VERSION of the Bible (that's why we have so many different "study" Bibles today) without having to go to the trouble of making your own translation. Scofield included Darby's swindle among his notes. More "rapture". Early 20th century Bible believers were having a hard time in the face of 19th century materialism, what with Darwin, Marx, et al. The believers held a series of conferences. Dispensationalists were firebrands at the time. They felt their interpretation was "scientific" enough to stand in the face of modernity. Dispensationalists hijacked the speaking committees of the fundamentalist conferences, and Darby's swindle became identified with fundamentalism. To question the pre-tribulation "rapture" of the "Church" became tantamount to questioning the authenticity of the Bible itself. Sure... "rapture" MUST be a biblical word! It's still that way in many places today. Wierwille picked up Darby's swindle and gave it his own spin, as he did with just about everything. Gotta be unique, dontcha know. He replaced Darby's "rapture" with the biblical phrase "gathering together", but Wierwille still adhered to Darby's deceptive definitions and principles. The leaders of CES re-examined some of the things Wierwille taught. They rejected the "law" of believing, and recovered some things about the Lordship of Jesus Christ. But they are still mesmerized by Darby's stunning performance before the lime-lights. By returning to "rapture", the unbiblical word Darby bandied about so brilliantly, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser have moved even farther away from noticing what Darby covertly slipped into his pocket. Love, Steve

Raf - I realize you are stating other peoples positions, and not necessarily arguing FOR those things. For instance, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate, and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture" is more likely CES' answer to the question "why use 'rapture'?" The simple truth is, if we want to know what's actually written in the Bible, the word "rapture" is NOT "equally accurate". Darby swiped it from the Irvingites in order to ARTIFICIALLY distinguish the resurrection and gathering of I Thessalonians 4 from the resurrection and gathering of Ezekiel 37. If he had not done so, his whole system of dispensations would have failed because it is an error, biblically. The dispensationalist emperor's new clothes consist of the pretribulation "rapture" of the "Church". The emperor is nekkid, and as long as we stick with Darby's unscriptural language, we go along with the crowd, admiring his wonderful new theology. CES makes a big deal about how they stand against tradition for the truth. They haven't made the effort to see for themselves, and they've turned unhearing ears to the admonition of many capable councilors, that the "truth" for which they contend is no less a tradition of men than the things they teach against. I don't have a gripe against you, Rafael. I do have a gripe against CES' devolution from scriptural accuracy. Love, Steve

Raf - Let me clue you in to a little trick spiritual quacks use when they want to read foreign meanings into the Bible (eisegesis, as opposed to exegesis). First, settle on a word or phrase that sounds plausibly biblical, but can't be found in any concordance. Then, build all your arguments around that word or phrase. That way, no one can inconveniently find and point out a use of that word or phrase in the Bible that contradicts your pet error. For instance, is "the new birth" part of Wierwille's Mystery? According to the PFAL book, the new birth first became available on the day of Pentecost. Elsewhere in PFAL we learn that the events of Pentecost had been kept absolutely secret, since they were part of the "administration" of the "mystery". What then are we to make of Jesus' discourse with Nicodemus in John 3? Discussing things that sound an awful lot like "the new birth", Jesus asked "Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" Jesus expected every master of Israel to know about "the new birth"!?! How could it be part of the "administration" of the "mystery"? But can we say, "The Bible says Jesus expected the leaders of Israel to know about the new birth well before the day of Pentecost." No, we cannot, because the phrase "the new birth" doesn't occur anywhere in the Bible. Let's look at the word "rapture". Can we learn anything about "the rapture" by looking in a concordance? No, we can't. The word doesn't appear in the concordance. So we look in Bullinger's and find that the word translated "caught" in I Thessalonians 4:17 comes from the Greek word "harpazo". We look up the uses of "harpazo" and its cognates to discover its semantic range. Does this process tell us anything about the "rapture"? No, because "rapture" doesn't come directly from the Greek word "harpazo". It comes from the Latin word "rapere", which has a semantic range that differs from the semantic range of "harpazo". So, what biblical information do we have, apart from the bald declarations of Darby, Bullinger and Wierwille, regarding the nature of "the rapture"? None, whatsoever. (By the way, The use of "harpazo" in I Thessalonians 4:17 is not participial. There is a good noun cognate of "harpazo". It's the word "harpage". If Paul meant to write about "the rapture", why didn't he use the word "harpage"? Hmmmm... maybe he didn't intend to write about "the rapture"... maybe he had a reason for that.) You wrote, "Because the 19th century neologism is equally accurate , and cannot be confused with the various other incidents of 'gathering together' mentioned in scripture." What evidence can you cite, Raf, other than the unsupported words of Darby, that the resurrection and gathering described in I Thesssalonians 4:13-18 is anything other than the resurrection and gathering promised in Ezekiel 37 and described at various other places in the New Testament? Love, Steve

