WhiteDove

Thats just it It's not a" feeling of neglect" It is a realization that there is a real and viable system of what is and is not acceptabe.

Rascal I tried to take this out of the context of the Way in hopes that you would see beyond your idea that it is just a bunch of Wierwilleites who are feeling neglected. That's why I posted the quote from Mark from the Momentous thread. Do you think he posted that comment because he was needing to be a martyr or he needs a conspiracy? A clique? Here is a couple of posts from EX 10 from the same thread. The second one was just before Marks post which prompted his remark. Do you think she just made this idea up, or did she perceive that because Momentus was seen as a John Lynn thing it was hopeless to try and continue? You can ignore the fact that it exists and blame it on Wierwilleites if that makes it feel better for you , but it goes well beyond that Rascal. The truth is other people know that it is not a level playing field where things are excepted on kindness and trust alone. That is not to say they are not important but if you are different from the crowd then it will not be enough. Hopefully taking it out of the Way context will allow you to think about it a little more and maybe ask yourself if you are seeing only what you want to see.

Probably But hey hindsight is always 20/20. The upside we went beyond what we were taught in some cases .

You raise a good point JL We were taught a mix of right and wrong. But here is something for you to consider. Like Jesus we also should have invested the time to figure out which was which. Do you really think Jesus never had any wrong interpretation of scripture presented to him? I mean Mary and Joseph were no biblical scholars and he reasoned with the Scribes and Pharisees we know they taught wrong interpretation of scripture. I think he had as much opportunity to wrong teaching as anybody else and yet he saw the truth of the scripture.

No biggie Pond ,But i was starting to wonder if I needed new glasses.

Most people here defend their points it is a discussion board which means you post pro or con on your issue. The problem is when a point of view is not PC or in agreement with accepted way to think, then it changes from what everyone does (ie Defending their positions) and changes somehow into being on the defensive, instead of discussion. Another words if you are on the side of the fence that needs to have every post tell of all that was wrong in the way for instance. Then you are discussing if you are on the side that chooses to see the wrong but also chooses to acknowledge the good you are a Wierwillite or apologist who is defending their position. In reality both are defending their position. But we get a label or labels. what if we labled you as a oh the molestites or the rapeites are violently defending their position. I doubt it would fly well. That being my point the playing field is not even as some think. You can earn all the respect you want but you will always be a Wierwillite whatever the hell that is anyway. You are another example of what I was saying you will always be a LDS, which most people think is a cult just as the Way it's not an even playing field for you either.

Pond you did it was in your post to me on page 6

Tbone We were talking about motives or intentions taking a section of scripture and quoting it as it is written. Not dismantling it and fabricating something else. The devil used scripture as is he did not dismantle it into anything else had he done that Jesus would have called him on that. He did not. The devil just quoted the verses in Psalms? He did nothing else but quote truth? Not what I said! If you would read my posts you would find the answer to your questions "

Thanks Mark Hope I did not put you on the spot! But I realized that I needed to take it out of the way context if I had any hope of anyone honestly looking at what I was saying. Dont feel bad I had to search for it too But its true I know you take your share of heat. The Link

Pond I don't see your link anywhere and honestly you lost me. I have no secret shame from the Way. It was what it was take the good leave the bad move along. I also have no need to spend my days rehashing and laying blame on things that are long over. What's the point it wont change a thing. Who needs the anger in their life? Not Me Maybe you can repost your link for me.

Well rascal as I said I wish it were so but it is not and others know it around here also. By the way I used the way example because it is the most prevalent. but it is not the only one there are many more. Ask some of the long time posters that no longer post here if you don't believe me. Here is another example of what I'm talking about. I think you read my point as a complaint it was not, just accepting that it is not an even playing field as some think. And something else when I first started posting here someone asked a question about something ministry related. It was a simple question does anybody remember about so and so. I remembered the answer so I posted it. Well because the answer was not laced with enough negatives it was perceived that I was some how supportive of the issue. Which I was not I didn't care one way or another I figured since I knew the answer, post it done ,no big deal. Well it was apparently and the more I tried to straighten the mess out the worse it became. About midway through a kind person who's name I will not mention cause everyone will know them emailed me and said something to the effect of. Just thought I'd tell you as your new here. This happens all the time you will never make it through the gauntlet. Just drop it before they beat you up too bad. No matter what you say it will never be enough ..... Well I did not take their advice and as it were it got straightened out. They emailed me back and said you know you are the first person that has ever made it through the gauntlet of people. That was years ago and it has not changed that I can see.

