T-Bone

No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology …you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post: Specifically what are the false charges? You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please. Specifically what are the miss-readings? Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?

Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you... so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.

Great posts WordWolf and Thomas ! You got me thinking how wierwille was into shortcuts and didn’t want to devote a whole lot of time and effort to develop himself as a teacher or pastor…he wanted to go straight for the power and glory of being in charge… In my opinion, his shallow thinking and shortcut cheating were part of a mindset he fostered in The Way International. New PFAL grads often had this bible-know-it-all attitude and believed they could run rings around any preacher outside of TWI…I also saw this quite a bit in the faculty and students of the corps leadership training program…by then the mindset is usually entrenched. Sometimes we still see vestiges of that way-mindset when certain folks come on Grease Spot and act all indignant because many folks here no longer use wierwille’s mangled yardstick to measure the validity of anything - but simply put - many Grease Spotters have done the due diligence in references outside of TWI, personal Bible study, etc. and exercised critical thinking to see through errors in PFAL, wierwille's "logic", TWI-doctrine and practices.

What PFAL brought to the new student was an introduction into the make-believe world of wierwille… "he is to be trusted…he will guide you into all the truth…he won’t ever steer you wrong"… "oh yes - his class will increase your prosperity, enable you to separate truth from error, teach you how to pray effectually"... and all their other empty claims… ...with the addition of each new sucker grad, the ministry evolved into an abusive, deceitful, manipulative, exploitive, destructive organization that manufactures and sells snake oil...and longtime grads hanging in there, chasing pipe dreams...many who suspected the only active ingredient in PFAL was the placebo effect - i.e. their belief in PFAL - decided to leave this make-believe world of wierwille...godspeed!... ...who's next? I'm talking to you folks still in TWI.

I’ve never thought of wierwille as pure evil. He was human like all of us – and as such he had strengths and weaknesses; but when you consider his severe duplicity I think it’s obvious his weaknesses frequently overshadowed any strengths. I don’t consider the material he stole from others as something sacred – it’s more like stolen and vandalized material. You have to exercise your critical thinking to see the difference in the material wierwille plagiarized. wierwille took Bullinger’s dispensationalism to a whole other level by teaching “the absent Christ” and promoting a cheap grace. wierwille so mangled Bullinger’s keys to the interpretation of the Bible into teaching that the Bible interprets itself. it’s not just that he was a blatant plagiarist - he was also incompetent in cobbling together PFAL. The overarching detrimental effect of PFAL comes from the way he twisted and skewed scripture and the work of others to construct a façade of being the man of god for our time…when others introduced him you might hear the occasional “here he is, our father in the word”…he was the one who benefited the most from PFAL – it was a means to satisfy his need for fame, fortune, power and pleasure.

Might make a good soap opera “As the Jesus Freaks” No wait...that sounds like the Messiah has issues How about “As the Jesus Freaks Freak” …well anyway, welcome to Grease Spot, Signals2112 !

Don’t forget the bi+ch of the litter - Rosalie Rivenbark

Does that make it a stool pigeon?

Wow ! That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard Mike say...for those late to the party this is what happens when adulation supersedes reason. Yeah, I’m sorry Mike but I’ve limited myself to one cult per lifetime.

Wake up and smell the shookey-doo...your arguments have been a house of cards that keeps collapsing from the slightest intellectual challenge.

That’s like comparing apples to the orange book Big difference – Euclid was a Greek mathematician, often referred to as the father of geometry – and from a set of axioms he developed a branch of mathematics concerned with questions of shape, size, relative position of figures, and the properties of space…that’s how engineers solve problems in the real world. Judging by the experience of thousands upon thousands of grads, PFAL failed to solve problems in the real world…matter of fact, it usually made things worse.

An assumption is something that is accepted as true without proof. What proof...what facts...what logic do you offer as reasons to accept your viewpoint? Why would I want to adopt assumptions that are based on lies and logical fallacies? I think if you actually did read all the arguments you might have noticed how much you misrepresent God and the Bible. I see nothing desirable or that makes sense on that side.