Jeanette - I don't have any problems with you, or the decisions you've come to, or your right to express them here at GreaseSpot. This is a place for all of us to come to grips with the realities of our involvements with the Way International. The things we say here seem to disagree at times, because each one of us had a different involvement. Discussions of these differences can help us come to a more accurate understanding of what happened to us, and they can help us make informed decisions about where we want to go from here. There IS a crying need for God's people to recognize their relatedness, not just among ex-Wayfers, but among all Christians (even our relatedness with Trinitarian brethren). I value your viewpoint and your posts. One of the reasons I invested so much of my life into Wierwille's religious empire was because I thought he was teaching me the truth. When I actually started reading the Bible without PFAL filters, I realized Wierwille had trapped me in lies, and took advantage of my enthusiasm to help him trap other people in the same lies. We've all come some distance since those days. At one time, John Lynn and CES helped me do that. However, bless their hearts, they stopped moving forward, and they are content to sit in some of Wierwille's old lies. To sit and be quiet about CES' errors, especially when CES operatives are aggressively recruiting at GreaseSpot Cafe, would be just as wrong for me as to be silent about the errors of PFAL. Raf, oldies and I love each other dearly. We've been through a heck of a lot of arguments together, sometimes backing each other up, sometimes fighting in a way that must seem tooth and nail to outsiders. But that's how we learn from each other. We aren't enemies, and I hope you will see that as you become better acquainted with us. Do you need to be able to refute one of us on some obscure point of hermaneutics in order for your viewpoint to be valid? No. And again I write, No. Love, Steve P.S. - I have an aunt whose name is Jeannette. She likes to tell us all her problems are "Jeannettic" :-)

A few more words on Revelation. In fact, a few of Schoenheit's own. Regarding the "harsh" tone of Christ in the book of Revelation (this from one who discounts Romans 11:22 as due to Paul's mistaken "Jewish mindset"), Schoenheit said, "...which again adds, you know, more evidence for the fact that the entire book of Revelation was written to the people of the time period of the future. Now John obviously had to send the book of Revelation which he penned in its entirety to somebody to keep. But why not believe that those people would understand that this book was written for a future time period?" (emphasis added - Steve). If what Schoenheit said is true, then John would have had to send to the churches, along with copies of the book itself, an oral tradition to the effect: Don't pay any attention to this book, because the rapture hasn't happened yet. That would flat out contradict the words that were read aloud in the churches toward the end of the first century, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand" (Revelation 1:3). Schoenheit continued, "Why not believe that there is some book written to the people that will be going through this tremendous and horrible time of tribulation and wrath to keep them firm and help them out?" (again, emphasis added - Steve) Now, English usage includes a number of stock formulas that give clues to the readers or hearers as to the nature of the words following the formula. If we hear "once upon a time", we know that the following words are a fairy tale. There was an idiomatic usage of the phrase "this is a no-s**tter" when I was in the Navy which meant the speaker was about to tell a tall-tale regarding his experiences at sea. The phase "why not believe that" indicates the speaker is about to state a proposition for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE. If there were EVIDENCE to believe the proposition, the speaker would CITE the evidence. When a speaker uses the phrase "why not believe that", he is admitting that there is NO EVIDENCE TO CITE. Schoenheit's interpretation of the book of Revelation is NOT founded on scriptural evidence. It is founded on an unquestioning acceptance of man-made, dispensational tradition. Who is the book of Revelation addressed to? He who hath an ear, let him hear. Love, Steve By the way, regarding the quotes from John Schoenheit in this posting, I transcripted them from CES' six-audiotape set, "The Book of Revelation", Indianapolis, 1995.