Unfortunately Rascal I wish that were true but it is not. There is more to it. The respect you garner for yourself or your pov pure and simple relies ENTIRELY upon you yourself and what you chose to bring to the table. Providing what you bring to the table is in agreement with the level of distain for the way and all things related. I've seen many a new poster romped on because they posted something that was perceived as positive about the way. It is not a level playing field from the start for those people. they are immediately labeled apologists or Wierwillites .

I have to take issue with WhiteDove saying: "When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there." The devil suggested Jesus throw himself off the Temple and referred to Psalm 91: 11 & 12 implying God's angels would catch him. The words were "true" – in that the devil quoted from Scripture. Jesus quoted Scripture back to him, referring to Deuteronomy 6: 16 – don't test God! Both quoted Scripture. Were they both right? You did! I never attached right or wrong to these verses. What i said was that the words from scripture spoken were truth. Note Jesus never denied that they were not true. I never said they were both right. So how is truth still truth regardless of who shares it? It looks like Jesus was refuting the devil's attempt to twist Scripture out of context, out of harmony with other Scripture. Read II Corinthians 4: 2 where Paul talks about the ministry and renouncing secret and shameful ways, not using deception, not distorting the Word of God – we all know that can happen![new bumper sticker: "Cults Happen"] It is because that is what by nature truth is. If it was not then it would not be truth now would it? You are right he was refuting the attempt to use that which was true (truth) dishonestly. But that does not make it not truth. It makes it a dishonest use of something that is true. 2+2=4 that is true if I were to tell you it was 8 you could refute me (as Jesus did) and say no it is not it's 4 and here is why, but my misuse of truth does not make the answer no longer 4 now does it. The devil quoted that which was true his motive however was not well intentioned Jesus never said his words were not true he responded to his motive. Yeah, okay – there's a car over there – you're right – it's still a car whether a priest or a rapist points it out. But wouldn't you be a little concerned about their motive or moral character if either one of them invites you into their motor coach? Absolutely but these are two separate issues. If I get into the motor coach or not has no bearing on the fact that there is a car sitting there. Even if I get in the coach with a rapist there will still be a car sitting there . Thats why it is still truth. 1 Is there a car there or not? What is the truth? 2 Am I concerned about going into a motor coach? So the truth is a car is still a car and its sitting there. And both the priest and the rapist got it right. Now issue 2 Do I want to get into a motor coach with either one of them? Given the tendencies of priests I'd say No.

