T-Bone

that gave me a good laugh this morning, thanks JustThinking !

One day the tree of knowledge of good and evil fell on the tree of life. Adam: what was all that racket?!?! Eve: there’s good news and there’s bad news. Adam: that’s life.

Great questions…and I like the bead you draw on doubt – overall great posts, Nathan Jr ! I’ve had a fulfilling career as a technician and have always had a passion to learn how stuff works. But understanding how the mind works is a whole other mysterious intangible thing to me. So, I like to check out stuff on psychology and philosophy and of course discussions on Grease Spot are indispensable as well. Just going to throw my 2 cents on belief – and at the end of my post I left a few hyperlinks where I got some of my 2 cents – some of it might only be worth a penny – don’t know what the equivalence would be in cryptocurrency or Krypton-Currency (that’s super-bucks!)…so take the following with a grain of salt – the ideas below are from various articles and books but the wording is my own undoing in response to your posts…some of it reflects what I believe now - and some of it continues to evolve …anyway…here goes: I believe people have an innate desire to make sense of the world. Maybe that has something to do with why we choose a certain path. Since no one has all the answers we occasionally find ourselves making allowances for shortcomings, failures, the mysterious, and the unknown while on our chosen path. Our beliefs help us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. And our beliefs - along with experience, observations, and reason even attempt to predict the future. Bertrand Russell once said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. It has also been said that our thoughts, feelings, actions, and reactions, respond not to the world as it actually is (for we never know reality directly) but to the world as we believe it to be. Our beliefs tell us who we think we are, mark our place in the world and are essentially an ongoing personal narrative that anchors us to various places, situations, and events across our lifetimes…Our brains have no direct contact with the outside world. Our only information about what is going on outside of our bodies comes to us from our five senses. Perception in psychology is defined as the analysis of sensory information within the brain. Through perception we obtain a description of our surroundings and what they mean. Because of that, we can’t always assume that our perceptions are reality – if anything they just might be our own interpretation of reality. That’s why it’s important to respect the perceptions of others – they might be more accurate than ours. It takes real courage to admit we’re wrong and let go of certain perceptions. Sometimes it’s advantageous to seek out validation from experts or at least from other credible people who are outside of our circle of friends or religious group. We tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources. In 1986 there was a major crisis in my belief system after a series of events which happened to dust off some old red flags. I began to suspect that TWI which I had trusted for 12 years had not been well grounded, accurate or truthful. I like mystery novels and movies. My slow exit of leaving TWI was like a mystery script. Following up on old leads (red flags), investigating wierwille’s credentials and talking to other disenchanted followers. I was trying to unravel the convoluted mess of not only a cult’s doctrine but also their policies, practice, and control tactics. Jean Shinoda Bolen's insightful book "The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self" made reference to Agatha Christie's novels about her detective characters often using an intuitive approach asking what is the meaning of this event, what were the circumstances surrounding it, and what are the possibilities implicit within the event ? But in order to see the whole picture Bolen says intuition's counterpart is also necessary - which is a straight forward logical approach of the situation - what details of the circumstances do the five senses take in? I think the mystery / detective / crime drama trope echoes your mention of Grease Spot arising out of religious and spiritual abuse. 2006 was a great watershed “moment” for me – that’s when I joined Grease Spot – and ran into a whole bunch of witnesses and victims of TWI’s crimes. I like what you got into with doubting Thomas in John 20: 24 – 29 and thought I’d share a relevant note from my Life Application Study Bible cuz I relate to having lots of questions and doubts : “Jesus wasn’t hard on Thomas for his doubts. Despite his skepticism, Thomas was still loyal to the believers and to Jesus himself. Some people need to doubt before they believe. If doubt leads to questions, and questions lead to answers, and if the answers are accepted, then doubt has done good work.” End of excerpt ~ ~ ~ Theories and ideas are put to the test when our efforts make contact with reality – that’s the acid test. We need a way to distinguish our internal thoughts, feelings, and ideas from external events. In other words, we need the ability to see a situation for what it really is, rather than what we hope - or fear - it might be. This is important because we then can distinguish between what is real and what isn’t. It will allow us to better judge situations. It might even give us a basis for comparison and help us improve how we react to certain situations…The phrase “the acid test” alludes to a chemical test to prove the pureness of gold. This test was developed in the late 18th century and used nitric acid, which dissolves other metals more readily than gold. So, the amount of metal dissolved would prove the pureness of the gold. The acid test was used to distinguish gold from copper or some other metal. The term came to mean a process to prove the value of something, or the standard that something must meet to prove its value, a sure or decisive experiment. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Now reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method which you mentioned in your post – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane or launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – like there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true. Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth. “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” From Wikipedia – correspondence theory of truth Of course this is just my opinion but as an example of how I look at things using the correspondence theory of truth – I consider the story of the fall of mankind and mankind’s redemption through Jesus Christ seems to corroborate the problem of sin and evil in the world…but that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. ~ ~ ~ ~ As promised, here’s a few of my sources: Psychology Today: We Are Our Beliefs Psychology Today: What Actually is a Belief and Why Is It So Hard to Change? the 5 most powerful beliefs that ignite human behavior The Debunking Handbook by Cook and Lewandowsky Why We Fall for Conspiracies: How do conspiracies spread, and why do we believe them? The Tao of Psychology: Synchronicity and the Self

