WhiteDove

Click the link below to listen http://www.bobrivers.com/pickup/index.asp?ID=185716

Or if in session 12 there is any Direct Quote that say's "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved" Oh and another thing I forgot Wordwolf You know this How? Never play your cards before the end of the hand I learned, give a person enough rope and they will hang themselves I reckon......

From the WAP Syllabus and a previous post of miner QUOTE (page 42) "no...[one] can [really] say that Jesus is the Lord, but by...[holy spirit]" - an idiom. idioma - [b\]a colloquial phrase in the culture, meaning, "No one can affirm from the heart that Jesus is lord but by speaking in tongues." It's a figure of speach; it means it's emphatic.[/b] My note: This is where a lot of the foundation for us regarding the worthlessness and beginning disdain for those who SAY they are Christians but don't fellowship with TWI or have been heard to SIT are not really born again. Romans 10:9-10 say that you have to confess Jesus as lord to be born again - hence, if you can't REALLY say Jesus is lord without speaking in tongues, then you aren't REALLY born again. Belle I read your quotes THEY ARE NOT THE ONE IN QUESTION But since you posted them Look!! at the quotes. You are reaching...... The quote proves just what it says no one can affirm! that means from Webster( to declare positively)It does not teach that they are not saved just that you can not declare it positively. That means they could or could not be no one knows. This teaching is consistent with TWI 1 & 2 Actually I'm giving you the benefit of accepting that this is talking about being saved really it is talking about making him Lord in your life one could be saved and not hold Him as Lord in their life. Your note that you wrote is assuming something that was not stated . Your note does not make it so that The Way Taught that it means that you perceived ,guessed,assumed that was so. The words speak for themselves when you look up the meanings.

Wordwolf you need to read my posts more carefully I never said that no quotes were offered just that the quotes offered did not prove that the Way taught that "people were not saved if they did not speak in tongues" That was the quote in question that is the issue. One can not just offer a random quote as proof that another is right otherwise I could just say The Word of God is the Will of God and that makes anything I say right cause I gave you a quote,never mind that it has nothing to do with anything. How prey tell do quotes like this prove the point. They don't thats the problem when you are caught without any proof of your claim, you can't just post a flurry of unrelated quotes and that makes it ok.QUOTE This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching. One person quoted directly from lcm's class. Another claims some people told him those quotes don't exist. Since the first person is quoting directly (and has the burden of proof, which they provided), and the second person lacks access to said evidence, and never looked into EXACTLY WHAT WAS CITED (session, page, etc.) which person should the logical reader believe made a stronger case? Style is not equivalent to evidence OR logic. You seem to have left out the additional things I listed also. My conclusion was not based only on that. I checked to be nice since they seemed to not be able to find the quote that they were so sure of but no one else remembered it that way either. Just an additional reason it is suspect. Here is the rest of what I said TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim. While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved" This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching. Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one. They are the ones who made the claim the burdon of proof is on them. Let's see the proof..... If it's a direct quote from session 12 it should be easy to find. These things are driven by emotion not truth how you feel, perceive is dependant on your attitude toward The Way if you are angry and bitter then you could percieve that everything was taught wrong. One could asume anything that he wanted from a quote that does not mean that the one saying it taught it that way or meant it that way. I'm reading between the lines of Belles quotes and my perception is that she loves the the Way and wishes she was still in. It's true you see because I said so and you were not everywhere now were you and by the way here is a quote to prove it The Word of God is the Will of God. What do you think the odds are that I'm wrong? About the same I'd say as that her quotes prove that the Way taught that if you did not speak in tongues that you were not saved.

I didn't sell any either Evan but I bought more than a few from some of the girls. It had pretty well ended at the time I got involved. I know they got some trouble because the undercover cops thought they were smuggling drugs with the flowers. Of course old Vern the AJ gave us a hard time too at the branch home. We routinely had unmarked and marked police outside our house until early one Saturday they came to pay us a visit.