You're welcome, oldies! Love, Steve

oldies - Yes, I have listened to Schoenheit's tape set on Revelation. I listened to it when it first became available, and like you, I would have described it then as pretty exciting and detailing some amazing and blessed things. However... several years later I went back to Schoenheit's tapes to search out some things about the seven church epistles in Revelation 2 and 3, and was vastly disappointed by the whole thing. What DID the writings that became what we know as the New Testament mean to those who first composed and those who first read them? How can we know that we have "the Word of God as it has not been known since the first century" if we don't seek out answers to that question? The seven church epistles are NOT addressed to some future recidivist (as dispensationalists might put it) children of Israel. They WERE addressed to the Christian congregations of seven actual, first century cities. Real, living, breathing Christians, alive at the time the letters were composed. Stop and think about it. Revelation 2:1-7 was read aloud to the congregation in Ephesus. If Paul's letter was written in the 60s, and Revelation was written in the 90s, there was only a thirty years difference between the readings of the two letters. There could well have been a few oldsters sitting there listening to John's messenger that could remember as youngsters sitting there listening to Paul's messenger reading what we know as Ephesians. Revelation was addressed to the same people as Paul's book of Ephesians. Possibly to some of the very same individuals! What do you think about Revelation 2:13b? "...and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you..." Those guys and gals sitting there in Pergamos listening to John's messenger HAD KNOWN Antipas. Some may even have been his relatives. Antipas was KILLED among them. Do you think the book of Revelation said something to THEM. They were living, breathing Christians IN THE FIRST CENTURY. Yet Schoenheit, from the height of his ivory tower, asks, why not believe that there was a secret, verbal instruction John sent along with his writings, directing the people who received them to ignore the written message as "not addressed" to them!?! As exciting and as detailed as Schoenheit's tapes may seem, that doesn't make them right. The best reference I have found for understanding Revelation is "The New International Commentary on The New Testament, The Book of Revelation" by Robert H. Mounce. Vastly superior to anything CES has to offer. Love, Steve

JustThinking - Wierwille's teaching regarding "administrations" and his definition of the "Mystery" as a period of time are views on dispensations. Love, Steve

Say, Raf, can you cite me a place in the Bible where the phrase "new birth" occurs? Gosh, isn't the word "rapture" a noun? Isn't the word "harpazo" in I Thessalonians 4:17 a verb? Nouns misused as verbs... Verbs misused as nouns... Wasn't there a discussion on these forums about such misuse regarding the word "pistis"? Wierwille always used the biblically correct term for the event, "the gathering together", even though he misplaced it before the tribulation, and mistakenly restricted it to the "Church" as opposed to the believing remnant of Israel with believing Gentiles grafted in on the same basis, by grace through faith. So why did CES deliberately choose to abandon the biblically accurate term in favor of a 19th century neologism? I've asked them before, and never got an answer. Love, Steve

Sooo... Just what did Wierwille teach that people might take to be "the Word of God as it has not been known since the first century"? Could it have been "The Mystery" we have heard so much about? a period of time that was originally revealed first to the apostle Paul? knowledge of which was "lost" and then taught to Wierwille by God, if he would teach others also? that we have to "guard" against losing again? Would it surprise you to know that there are mysteries recorded in the New Testament writings that were revealed to someone else before they were revealed to Paul? For instance, the mystery that God was going to elevate Jesus of Nazareth to the position of glorious Lord because of His obedience even unto the death of the cross? (I Corinthians 2:7&8) Or how about the truth that the Bride of Christ (the believing remnant of Israel) would become the Body of Christ through the one flesh relationship of Genesis 2:24? (Ephesians 5:30-32) Paul himself, certainly an inhabitant of the first century, claimed initial revelation of one and only one mystery, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel" (Ephesians 3:6). That believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, could become fellowheirs with the believing remnant of Israel; that believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, could be of the same body of Christ through the bride's one flesh relationship; that believing Gentiles, as Gentiles, could partake of the New Testament promised to the believing remnant of Israel in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Neither Paul nor his original readers, all inhabitants of the first century, considered "management" ("oikonomia") to indicate a period of time. That which Wierwille palmed off as "the Word of God as it has not been known since the first century" was the deceptive construct of a nineteenth century spiritual quack, J.N. Darby. Do you realize there is NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE, NOT EVEN ONE IOTA, for a pre-tribulation "rapture" (a non-biblical word if ever there was one) of the Church? There is plenty of evidence for a post-tribulation, pre-wrath gathering together of the elect (the believing remnant of Israel + believing Gentiles), but NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for a "rapture" that separates believing Gentiles from the remnant of Israel. TWI's error doesn't just lie in the law of believing, or ignoring the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It goes far, far deeper than that. To depths that CES has failed to plumb. Love, Steve