Not sure if you had this Key & Peele’s Obama's Anger Translator in mind Then I got to thinking – uh oh …it might be helpful if there was a bull$hit translator that ran simultaneously with PFAL – a split screen kind of a thing. For example: “the teacher”: do you believe God can heal you? Now raise your arm. BS Translator: I do believe there’s someone with a question. You sir, with your hand up. ~ ~ ~ ~ “the teacher”: millions now smoking BS Translator: millions now smoking crack

Yeah – I think you have something there…according to the following article: "Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist… …in Shermer’s 2000 book How We Believe, he argues that our brains have evolved as pattern recognition machines. Our brains create meaning from patterns we see or at least think we see in nature (Shermer, 2008). Often, the patterns are real, while other times they are manifestations of chance. Pattern recognition tells us something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that help us with survival and reproduction. Pattern recognition is imperative to learning… …Research studies have demonstrated that when people believe that two variables are correlated, they will see a connection even in data where they are totally unrelated. It is not unusual for clinicians to see correlations “in response patterns because they believe they are there, not because they are actually present in the pattern of responses being observed“ (Stanovich, 2007, p. 169)… …Our pattern-detecting ability serves us well in many instances, but it also can lead to seeing something when there is nothing there. In the words of Rudolf Flesch: Instead of the black and-white, single-track, everyone-knows-that-this-is-due-to-that approach, get used to the idea that this is a world of multiple causes, imperfect correlations, and sheer, unpredictable chance. It is true that the scientists, with their statistics and their probabilities, have made a stab at the harnessing of chance. But they know very well that certainty is unattainable. A high degree of probability is the best we can ever get…" End of excerpts From: Psych Central - patterns the need for order

then I looked at my watch for the umpteenth time

Ah so you were the sixth Beatle… or as wierwille would say the sick Beatle.

very insightful WordWolf !

In October of 1999, Tonto and I went to see Late Night with Conan O’Brien at NBC studios in NY. It was in the same building where Saturday Night Live is produced but on a different floor. While waiting to get in Late Night, Colin Quinn cast member of Saturday Night Live walked by and began visiting with folks in the line. I got to shake his hand and we quickly exchanged pleasantries. When we got into the Late Night studio, there was some pre-show warm-up shtick to get the audience excited for the broadcast. At one point Conan walked up the aisle and was talking to members of the audience. I had an aisle seat. He shook my hand as he welcomed me to the show and asked me where I was from. You know, if I wanted to tailor my resume to break into the music business, I’d have no qualms inflating my experiences with something like: consulted and worked with many outstanding individuals in the entertainment industry like Conan O’Brien and Colin Quinn.

The Old Switcheroo In PFAL wierwille said: you tell me what you think of Jesus Christ, and I’ll tell you how far you’re going to go spiritually. How cults work: you tell me what you think of wierwille, and I’ll tell you how far you’re going to go in The Way International.