[Of course, WD would never consider taking a shot at another poster, would he? Especially when trying to lecture another poster on such things...] AAAH Wolfman Just returning the shot you fired over my bow, no sweat I didn't loose any sleep or miss lunch over it. [it was their material. However, there were fundamental differences that were introduced-and those made a difference- not because the material was factually different, but because it was placed in a framework that specifically used the material to make claims that had nothing to do with the material. Furthermore, there IS a difference between, say, teaching a class in Intro to Psychology in college-which will of course use textbooks by others, an outline by others, and lecture material by others- and teaching a class supposedly only on the Bible- using a textbook with your name on it, and leaving out all names of anyone whose material was lifted, and then teaching it. In the first case, it is understood that the teacher is drawing from the textbook-which lacks his name- and the work of many others-which is often SPECIFIED and is always expected in college.] We all start out in life saying GOO GOO DADA or some such jiberish what we speak or say today is a compilation of all we have absorbed along the way. We are a product of our family, friends, teachers and so on.... When teaching I don't always stop and credit each person with their part in my life. Sometimes I don't even remember where I learned things from. Every preacher that speaks in a pulpit learned from their instructors who in turn learned from theirs who in turn ..... I hear people speak all the time and never stop to say gee now I learned this from so and so as a rule people just don't do this. As far as printed matter as I said I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable ["The words he spoke were true, his motive, however, was not." The concept is certainly one you can grasp, understand and articulate- when you wish to. (Perhaps my previous comment applied to you, and you did not find this hard.) "Truth is truth, regardless of who shares it, or their good or bad moral character." That is technically true-but not the WHOLE truth. When a person devoid of guile speaks the truth, there is no subtext apart from the meaning of the words. When a deceptive person speaks the truth, EVEN IF WHAT THEY SAID WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE, the truth "can dance a fine jig." Words that are truthful can be used to imply something false, or lead someone to a false conclusion. I don't have far to go to give an example. Luke 4:9-11 gives one. satan says something true-he quotes Scripture. He takes that truth, and uses it to justify a falsehood- that the Son of God should demonstrate his identity by flinging himself off a roof, to supposedly demonstrate the quoted Scripture. Granted, it was possible to receive the technical information of the verse, when satan quoted Deuteronomy. However, since the truth came from the mouth of a deceiver, what was true was then used to suggest a falsehood was ALSO true. That's why someone lacking in integrity is useless as an information resource-or nearly so. If Jesus had been less familiar with Scripture, and he heard that true verse coupled with the untrue implication from the mouth of the deceiver, he may well have recognized Deuteronomy (or not) and otherwise been tricked into believing the deception-that he was SUPPOSED to jump off the roof, thinking that truth ALWAYS remains unaffected when it is said by a deceiver. As we can all see, this would have been incorrect. As God's Word shows us in Luke 4, when the truth comes from the mouth of a deceiver, it should be examined carefully-for it may be used to hide or justify a lie.] I agree so examine it! but as I said either it is true or it is not. How one uses truth does not change the fact that it is true. That’s like saying how one uses a gun changes the fact that it is a gun. If you use a gun wrongly it is the wrong use of a gun nothing more If you use the bible wrongly it is the wrong use of the Bible nothing more. Their work was what was used as a resource. Those men did not teach you. You were taught by "THE Teacher." He said so. He gave you a mailing address to write to him, giving his name as "The Teacher". Are you saying that you don't believe vpw was the teacher of pfal? You said that he was the "instructor"-and that's synonymous with "teacher". (At least, it's listed as such in a collegiate dictionary.) I believe he was an instructor as I said for lack of a better word. I use that word because of I Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians. Yes I am aware that he was called The Teacher I'd say he was a instructor or teacher if you prefer in the sense that he did teach some of PFAL I would say he was more of a compiler. None the less the parts he contributed were his instruction the parts others contributed were their instruction. As I said that was no surprise to me, but I guess to some it was. That as I said is why they were my instructors collectively as each authored their part. Did vpw make predictions that failed to come to pass? Well, I read a wealth of predictions from him regarding 1976 and some conspiracies that failed to come to pass. I bet you heard him make some of them. I don't think I ever heard him declare himself to be a prophet nor did I hear any prophesies by him in regards to conspiracies. I did hear him discuss the subject much like we are discussing this subject. But not as a prophesy. I'm sure some of the things he spoke about did not come to pass so his opinion was wrong? That is not the same as a prophesy. [so, at the time you FIRST took pfal, you came away from the sessions saying "all this material came from others, but vpw assembled their work into classes"? That's REALLY what you said?] No I said some of this material came from others some came from VP Wierwille. I don't recall if I said that but that is what I thought. vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR", which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER." If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal, you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting sessions he showed lcm how to conduct. When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'? And if he really was incidental to everything you learned, why try to defend him so vociferously?] Actually it is translated Instructor- being translated as tutor,guide,guardians. As I said he did instruct part of the class. I was not defending him vociferously. I was asking for a clarification on an issue that seems contradictory. It is either his teaching or it is not can't be both. Quote: I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways. [You said it, but that's not what happened. vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing. Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book. If what you're saying was true, the students would have been told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material." Instead, they were told "this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session." That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session, from a variety of teachers, mostly corps. If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it- vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version vpw "forgot" to mention it in the Home Studies] That’s exactly what people were told at least in the classes I was around or instructed. By the way for the record I never thought or said that WW posts were not laid out completely and "thoroughly". I just don't always agree with the conclusions he arrives at.