dmiller - You wrote, "Perhaps you see CES, and Jeff's posts as 'elitist force feeding', but with all due respect, ignoring the post is just a click away, and you can chose to NOT be 'force-fed'." You miss the point, dmiller. I wrote, "When you just post a link to an article at CES, it gives a number of bad impressions... that reek to ex-TWI folk of elitist force feeding." I don't know how much elitist force feeding YOU were required to endure, dmiller, while involved with the Way, but I, and I am sure many others also, had to sit passively, unquestioningly, through enough seemingly endless dronings to last several lifetimes. True, I don't have to click on the link. But if I do, what do I get? Do I get lively discourse? Do I get an opportunity to ask questions? Do I get a chance to contribute things the Lord has shown me while I've worked the Word? No. I get the same old droning that I got at Emporia and Gunnison. It DOES reek... "reek" I wrote... of the old TWI elitist force feeding. Did you click on Jeff's link, dmiller? Did you scroll down to the place where it says, "Sorry, Comments not available for this article." What does that suggest to you? Does it possibly "reek" of ANYTHING? I don't know what it means. I cruised around the CES website trying to figure out what it means when it says, "Sorry, Comments not available for this article", without success. Perhaps Jeff will wander back by and enlighten us. Love, Steve P.S. - Maybe if "ignoring the post is just a click away, and you can chose to NOT be 'force-fed'" is a good policy, then Paw ought to start selling pop-up banner ad space at GreaseSpot. After all, ignoring a pop-up "is just a click away" too.

dmiller - Raf took my point, "I think Steve is trying to say that posting links is all Jeff does." Raf often posts links to Living Epistles, but it seems he always does it at the end of a pertinent, thoughtful post. He doesn't start a WHOLE THREAD solely for the purpose of posting a link to Living Epistles. Jeff's threads are starting to have all the discursive value of pop-up banner ads. And why is this particular thread in "About The Way" instead of "Doctrinal"? If we put threads in this forum because "Hey! The Way never taught THIS!", then we're going to wind up with a heck of a lot of threads that are only tangential to the purpose of THIS forum. Love, Steve

Please don't get me wrong, Jeff. If it blesses you to post some of the truths you've learned, by all means ... do so. BUT, do it in your own words. When you just post a link to an article at CES, it gives a number of bad impressions... like, you haven't expended the effort to make the material your own... or, you care so little about communicating your ideas that you won't take the time to articulate them for us... or... any number of other impressions that reek to ex-TWI folk of elitist force-feeding. Who knows, Jeff? Maybe God wants you to write stuff on your own because YOU are the only one who can type just the right words at just the right time to reach someone with the truth. You will never minister to anyone as well with pre-packaged "Word" as you can on a one-to-one basis, inspired with just the right word at just the right time. You can't do that with just a link to ANY website! Love, Steve

Jeff - Is it possible for you to hold any kind of discussion without posting a link to the CES website? Believe it or not, it doesn't "bless my socks off". It causes me grief that CES fell so far short of the visions we ALL had for it in its early days (before it became three guys lecturing AT the rest of us). CES says eat the fish and throw away the bones. CES stopped trying to distinguish between fish and bones back in the mid-'90s. It's been choking on fish bones ever since, and doesn't even realize it. Sad. Love, Steve

Spit out the fish... throw away the baby... whatever you do, JUST DON'T KEEP THE CURTAINRODS! Love, Steve :-)

Spit out your fish, and throw away the baby, but WHATEVER YOU DO... DON"T TAKE THE CURTAIN RODS!?! Love, Steve

The Lord Jesus Christ and God the Father may not be one in substance, as the fourth century neo-platonists believed, but I Corinthians 8:6 declares that They ARE one in function. I have known a number of Christians down through the years, and still fellowship with many on a daily basis, who subscribe to Trinitarian beliefs yet exhibit a relation with God through Jesus Christ that is vastly more honest and effective than anything I saw exhibited in TWI. The doctrine of the Trinity is immeasurably better than Wierwille's "absent" Christ. Love, Steve

My memories agree with what ex10 has posted here regarding CES's early questioning of Wierwille's teachings on abortion. I don't think CES has taken a high profile on the subject, but I am certain Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser have had to deal with the issue many times in their personal ministering. They don't promote abortion, but they also don't condemn those who were manipulated by TWI into making foolish decisions. Love, Steve

oldies - Thanks for your response a few pages back, telling what you think is "baby" and what you think is "bathwater". I would have posted this thanks earlier, but I've had a pretty intense time this past week. Love, Steve

oldies - Exactly which things do you consider to be "baby", and which things "bathwater"? I think many of us agree more closely than we might think, if we use our terms more precisely. Personally, I know there was "baby", but I also think there was a lot more "bathwater" than some people (not necessarily you) recognize. Love, Steve

If Wierwille "loved" the Word of God soooo much, why did he make such a terrible hash of it? What Wierwille loved was HIS OWN INTERPRETATION of the Word. That's what PFAL was. We weren't moving "the Word of God" over the world. We were moving PFAL over the world, and those are two vastly different critters. Love, Steve P.S. - IMO, "THE Teacher" was a more offensive lie than Wierwille's "Dr."