Speaking of dead men’s bones - I was reading about the founder on TWI’s website and got to questioning just how much or if at all wierwille “consulted and worked with many outstanding individuals in Christian studies”. I spent only a few minutes Googling a few of the names I never heard of besides Barth and Tillich (see links below). I breezed through the Wikipedia articles and started wondering how much wierwille actually “consulted and worked with” them. Was some of that just name-dropping to impress others? Maybe someone can verify he worked with ALL those named – especially the big names like Barth and Tillich. Anyway, here’s the article about the founder: "Victor Paul Wierwille spent several decades vigorously and prayerfully searching out the truths of God’s Word. As part of his search he consulted and worked with many outstanding individuals in Christian studies for keys to power-filled, victorious living. Such men as Karl Barth, Joseph Bauer, Glenn Clark, Karl J. Ernst, Josiah Friedli, Louis C. Hessert, Elmer G. Homrighausen, E. Stanley Jones, George M. Lamsa, Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr, K. C. Pillai, Paul Tillich, Ernst Traeger, and many others were a part of Dr. Wierwille’s quest to find the truths of the Word of God. Dr. Wierwille’s academic career included Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Theology degrees from Mission House (Lakeland) College and Seminary, and graduate studies at the University of Chicago and at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he earned the Master of Theology degree in Practical Theology. Later he completed his work for the Doctor of Theology degree at Pikes Peak Bible Seminary and Burton College in Manitou Springs, Colorado. For over forty years, Dr. Wierwille devoted his major energies to intensive research and teaching of the accuracy of God’s Word. In 1953 he began teaching his Biblical research in classes on Power for Abundant Living. He was the founder and first president of The Way International, a nonsectarian, nondenominational Biblical research, teaching, and fellowship ministry. He held the presidency of The Way College of Emporia, and he was the founder and first president of several other centers of learning: The Way College of Biblical Research, Indiana Campus; Camp Gunnison; and LEAD Outdoor Academy International. As Dr. Wierwille persevered in his research of the Bible, he continued to write more research works and to develop further classes in Biblical studies, including The University of Life outreach courses, an international Biblical studies correspondence school. As a dynamic lecturer, he traveled and taught worldwide, holding forth the greatness and the accuracy of God’s Word with great intensity until his death in May of 1985." From: The Way org About the founder ~ ~ ~ ~ Wikipedia – Karl Barth Wikipedia – Elmer G Homrighausen Wikipedia – Helmut Richard Niebuhr Wikipedia - Richard Niebuhr Wikipedia – Paul Tillich

According to one answer I found on the Internet: “Jesus didn’t “get” a bar mitzvah. He became one. Every Jewish boy becomes a bar mitzvah automatically at age 13. I think you’re really asking when Jesus celebrated the occasion of becoming a bar mitzvah. The answer is that he didn’t. That didn’t become a thing until the Middle Ages.” From Quora – Did Jesus have a bar mitzvah? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I think most problems with what’s taught in PFAL have to do with wierwille's bastardizing of plagiarized material. Which proves the old proverb that I just made up: clueless thievery is the badder part of proficiency. Bastardize: change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements; synonyms: adulterate · corrupt · contaminate · weaken · dilute · spoil · taint · pollute · foul · defile · debase · degrade · devalue · depreciate · distort · vitiate.

Waysider, noted how wierwille ended the last session of 1967 PFAL; it was a self-assumed title answering for a friend

Mike: How many times do I have to repeat for you that I completely objected to the methodology of your group, and as a result I give ZERO credence to your results. You went in determined to find contradictions and you manufactured them from scratch. Your methods were dishonest. ~ ~ ~ ~ Methodology is a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline; a particular procedure or set of procedures. ~ ~ ~ ~ Let’s review Mike’s methodology already revealed on this thread: Mike: I don't use written PFAL to judge other sections of PFAL. But I do judge tapes from VPW the light of the final written publications. T-Bone: in other words, Mike judges certain works of VPW by using other works of VPW. Mike: I work the collaterals in my life. It's in the application of what we were taught in PFAL that brings out its truth. ~ ~ ~ Remember in the 1967 PFAL Class wierwille talking about things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. His clunky way of stating that should have alerted folks of his incompetence (that’s if they hadn’t already fallen asleep during the class zzzzZZZZ ZZZzzz ). I was at the live PFAL 77 class when wierwille was covering that point again – and he STILL used his clunky phrasing. Bob Moy****n was sitting near me – and he stands up, cups his hands over his mouth megaphone style and yells out transitive property of equality. Isn’t that odd – a student knew more about it than “the teacher”. I wonder if they'll include that in the new PFALT. PFAL 1967 is equal to PFAL 77 is equal to PFALT...transitive property of equal plagiarism. The moral of the story: Mike’s methodology: use PFAL to evaluate PFAL is equal to judge certain works of VPW by other works of VPW is equal to the application of what we were taught in PFAL that brings out its truth... circular reasoning is equal to chasing your tail is equal to a hamster wheel in motion....will the circle be unbroken?

Typically, I lose interest when I sense manipulative tactics...and there are far less mischievous resources for checking out Scripture: I Corinthians 3:17 alternate translations Interlinear of I Corinthians 3:17 I Corinthians 3 and you can choose a translation you're welcome!

Oh wow - that's a big difference....judge certain works of VPW by using other works of VPW. of course, why didn't I think of that.