Hey Rascal Well as I said above we have established where the teaching came from it was not VPs words but these other mens words which was pretty clear to me although not to some I guess. They authored the work hense they taught me VP was an instructer for lack of a better word, I dont consider those men to be false prophets maybe you do. As i said he did a pretty poor job of disguising it pointing it out to them in session 4 of the class with a big red bullseye on it.

Gee WW thanks for the benevolent service you provide in helping us mentally challenged to get a glimpse of a great thinker in action. Hope it did not strain your brain to much to have to condescend to my level. I was particularly humbled by your way like leader style of your backhanded slap (This really is not difficult for most people to understand.) which you kindly posted twice so it would be established for me. (Dove says in his best way peon voice SLAP... Thank you sir may I have another sir Please!) Your humbleness is very inspiring to a mental peon like me. That Aside: Ok first I will strip away the added issue that you kindly tossed in the mix. I never said or implied that any of those men endorsed VPW. So here is your post without your added issue. (I'll leave the slap in cause I liked it so.) Most people don't have any problem seeing this point, but I'll explain it anyway. Leonard, Welch, Kenyon, Oral Roberts: Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were "taught by them." They were the source of the material. Correct they were the source VP was an instructor. Consider these helpful definitions from the dictionary. Teach- To impart knowledge or skill to Learn - To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study. Those men did the work it was their work that taught me truth and I learned- gained knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through study. Look- when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture. it did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment. See the connection? When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there. As to the other Christians vpw ripped off, their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source, who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make it all about him. Your opinion! I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable. That said it was not news to me that he used others work in his teachings they sold the books in the bookstore. And as Oldies (correct me if I am wrong here Oldies I think it was you) said it is documented several times on tape where he learned things from. He's right it is. Just for the occasion I dug out my old class instructors guide and gee session four it says - Note: show students the appendix page from the Bullinger Companion Bible on four crucified. Now that’s a pretty dumb thing to do for someone who is trying to deceive us into thinking that he authored this and take credit for it. And hey lets sell his Bible too so it will be really hard to figure it out. Please...... The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal. Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should be replaced with material that CAN stand up. Wrong! Anything that he taught(assuming you thought he was the teacher) that was true is still true. "Framework" has nothing to do with truth.it stands on its own because it is true. 1+1 =2 regardless of framework or moral character. The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is- the framework. People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on many things, because they buy into the image of him that he originated and propagated, and others passed on. And that is their lack of study ethic. Truth is truth I have no image of Bullinger or Welch to draw from or the rest but I can read their words and weigh them as truth or not. If people based their perception of truth on an image they were foolish it has nothing to do with truth. And I would remind you that VP said himself don't believe it because VP says so. If they did they were in error. Their mistake! Truth will always remain true. Agreed Period However, supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should be examined exceedingly carefully, since its origin places it under suspicion. Absolutely And upon careful examination I saw that the source from which it came (because it was obvious to me where it came from by the books available staring me in the face) was those men who taught me. So as I said it was their work that taught me and apparently I was not taught by a false prophet.

Actually David I did for many years I cooked many a meal. Nobody died so far. :) And I've catered several weddings for 100s at a time where to my surprise people requested my recipes. Which I had to give them because I followed one. Although a large one I had to scale it down a bit. Use the recipe it turns out fine every time. Oh so this unidentifiable substance is pasta??????

I suppose being from the south T you are supposed to be a rebel.......

True sometimes it does but then as j say's it's not the same thing. If you make chicken pasta and put tuna in then its tuna pasta. NO?

I'm on J's side follow the recipe!!! But you probably knew that already.

I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.

Me either Night Doojie Happy Tinkleing to you !

Allan your post reminded me ,the other day at fellowship we were talking about this how come so many leaders and researchers in the Way are named John?

Hey you guys look white just like me.. What flour I don't see any flour.