That would be fine if it were true but no one has verified anything. You have simply said it is true because I said so try that in a court it would not fly there nor does it with me. To believe you need to have something to believe. If it were a direct quote I suppose it would be recorded somewhere now would it not and written down. Due to the lack of any evidence other than "I said so" I stand by my conclusion to date. TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim. While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved" This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching. Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.

Update: The new issue of Glimpses of Truth arrived this week no family news update in it but enclosed was Chris & Barbara's Holiday Card a picture of them by the lake. (I'd guess Lake Sabago) by their house.

It's no use trying to be nice to that dern ingrate Pig Moony She is not Nice...... I have to go now, and take a birdbath seems I have gravy in my feathers.

Evan I can't remember did you guys sell carnations on the street in the early 70's in Wichita I know they did here in Topeka?

Ok Belle I was trying to keep the twi's straight a good point that you made. You keep including VP in your comments then you say you were speaking of Craig. Read your remark: Quote Belle I think it's more than the words used by vee pee and craiggers - it's the IMPLICATIONS, the GUILT and the OPPRESSION and ABUSE that came along with those words. Quote It appears you were including him in your remarks by the mention of his name coupled with and Craig. I am not hung up on his teachings the question was about the phrase 'Sickness is death in Part' from the Advanced Class. I referenced VPW class because that is the root of where the phrase came from in Craigs class. I offered it for comparison so Like a Eagle could see it's meaning. I prefaced it with this Quote Whitedove: One of the biggest problems in understanding occurs when we isolate a sentence out of a context of which it was used The following is a transcript of a section of session 33 of VPW Advanced Class. If Craig isolated a sentence out of context then that is the problem seeing the source helps to identify that problem. QuoteBelle: I just gave you a quote - typed in the syllabus - anyone with the syllabus can verify. Craig said: "All sickness is due to broken fellowship of man" That’s a different quote than we were discussing I made no remark concerning that quote. We were discussing the quote 'Sickness is death in Part' This exactly what I was talking about in the other thread you substitute Quotes and think it somehow makes the other untrue. Having put the other quote to rest we can now discuss the new one.

Rats @*$#@! Dern pig!!!!

I fail to see any IMPLICATIONS, the GUILT and the OPPRESSION and ABUSE in this explanation of what he meant by his words. He talked about white corpuscles,how the body functions,healing, and deliverance. I see no where any mention of condemnation guilt oppression abuse. This is exactly what I mean by proof,not just making $*@! up. You have nothing to offer as proof so now it becomes well it's not really the words it's this. So where does he imply any of these things?

Belle I have no doubt that the teachings in TWI 3 changed from that of TWI I & II. But unlike you I am not willing to accept anyone's word for facts. The reason being that it is not necessarily the truth. People say lots of things for lots of reasons. To find the truth you have to dig through the muddle. Most often it's been because it has been 10,20,30 years since the fact and people forget, sometimes people think that they heard what someone said but they did not really, that happens all the time at work. And sometimes because people are just angry they just plain make $*@! up. None of these things counts for truth. It is important to check things out honestly the reason why people swallowed Craigs line of $*@! in the first place is because they failed to check it against truth. You challenged Oldies post and templelady said it was a direct quote. I say fine show me the quote and I will be happy to accept it. So far I have not seen it, that's generally the case call people out and then rather than offering hard proof it becomes that's what I remember or you weren't everywhere or offering some quote that has nothing to do with the one in question and that somehow proves the other wrong. It does not! It has been well established by all the other posters that was not the teaching in TWI 1 & 2 To depart from that teaching would be a huge thing. For that to happen and not have it documented somewhere on tape, CD, book, print ,Syllabus or Video would be unbelievable. What if I told you that Paw never started the Greasespot Café it was someone else. Would you just say gee ok I believe you. I doubt it. If I were to say that, within minutes people would bring up facts or old posts to prove me wrong. Rightfully so, then you would not accept my words as truth. I expect the same. It's not a question of not wanting to believe something it's about believing truth not error. Show me the facts and I'll believe. The other posters on the thread produced proof of their points I accepted that it made sense. Anyone can pop in and say oh yeah it's a direct quote and leave without producing any proof. That I choose not to believe...... I don't always agree with Oldies but the truth is on this one I believe the facts show he is right. Honestly many times just because it's him a certain group of people will take up the opposite side. I say fine but have some proof to offer when you call someone out. Then we have something to believe.

http://n.ethz.ch/student/mkos/pinguin.swf Here ya go!