Yeah I’ve noticed that too – and there does seem to be new errors and contradictions in PFAL emerging all the time, the more PFAL is discussed by clear thinking folks…a recent case in point is a thread in Doctrinal started by Bolshevik – where my post examined the nonsensical claim that wierwille said of Scripture interprets itself…I said: “Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed. Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter: Interpret: explain the meaning of information, words, or actions; translate orally or into sign language the words of a person speaking a different language. Translate: express the sense of (words or text) in another language; to express in more comprehensible terms: EXPLAIN, INTERPRET. An interpreter is responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension. ~ ~ ~ ~ Note in all of the above there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. In a sense translators of the ancient biblical manuscripts are bridging the gap between the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and the modern languages of various cultures like English, Spanish, French, etc. I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneously bastardized from Bullinger’s works. In Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” the idea is expressed along the lines of “these are the keys to interpreting the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc.” It’s a given that a human’s cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. In other words what Bullinger was saying is "To do it properly and logically this is how YOU should interpret the Bible". That's a big difference from the befuddling nonsense that wierwille was teaching (see here ) end of quoting my post in doctrinal ~ ~ ~ ~ Move over Euclid and tell wierwille the news his postulates are screwy his sycophants have the blues

I'll see your LOL and raise you double that you think THAT shows how well YOU can smooth out difficult sections for your personal study! Ha ! I believe YOUR standards leave a lot to be desired. Has it ever occurred to you that you use PFAL as a measuring stick to verify the accuracy and logic of PFAL. (Hint: it’s wierwille-centric) …reminds me of the baloney I bought into when I first took PFAL – that claim about explaining apparent Bible contradictions…wierwille did a sloppy job of that! Because there ARE difficult…contradictory…erroneous sections of the Bible…wierwille’s spiel of “God has a purpose for everything He says in the Bible, where He says it, how He says it blah, blah, blah” does NOT jive with what the Bible…in any translation…in any existing manuscript shows – that there ARE difficult, contradictory, and erroneous sections. in other words, if indeed God purposely had everything worded exactly the way He wanted - then He is not as intelligent as we thought - He made contradictory statements, He gave inaccurate historical details, He made scientifically inaccurate statements. I prefer to deal honestly with Scripture – warts and all. What is so hard to grasp about that? God inspired humans – imperfect people to write Scripture; I believe God allowed them to use their own literary style, vocabulary, worldview and limited knowledge to express His message…You use a similar argument about PFAL being God-breathed plagiarism even though wierwille is not perfect. What you do in your PERSONAL study is up to you…and I prefer you keep your weird interpolations to yourself… …in all your protesting it seems like you’re now trying to further cover up a hidden agenda by minimizing your recent interpolation which forwards your usual PFAL schtick.

Hey, Mike remember in PFAL wierwille said something about occurrence of errors could be due to a proofreader’s oversight ( an unintentional failure to notice something) or an interpolation (to alter or corrupt something, such as a text by inserting new or foreign matter)…well, that explains my quick reply to your post. It wasn’t until much later when I came back and read OldSkool’s comment…and he isolated and highlighted your text “I have laid the foundational class, so each student can build on the solid concrete” . Only THEN did I realize I had failed to notice your insertion of the foreign ideas “foundational class” and “student”, which are subliminal references to PFAL. Those terms were NOT germane to the images of structures and building materials mentioned in I Corinthians 3 and seem out of place. It exemplifies the dishonesty and incongruity of TWI’s literal translation according to usage at their worst…Not only that - it also seems like a snub - showing disdain…it’s disingenuous…you’ve ignored what I said on this thread and another about avoiding hidden agendas - see here and here . Mike, I am sorry to rain on your parade and I also apologize to anyone if my initial response to Mike’s post caused some confusion or seemed uncharacteristic of my usual passion for good Bible study methods. I’m not so much slow on the uptake as sometimes I am often too quick to establish common ground and play well with others …And thanks to OldSkool for your vigilance!

I think that’s pretty cool, Mike!