Mike: Thank you, and the others as well. I wasn’t trying to do any of the slight of hand that my “angle” raised suspicions around. It was merely a lighthearted semi-prank in that I only fed the first half out. Even that first half states the angle is not of my own making, and I have not put much time into thinking it through. T-Bone: Gee whiz Mike, as it is I think you have sabotaged your own credibility here by some of the other things you’ve said on Grease Spot – do you really think it was wise to pull a “lighthearted semi-prank”? Now you’re really feeding my suspicions – was that “prank” actually something you came up with and you attempted to run it up the flagpole to see what kind of reaction it received? I will agree with you on the one thing you said “I have not put much time into thinking it through.” Yeah, I thought your flimsy account had all the telltale signs of a fabricated story – though it was years ago…a group of grads made an extra effort to “think deeper” on wierwille’s plagiarism…how timely since we’ve been discussing that on this thread. And another odd thing - I might believe there was a discussion of one of wierwille’s teachings – and that would be the focus of deep thinking…but plagiarism? It just doesn’t ring true……and of course, you say you didn’t think of it first – they did…it was their idea that you’re merely repeating here...sorry – I’m not buying it. == == == == Mike: Here’s the second half: VPW’s teaching to us on the Peoples’ Tree simply points out the fact that ownership is a slightly shifty thing. T-Bone: Mike, what is your definition of a fact? A fact is something that is indisputable – like the title deed to a house, or a copyright – in a court of law it proves ownership. I think your idea of ownership sounds very shifty indeed. == == == == Mike: We were also taught that ownership of the world was shifted from God to Adam and then from Adam to the adversary with a future shift in store. T-Bone: Perhaps you were taught wrong. According to Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it. The world and all its people belong to him NLT…Can you provide passages to support your belief? == == == == Mike: In early 1972 I also found in our local bookstore Kenyon book and a few others. At that time I felt VPW was totally up front with his sources, and gladly, with none of the academic clutter. Later that year Elena Whiteside’s book came out and his formal disclaimer of originality I saw and remembered often. Then I lost track of it’s location for decades, until Oldiesman resurrected it here 10 years ago, MUCH to everyone’s shock. I’m sure everyone did their best to forget it until I found it and re-posted it last month. T-Bone: How does wierwille’s awfully vague disclaimer of originality in Whiteside’s book prove he was totally upfront with his sources? Especially since he doesn't specifically name any of them!...I still have Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” – it still has the Way Bookstore price tag of $6.25 on it - I think I bought mine in '74. Do you think Bullinger (if he were still alive) or his estate…or the copyright owner would be satisfied by what you said? Would wierwille's flimsy vague disclaimer of originality fly in any court of law as an appeal to let him slide on copyright infringement? ....On the facing page of the preface in "How to Enjoy the Bible" it reads: “All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.” I don’t recall any “used by permission” statements with citation of Bullinger’s book in any of the PFAL books – though it’s obvious wierwille lifted whole sections of Bullinger’s book. How is that being upfront about his sources?

Perhaps the topic of truth would be more appropriate in a philosophical discussion sometime - - in the doctrinal forum…but anyway...my humble opinion of Mike’s tendency to lump wierwille’s works in a it’s-forbidden-to-question pile of Bible stuff is merely a ploy to protect a position that is untenable. Concerning Bible studies, systematic theologies, commentaries and such that quote from the Bible - even if we set aside the notion that the KJV has no copyright status (though it is in the public domain in most of the world The King James Version does have a copyright status of Royal Prerogative in the UK ) – I think it is a typical observation by most folks that there is a fairly clear demarcation between the Bible text that is quoted and the explanation or interpretation of that text by the author. And coupled with the fact that bible studies, commentaries, etc. are copyrighted, gives readers a distinct indication that all comments, analogies, explanations, etc. by the author or authors are uniquely their own - i.e. the intellectual property of the authors - - unless of course, they cite another work/giving the appropriate info. But to claim that wierwille’s plagiarism is merely compiling God’s truth as it was revealed to others actually compounds the errors: - - Portrays wierwille’s “works” as having equal footing with that of the Scriptures - - Justifies the sins of lying and stealing by saying it’s for a good reason, which ironically is to spread God’s truth - - Blurs the distinction between the Bible text and an interpretation of the text - - Fosters fanaticism and dogmatism

I agree...and actually I came back online to revise my phrase "ignoring the whole fairy tale ploy" cuz I couldn't think of the logical fallacy term for putting wierwille's plagiarism in the same category as folks gathering food from a community tree - I think it's called association fallacy - but maybe some debate experts here could clarify it if I'm wrong

Mike, did you first become aware of wierwille’s plagiarism years ago by talking with these grads? I am curious as to the purpose of these discussions you’ve had with those grads. ..based on your description of the group conversations – noting that you were addressing the issue of plagiarism and the extra effort made (“thought deeper”) – and correct me if I’ve got this wrong – but it sounds like the “angle” you all were working on was how to sidestep wierwille’s plagiarism by redefining the act of stealing. Or was there some other reason for this concerted effort? It seems obvious to me that OldSkool thwarted the sidestep by bringing back the legal aspect of wierwille’s plagiarism – ignoring the whole fairy tale ploy… but now I am curious…in your rebuff to the peoples’ court reference – are you suggesting wierwille’s plagiarism is above the law by appealing to “higher principles”? If so, please explain.

.... and I’d like to ratchet things up to the triple-dog-dare-you level and hope you find what you’re looking for and/or enjoy what you’ve already found so far. Love and peace T-Bone

When it comes to Kool-Aid, I have no friends....cuz they all drank it before me.

If saint vic was in prison he might get a taste of his own “motor coach medicine” when fellow inmates “minister” to him in the shower.

When I was in residence we had to live and breathe PFAL...often we were called upon during meals to give a 5 minute teaching...folks that quoted almost verbatim something from one of the collaterals were given the highest praise...when it came time to start working on our research paper we were emphatically instructed: don’t try to reinvent the wheel - base your research paper on something from PFAL.

Oh yeah - forgot to ask another question on this post - when were you in the way corps program?

If charades were a professional sport he could have claimed he started his own league.

Hi Akhurnu, Welcome to Grease Spot I’m glad you’re here…I hope you stick around awhile and hope you find some answers…share as much or as little as you feel comfortable in doing so – and I always give folks the benefit of a doubt -going by the golden rule in cyber space: I try to be as accurate and honest as I can and expect others to do the same…so don’t expect me to call you a liar. Have a cup of cappuccino on me

Well then, he didn’t recognize my vote that indicated I was not “blessed”

So you’re saying wierwille's own corps program concealed the “purity” of wierwille’s own PFAL Class. Did wierwille do that intentionally? What would you say if I told you the PFAL class never blessed me - not even long ago when I first took it? i am curious - I was in the ministry for 12 years - and I don’t believe we’ve ever met - so how do you know what impact the PFAL class had on my life?