Mark does make a good point here Oldies His point was always the problem I had with Craig's version as to why we should have loyality to him. I was there when he was blubbering onstage at Corps Week admitting it was true. He asked for another shot at making it right. Fine! then he does a 180 says he was deceived. I don't buy it, would anyone really admitt to such things if they knew that they were not true? I sure would not. Then you have to ask why someone who either was so asleep he allowed himself to be deceived Or someone that doesn't even know from day to day what he did or did not do should be running the ministry. And how do we know he is not still deceived? They clearly were not the men for the job.

Thanks everyone you did a great job of cheering piggie up!! but you look funny with all that food all over you. Go take a bath!!! Dove tiptoes quietly away excaping before Psalmie notices that she forgot about him in the foodfight.

In all my years of classes Mark I can recall only one time that a student did not SIT by the end of the class. In that instance the rest of the class was not aware and it was resolved in a one on one situation The person did want to, but had some ideas to overcome to be comfortable with it. Much like being scared to stand up in public and speak. You are correct the issue at question is what was taught not what someone thought was implied. A person can decide about anything was implied from some words but that does not make it true that it was taught. I think Socks posted about the best recollection so far. Here are some of the things he had to say . I agree with his recollection. Remembering the question was What Was Taught? not the right or wrong of it was the question at hand. Quotes from Socks pg1 The overwhelming message of PFAL, whether it be right or not, was that many believers - those already born again of God's spirit - have no idea of the "power of God" available to them. That is, they're already "sons of God", "born again" and "saved" in that they are redeemed through belief in Christ. Two types of "receiving" were defined by usages of the words dechomia and lambano. One was to receive inherently, to have it, as in holy spirit dwelling within. "Going to heaven and all hell can't stop you", as quoted in PFAL. The second receiving was to receive into manifestation, that point where a person, by believing, brings into physical evidence the inner holy spirit. PFAL presented that in the last 3 sessions of teaching as to speak in tongues, a basic fundamental operation of the holy spirit within, available to every believer. Chapter 19 deals with The New Birth: "The moment a person confesses with his mouth Jesus as Lord that person is converted, saved, born again. ... to the point that he says "Jesus is Lord of my life and I know God raised Him from the dead," he is born again of God's spirit. That person has instantly changed lords: his now on the way to heaven and all hell can't stop him from going because he is a son of God having Christ in him. He has eternal life. He is no longer a natural man because he has received the spirit from God". ... The man of body and soul can so easily believe and receive eternal life, which is the greatest gift that God has ever given to man at any place, at any time". I don't ever remember hearing VPW imply that a Christian that didn't speak in tongues wasn't "saved". Rather that a Christian who didn't wasn't operating the power of God, the "abundant life" of John 10:10 in this "administration" to it's fullest potential. I don't doubt people may have come up with that, in some esoteric logic, even more esoteric than PFAL itself, but I'd have to question that being based on any of the PFAL based teachings I heard. Second, third hand maybe. "This is what VPW really meant", maybe. "Well, they're born again and saved, but they aren't really WALKING in power, Yes.

