waysider

I think it may have been Patrick O'Henry who was quoted as saying: "Give me Guinness Stout or give me---------ummmm-----Guinness Draught!"

I for one am just glad Dylan(Bob Dylan, not Dylan Thomas) was still able to record"Blonde on Blonde" while the title still had some significance.

As I recall, the initial intent of this thread was to discuss whether or not teachings we received in TWI were or were not selective in nature. I also believe we have established that the term "teaching" goes beyond what is publically expounded or presented in written or recorded form and therefore should be understood to include what is taught by example. One poster has stated on post #98 "We know what was in Wierwilles' heart by what he taught--------" Its' difficult to disagree with that logic when weighed with the understanding of what "teaching" is. Food for thought: Proverbs 4:23------Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life. A man of God who has genuine concern for the well-being of those to whom he ministers would be wise to heed those words and foolhardy to disregard them.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. One poster states( in essence) that it is his opinion that VPW partook of activties and actions that were unbecoming of a man of God. A quick glance at I Timothy would reveal that a man of God should be above reproach. Hence, poster number one seems to have a valid point. Poster number two states(in essence) that "Christ in you" should be the criteria for evaluating said man of Gods' faults and shortcomings and that Chrisianity is about what is on the inside, not what is manifested on the outside. Well now, here is the dilemma. The man of God whose character is in question is one and the same who told us holy men of God spoke as God moved them. So, Do we go with what Timothy spoke as he was inspired by God or do we chalk it up to "Christ in you" gives one a license to do as they please and credit it to Grace? You see the men of the bible who were cited here bore one very striking difference to VPW. They actually acknowledged that they had fallen short of walking a perfect walk.

I can just hear the conversation now. "Can I get you anything Ma'am?" "Why yes, an industrial size can of Febreeze." "OOPS! never mind." And like the kids say: If you protest you smelt it, you probably dealt it.

"God worked with them(David, Solomon and Saul) to communicate tremendous truths that are ever enduring." Perhaps the answer lies in the opening of that quote where it is stated"God worked with them." Nikita Krushev memorized all 4 Gospels and could quote them verbatim. There were many great truths revealed in his quoting but since he ,by his own admission , did not believe them, it is unlikely "God worked with him" and thus these truths were obscured by his dilution of their importance. BTW-----In the interest of preserving "mathmatical accuracy" allow me to point out that the inverse of "selective teaching" is "selective hearing."

"Might as well throw out the entire bible because the whole thing was written by imperfect, sinning humans." Oh My!----- Have we so quickly forgotten session 2 of PFAL ? Isn't it there that the good dr. himself teaches us that all scripture is God breathed? Does he not then expound upon how all scripture is profitable? Does he not tell us that it is for the purpose of doctrine, reproof, and correction? Is it being suggested then that VPW spoke and wrote as The Holy Spirit gave him utterance? Herein,perhaps, is where the discrepancy lies. Even IF the PFAL class had been given from God, it most surely was given to someone other than VPW . The proof that PFAL was not VPW's own work has been quite extensively documented. Yes, the "writers" of the bible were imperfect human beings but according to what we were taught, their words were given by God.And since the original intent of this thread was to explore the possibilty that followers of TWI were subjected to "selective teaching", allow me to resurrect the memory of session 3 of PFAL in which VPW himself illustrated how Psalm 14:1 could be used to "selectively" prove the non existance of God. Psalm 14:1 clearly states"there is no God." Of course, anyone who remembers this segment of the class will also remember that this twisted meaning was accommplished by "selectively" removing it from the context which stated "the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God." VPW on the same level as David or Paul?------You would have to have some truly irrefutable proof for me to even entertain the possibility.

Wasn't it reported by someone here that upon VPWs' demise, Mrs. W. was heard to say"he was a mean man."? I suppose if anyone would have known, it surely would have been Mrs. W.

Be sure to save all those old parts just in case you decide to "pass it along" to someone else who is more intersested in its' collectability. If you have the original case, that would be an extra nice bonus.

If you grew some just for fun, would it be OK to say you have a Holly Hobby?

Sounds like Robbie Robertson. Am I on the right track?

Uncle Winkie----HMMMM! Isn't Uncle Winkie Day when we're supposed to burn all our old dryer sheets? :blink:

OK, Chatty, You've got me hangin' in suspenders(Gettin' too fat for a belt) :( What's the next stop on this "Magical Mystery Tour"?

A person can stand in the pulpit and declare the moon is made of green cheese, it simply does not make it true. Teaching is not limited to what is expounded from the pulpit or recorded on some sound stage. A person must teach by example also or their ramblings are just that: ramblings. I would humbly suggest that one look beyond the flowery words on a recorded tape and ask themself honestly whether the expounder adhered to his or her profession of what they presented as Truth. Jesus never recorded any tapes or spoke at any SNS(Sunday night service) but he certainly lived one amazingly exemplary life. Actions speak louder than words.