Honestly, I think wierwille gave private interpretation a bad rap. It’s a funny thing…in one respect it seems I’ve gone full circle on the idea behind “literal translation according to usage”. When I was in-residence at Rome City, they showed us an old film about Martin Luther. Memory is fuzzy – not sure of exact details but in one scene Martin Luther is confronted by his superiors for translating the New Testament into German and is asked something like “Do you realize what would happen if the Bible was in the language of the people?” To which Martin Luther replied, “There would probably be more Christians.” I really got into the literal translation according to usage when I was going through way corps training. It actually piqued my interest in textual criticism, hermeneutics, deep methods of Bible study, and even philosophy of religion – all of which I never pursued further until a few years after I left TWI…an “old flame” was rekindled I’m not talking about publishing a whole new Bible translation…but in personal study or even in preaching, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making a “translation” of a Bible verse that might help a Christian fully grasp the message – and assuming in a public setting the preacher is upfront with what he or she is doing…My opinion reflects the sentiment of Martin Luther. Textual criticism and systematic theology aside anyway – the most practical passages for me have always been simple ones like II Corinthians 5:7 For we live by faith, not by sight. In retrospect parsing TWI’s literal translation according to usage: The good: if done honestly and in harmony with Scripture it is a boon to the Christian lifestyle. The bad: some of TWI’s literal translation according to usage were extremely biased …wierwille-centric…a bane and a pain to the Christian lifestyle. The ugly: the unspoken rule that ONLY the cult-leader is allowed to interpret Scripture…that's law and order in the Bizarro World “Christian” lifestyle. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DVD bonus feature – click on the above hyperlink for II Cor. 5:7 and you’ll see other translations of that verse! How cool is that?

The following is an exact quote from the PFALT trailer featuring the first new presenter; after the quote The Intrepid Interpreter will provide an alternate translation: So, in this class we’re going to teach you about spiritual knowledge so that you can tap into the resources of the power of God. So that you can live life as God intended you to live. Fully informed…fully equipped…ready for anything and equal to anything through him who infuses inner strength into you. So that you can live without fear. The greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible is the revealed word and will of God. The word of God is the will of God. The Intrepid Interpreter’s alternate translation of the above text: 1. If you want to have godlike control, authority and influence over people and situations then you want Gnosticism. 2. We’re assuming God planned for you to be a know-it-all megalomaniac, in other words 3. A close-minded arrogant and domineering person best suited to manipulate others. 4. By having a can-do attitude, believe you will succeed - as long as the cult-leader keeps blowing enough smoke up your a$$ 5. So that in false bravado you can run with scissors, damn the torpedoes and hope your cult-brethren-and-sistren can always bail you out of trouble. 6. The greatest Easter egg in The Way International today is that Power For Abundant Living Today is the same rotten egg as the old PFAL class. 7. The words of PFAL are the last will and testament of a cult-leader.

Yeah Bolshevik, that makes a lot of sense…wierwille’s idea of how all Scripture is “God-breathed” or God inspired and the alleged 1942 promise of God audibly telling wierwille He’d teach him the Word may have had at least two unintended consequences to followers: it belittled one’s cognitive skills and undervalued one’s own unique inspiration…On another thread I’ve expressed my frustration with trying to get one of my songs approved to play on the stage of the Rome City campus – but according to the assistant corps coordinator the lyrics to my song were not PFAL-enough…I thought it was a cool tune…I could dance to it…I’d give it an 85.

Glad you brought that up…as I watched the trailer for PFALT, when it got to the part of a presenter repeating the same thing wierwille says in PFAL – I’m loosely quoting it here from memory and also emphasizing key pronouns: “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it…” I think PFAL presents a contradictory theory on how we got the Bible. Notice I capitalized and put in bold red all the pronouns “HE” that refer back to “God”. But later in the class wierwille explains holy men of God spake as they were MOVED by the Holy Spirit – wierwille states it doesn’t say “shoved around” which he further explained accounts for the different styles of writing in the 66 books of the Bible, meaning the writers used their own vocabulary, literary style, and cultural settings. However, that contradicts the idea in the above statement which attributes every word, literary style, and of course all historical, scientific, geographical, and worldview references to God. On another thread, I mentioned the four most popular theories of how the Bible was written see my post on 2nd wave of returning to PFAL regarding 4 major theories of inspiration Where I said: I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible. There ARE a FEW accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message – but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences rules out the dictation theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. Again - that’s just my opinion…I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either # 2 Dictation theory or # 4 Plenary verbal inspiration theory ... Though these theories of how the Bible was written seem simple enough to describe – the impact of which one or more of these we choose may be profound to our understanding. I think a student of the Bible should be AWARE of the ASSUMPTIONS they hold and WHY, when reading, interpreting, and applying Scripture. End of quoting my old post ~ ~ ~ ~ My point is, you can’t have it both ways. If indeed “God has a purpose for everything HE says in the Bible, where HE says it, why HE says it, how HE says it, to whom HE says it, when HE says it” then he made a lot of mistakes and he’s not as smart as I thought he was…man what a let down!

in case anyone missed it - here's the trailer for Power For Abundant Living Today