Well this thread has taken some interesting turns since it's approaching page three I thought maybe a update of what we have learned in regard to the original question was in order. B.A. Robinson article is posted Oldies posts this section as untrue. This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved. Virtually the entire 33 million membership of the Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church (USA) are not saved because speaking in tongues is rarely seen on those denominations. Belle posts that it is true! Oldies offers the record from PFAL Acts19 as proof that they did not teach this. Dmiller agrees that oldies is correct. Morgan thinks What was taught to large audiences and what was taught to smaller ones were often not quite the same. Wordwolf does not remember being taught this but can't say for sure it was not during Craigs years. Templelady says it is a direct quote from session 12 12th session PFAL My class Direct Quote "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved" Socks offers some quotes from various PFAL Books as to what was taught none support that the quote was correct. Goey agrees that he never heard that taught and offers a fine explanation of don't and can't and the difference. Whitedove asks templelady for a date and class teacher for her class Whitedove post some quotes from Receiving the holy spirit today as to why they did not teach this. dmiller again confirms from his class that they did not teach this. and offers some more examples from PFAL. also says he has no idea what was taught in Craig's class. Belle agrees with dmiller and posts many quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class. (informative but none were the direct quote or were proof that that was taught.) WW says she heard it for years (what she heard exactly was not said) Whitedove again asks for a page reference for the direct quote. Lifted Up agrees with Goeys logic of can't and don't Digitalis agrees there was taught a difference between being saved and speaking in tongues. Belle shares a story of a woman who was unwelcome to attend fellowships because she did not speak in tongues. Rascal offers her comments on fruit and how the rest of Christianity is manifesting the spirit. Oldies again confirms his view and offers more quotes from PFAL to prove his point. Belle again references the quotes from her earlier post. Summation: TWI I. 1973 and before II. 1974 to circa 1987 III. 1987 and after TWI I & II - The majority of posters agree that it was their recollection that quote was not taught. from the book references and class sessions presented it confirms that they are correct nowhere is that quote documented. abundant evidence to the opposite is offered and none to support it was found. Session 12 tape of VPW class is checked at no place is that quote present . Conclusion from the evidence - Since the recollections of most posters as well as the many PFAL materials and finally the class tape itself all concur that the quote in question is not there and was not taught we can find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the claim that the article quote was not true. No evidence to support the claim was found or offered. TWI III - Templelady offered no response to support her claim. While some posters offered some quotes from a class syllabus of Craigs class none were the direct quote in question or none proved that the Way taught that "If you can't speak in tongues you aren't saved" This week Whitedove checked with some people that have been and are still in the Way during this time and they confirmed that they have never heard this taught in a class or during any other teaching. Conclusion from evidence - no proof for the quote being taught was presented. Due to the lack of evidence in that not one documentation in any syllabus,tape,book or other form is found we can conclude that this was not the position of the Way during this period either. To date it looks like Oldiesman is correct on this one.

Here's the link: http://ww12.e-tractions.com/snowglobe

Jonny I am not aware of any reason Vickles can not post she has her reasons for not doing so. Last I talked to her though she was pretty busy. She did post on Doveys memorial thread not too long ago.

Happy Birthday

I knew it!!! Piggy you have sunk to a new low. Making us feel sorry for you to lull us into a false sense of security so you could sneak attack us. That’s it the gloves come off now. Hmmm I wonder what would happen if I switched the labels on these here pill bottles.....Take one Take three aaah what's the difference.. Ohhh pig you don't look so good..................hahahahahaha

I would concur with George.

George it is not often I agree with you but I think you are most correct in this case, then again if someone speaking saying nothing were a crime we'd have a lot of people in trouble wouldn't we. Anyway the point was to keep the record straight. In the context of where it was used I don't think it is in error, although it is not particularly useful either. But it has nothing to do with sin consciousness and was balanced with teaching about deliverance and healing in it's original usage.

Radar I looked back over the family updates. I know they moved once to a new address that worked better for her and instaled a chair lift in the home. About a year ago Barbara and Chris hosted several people for a week to Critique a rough version of the first 18 sesssions of his advanced class. Thats the last I know. There is someone here who could offer a more current update lets see if they are about and would care to jump in.