waysider

Well, you could be right. I was just making an educated guess when I said it may have been Leonard

Oh, I know this is really about maintaining control and that the microphone, itself, is symbolic. Still, I have to giggle when I remember how a certain limb leader tried to give me a lesson on the correct way to hold a microphone. (the literal kind) He told me you have to be careful how you hold it because you don't want to conjure up any phallic images. I better not say anymore. HeeHee

The Great Principle appears in the class syllabus of Interpretation of Tongues and Prophesy (1971), which is a forerunner of the Intermediate Class. This was actually part of the original PFAL class and was known informally as "The Thirteenth Session". It is only conjecture on my part that this originated with B.G.Leonard. I base that guess on the fact that we now know VPW based PFAL very closely on Leonard's Gifts of the Spirit class. The principle is introduced, though not by name, on page 3. This page starts by quoting Philippians 4:13. ("I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." (We touched briefly on this scripture in the "Thus Saith Paul." thread.) The implication being held forth on this particular page is that the "I" is you, as a believer, and that it is referring to you, the believer, operating "all nine" of the manifestations. On page 9, the principle is stated and a visual depiction of the concept appears. I don't have a scanner so I will describe the depiction for anyone who cares to draw it out. First, there is an inverted triangle on the left. (base up, apex down) Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that this triangle is actually three separate, close bordered, concentric triangles. (One inside another) In this triangle appears the text: GOD who is SPIRIT Then, there is an arrow drawn from the word SPIRIT to a reciprocating word SPIRIT in a large circle directly to the right and slightly below the triangle. The text appearing in this circle is: SPIRIT (arrow pointing down) SOUL (mind) (arrow pointing down) BODY Next, an arrow points outside the circle (just as the first arrow pointed outside the triangle, into the circle.) to the words: You speak out Something that intrigues me about this visual is that GOD appears inside the triangle portion (a three-sided figure) and that the triangle is actually composed of three closely concentric but separate triangles. This leads me to believe that Wierwille probably "borrowed" this visual depiction from someone who was Trinity oriented. However, I think Wierwille failed to recognize this triangle analogy that the original author had cleverly embedded.

I don't know how to state this any plainer. I am not attacking Paul. I am attacking a concept. The concept is that, first, the epistles are addressed directly to us today, and, secondly, that whenever Paul spoke, it was synonymous with God speaking.

This is something I, too, have thought about often. Suppose I stand before an audience and deliver a message in English. Problem is, the audience is comprised of people who only understand Japanese, Farsi and German. But, somehow, they are all able to understand my message in English. Hmmmmmm. So, then, what about tongues of angels? Consider, too, that "angel" can also be translated messenger" Suddenly, it's not so clear cut as it all seemed in TWI, when all we had to do to qualify was to speak glossolalia.

When you speak in tongues, silently, in the manner we were taught in The Way, your mind becomes more malleable and less resistant to suggestion. This has been demonstrated with scientific studies. Remember our "lift lists"? We were told to picture the leaders in a very positive light as we "lifted" (spoke in tongues for) them. So, if you habitually pictured VPW as some great person while your mind was in a malleable state, it became more and more difficult to accept any sort of negative, contradictory criticism of him. I doubt that Wierwille was clever enough to understand this on a cognizant level. I think he did, however, almost instinctively understand that people who spoke in tongues "much" became more compliant and devoted. Hence, he admonished us to speak in tongues much and "lift" the leaders. That may not be the "purpose" you were looking for; but I think it bears some consideration.

The eyes don't technically SEE anything. Your eyes simply collect the information that your brain, in turn, processes and interprets. This, for example, is how your brain is able to take two slightly different visual images (camera angles) and interpret them into one, singular, three dimensional image. This process involves certain physiological actions that take place at the neurological level. Thus, one can, indeed, "see" things without input from the eyes. This is very different from "imaging" which does not involve this particular type of neurological activity.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Probably more of a market for it on "the other site".

Here's where credibility comes back into the picture. Wierwille taught that God talked to people in the OT through dreams because they didn't have spirit IN them, like modern day "believers", by which to receive revelation. Hence, he said, God would only talk to us in dreams if we were so far out of fellowship that He could not reach us by revelation. Furthermore, VPW taught that dreams can otherwise be the result of devil spirits trying to get into our minds through "the trap door". Do I still believe that explanation? No, I do not. But, here's the thing. If Wierwille was wrong about dreams, what makes you think he was right about tongues?

That still doesn't address the question of whether or not what we, in The Way, as well as other "charismatic" organizations, called "speaking in tongues" is even remotely similar to what was going on in the first century.

Happy Valentine's Day! <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zBgUFrSfs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zBgUFrSfs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5zBgUFrSfs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I can buy into that. One could conceivably find inspiration in seeing how Paul was able to make the best out of a bad situation. Lots of good lessons in there when seen from a non-mystical perspective. It might serve as an example of forbearance. I don't think that qualifies it as "meaningless". The point I am seeing here is that the verse is about what Paul felt HE could do because of the "Christ which strengthened" him, not what God said WE could do. (ie: It wasn't God telling us what we could do; it was Paul telling the Philippians what he, Paul, could do) It has a completely different meaning when viewed in that light, much different than the way we applied it in The Way. I'm not saying it's bad advise to be optimistic. Perhaps, as you say, the message here is, indeed, to "be content", "keep your chin up", etc. That's not necessarily a bad thing. On the other hand, I don't think it justifies irrational behavior, such as hitch-hiking to L.E.A.D., in some ridiculous time constraint, with virtually no money, and saying "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" as if that would make the venture anymore reasonable or possible.

Would anyone like my turn?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

OK, I'll bring it back on track. How many countless things did we drone on about, as if they were handed directly to us by God and meant explicitly for us personally? The "I can do all things." quote is a perfect example.

How many times have you heard someone say, "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."? (Philippians 4:13) It became a mantra, even found its way into retemory cards and songs. But, look it that verse again. Is this verse really something that God is declaring to be one of the "over 900 promises" to the body of Christ talked about in PFAL? Or, is it simply something Paul said? Forget about administrations, to whom it is written, Jews, Gentiles, Church of God and all that stuff. It is simply not saying this is anything other than a declaration Paul made, of himself, to the people of Philippi. In other words, "Thus saith Paul."

Here is something simple to consider regarding translations. If you are in Britain and discussing "public schools", you are really talking about what we in America call "private schools". The same language, same point in time and, yet, completely different implications. How will translators sort that one out two thousand years from now?

Hey! You left out the Renewed Mind class. "I can self delude myself into thinking I'm lovin' it."

I find it rather amusing that the living truth is limited.

Yes. A "stand-alone" book. Doesn't that, in itself, raise questions about inerrancy and canonization? If "all prophesy is God breathed", adding to Revelation, even though it may be designed to stand alone, would be equivalent to adding to the canon.

How will we know the difference?

Oopsie! That would create quite an "inerrancy problem" because of Revelation 22:18. For I testify unto everyone that heareth the words of the prophesy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.