White Dove-----------You have quoted VPW as saying: "Do what God tells you to do, not what people think you should do." Surely you must realize that he also said that when a "man of God" speaks, it is equivalent to God speaking . A suggestion, request or demand from a leader was to be interpreted as being "the" word of God. Questioning the man of God was equivalent to arguing with God. You will find this on page 10 of the AC(advanced class) syllabus. One of the scripture references given is Acts 9:13-15. In addition, you will find ( also on page 10) the admonition that revelation can change as circumstances change. I Samuel 23: 10-18 is but one example that was cited. This may be a bit off topic but he also taught in this same class that"Speaking in tongues daily is prerequisite to revelation." He used II Cor. 4:16 to "selectively" prove his opinion on this. That is utter nonsense. Does this mean that the person who has never SIT(spoken in tongues) can't possibly receive revelation from God? According to VPW(Victor Paul Wierwille) , the answer would be yes. Now, as to your reference to VPW saying "You can't go by-----------what the clergy say." may I remind you that he originally made these statements before there were any TWI clergy in place. He was using this diatribe to disparage "denominational" clergy. His stance on clergy was that the only TRUE clergy were those who God himself had ordained. So in essence , when he said "do what God tells you to do" he was saying that TWI clergy were 1) Ordained of God and 2) When they spoke you would be foolhardy to argue because you were virtually arguing with God.( Arguing with God would seem to be a bad thing, don't you think?)

"The Word of God is our only rule of faith and practise." If not even one person here subscribed to that philosophy(Yes, the dreaded P word) the point would still be moot because it is up to TWI to live up to its' own professed creed. Like Donnie used to say: "Do It!" (That's the literal translation according to usage for the word "practise" as used above in that catchy slogan.)

Dove--------I was going to put up one of those off topic smilies but decided it might dilute the seriousness of this subject.The point being stressed is that VPW and others in authoritative positions selectively taught portions of scripture that bolstered their own personal stances and agendas and selectively ignored portions that might cast an unfavorable light on their own behaviour. As to the matter of receiving instruction regarding secular matters; Are you not aware that in the more recent days of TWI no one was to go anywhere unless they were accompanied? Did you perhaps miss the post by someone who had to have special dispensation just to take a cake deorating class? Did you miss the post by the person who had to take a "believer" to prom rather than his girlfriend? Doing "your own thing" was definately not a good recipe for remaining in good stead with leadership. Like you, my most vivid memories are of the early days and I did not endure much of the legalism that came in later times but I did see plenty of examples of people using The Word to fulfill their own purposes even in those early days. In summary,"selective teaching" is wrongly dividing The Word in a larger, more contextual sense to serve ones' own purpose. BTW--The airplane analogy----------

Motherof2---------You are probably too young to have heard the old adage:"You can't judge a book by its' cover" but it would seem from your post that you have experienced it for yourself. Your father sounds like a man you can be proud to call your Dad. :)

Stop by for a visit any time. I'd like to tell you there will be a Danish and coffee waiting for you but I'm not in charge of refreshments.

The granddaddy of all selective teachings,in my opinion, was the session on how Eve was deceived by the serpent. Not just the content and privately drawn conclusions of the lesson but its' very placement in the class at a point so strategically vital to maintaining the interest of the students. It could have easily been incorporated into session 12 from an academic standpoint but that would have defeated the selective intent of the lesson. That's just my opinion.

Sometimes when I hear a news caster or a co worker talk about "issues" when what they really mean are "problems", it reminds me of how we always had to say we had "opportunities". (Meaning an opportunity to operate the "law" of believing.) "Yes, Officer, the mugger just whacked me upside the head, between my eyes with a tire iron and stole all my money but HEY! No problem, just another opportunity to operate the magic "law" of believing."

Dove--------Do you not realize that by only quoting part of what I said you have changed its' meaning? This thread most certainly should include PFAL when citing examples because that is where the precedent was set for the practice of selectively teaching. And yes, PFAL did promise to help us find "a more abundant life' and certainly you must remember the teachings that ensued on the various meanings of the word "life". One , as you may recall, was "life in every respect". The ice cream store/car repair references serve no purpose other than to detract from the heart of this discussion which is "were or were not there examples of 'selective teaching' used in TWI? And no, I not talking about where someone may have presented secular teachings on subjects they thought might benefit the body. I am referring to teachings that were expressly presented in a manner that suggested they dealt specifically with Gods' Word. Again, if that is not what the original poster was referring to,please correct my misunderstanding.

I,too, was around in the '70's. The dichotomy of values was already in place. It was not nearly as visably because the hierarchy was so small in comparison to the number of people at the twig level who,for the most part, had genuine desire to see the Truth as they knew it become a living reality. Much of what happened I only now am starting to understand as I look at it in retrospect. But yes, many of these things being discussed were in fact already taking place in the '70's.

Dove--------If I may kindly point out, Skyrider did not call the scriptures adolesent . The context of the post suggests that the appoach was adolesent. Yes, it would be foolish to think that by going to the ice cream store one might aquire skills in car repair. May I again point out that we are not discussing car repair. We are discussing a class that promised to show us how Gods' Word could be used to benefit our lives. It many respects, it failed that mission. Even a brief review of "The Green Card" would prove that out.That has already been done here. The recent discussions of "harmony in the home" are just one example. But again, the focal point of this discussion should be whether or not there was selectivity in teachings. And yes, I'm interpreting that to mean the PFAL class as well since it was always referred to as the "foundational" class or a primer for subsequent teachings. If I am wrong in thinking that is what the original poster had in mind, I welcome the correction.

All she needs now are some pointy, red cowboy boots