Lynn wrote, "Which of our books/tapes have you read/heard?" Many, many, many of them. I helped edit CES' "Dialogue" magazine for a number of years. "At what point, and how, in that book/tape did we deviate from what the Word of God says?" There are too many for me to list here exhaustively. But since Lynn want specifics, let's start with CES' "22 Principles of Bible Interpretation". Principle #6 says in part, "Logic demands that words and verses must not be wrested out of context and made to mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text." Principle #21 says in part, "Administrations must be divided accurately in the Bible, and basic changes discerned in God's dealings with man." The scheme of "administrations" we were taught in PFAL depends on stripping the meanings from "aion" (age), "oikonomia" (management) and "diatheke" (covenant); and playing a deceptive mix-and-match shell game with the words and their meanings. Wierwille PREACHED a system of exegesis, reading the meanings "out from" what's actually written. But he PRACTISED and TAUGHT a system of eisegesis, reading foreign meanings "into" what's written. Nowhere more flagrantly than in Wierwille's scheme of "administrations" did he wrest words and verses out of context and make them mean something foreign to the original meaning of the text. By uncritically accepting Wierwille's scheme of "administrations", CES has deviated from what the Word of God says. If we were to ask Lynn to sum up the great package of truth Wierwille taught,the Word of God as it has not been known since the first century, I believe he would say the recovery of the Great Mystery. Yet Wierwille's definition of the Great Mystery depended on his devious handling of the words "aion", "oikonomia" and "diatheke". Lynn wrote, "...many are unaware of the administrations in Scripture (absolutely one of the most important things TWI taught, basically correctly)..." In writing this sentence, Lynn is deviating from what's actually written in the Word of God. The word "oikonomia", not ever once, NOT EVEN IN ONE OCCURRANCE, refers to a period of time. Lynn wrote, "We're right here, and willing to entertain the answers to such questions." I submit that if Lynn believes that last sentence, he has seriously deluded himself. CES was NOT willing to entertain the answers to such questions when it gutted, and then discontinued its "Dialogue" magazine. CES was NOT willing to entertain the answers to such questions when they canceled its symposium on dispensationalism. CES was NOT willing to entertain the answers to such questions when it shut down the discussion forum on its own website. CES is STILL NOT willing to entertain the answers to such questions on ANY public forum. I don't think John, John and Mark have any malicious intentions. They allowed Wierwille to fool them into thinking he was teaching the truth. So did we all, to one degree or another. John, John and Mark, though, have persisted in their foolishness. Yes, indeed, they themselves started the process of re-examing what we were taught in TWI, but they stopped too soon. There is still bathwater in there with the baby. They are still choking on bones. Like anybody else, I would like to see them delivered from the influences of TWI also. Love, Steve

oldiesman - Thanks for posting what you did. The impression I took away from the document was that the BOT's failure to communicate was one of the signers' big problems. That may have come from the discussions going on around the document at the time I got to read it. I think it would be a service if you could post the whole thing in the WayDale/Misc. Documents section. Then I could refresh my memory of the whole thing. At early CES meetings, a majority of the time was spent with EVERYONE freely discussing whatever issues they felt were important. It was a lot like Greasespot, only face-to-face. Gradually, the meetings became more and more structured with less and less time for anyone except the "leaders" or their hand-picked presenters to speak. I know. I was one of their hand-picked presenters. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser did make a big deal about the Trustees inaccessibility. Now they practice the same organizational tactic. Love, Steve

John Lynn was fired from TWI because he signed (along with others) a document which some people have come to know as the "37-page letter". I've never had a copy of my own, but my twig coordinator (at the time) allowed me to read his copy. The letter was a call for the trustees of TWI to engage their followers in open discussion in a public forum regarding issues of concern. In the late-'80s and early-'90s, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser were very open with the followers of CES, and receptive to their input. As the body of material published by CES grew, the stances adopted by the leaders of CES ossified, and they began to insulate themselves from any communication with their followers that didn't follow the official party line. Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser have now taken the same position that they objected to when it was the TWI BOT's that was in question. They only talk publicly with those who agree. In private, where they can't be held accountable, they will tell you what they think you want to hear. But they won't change anything. Wierwille built a religious empire. Lynn believes Wierwille would be proud of what CES is doing. To the extent that CES replicates TWI, even if the replication is unconscious, CES is building a religious empire. No more, and no less. Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools. Love, Steve