Linda Z

Sorry to continue the Amish derail, but Rhino asked where they get the big bucks. My impression is that the Amish get their big bucks by having lots of land, handed down generation to generation, and by being good businessmen and being thrifty. If the money's coming in and you have no mortgate, no automobile expenses, no clothing expenses (I think the women make all the clothes), the money can pile up. The Amish aren't big consumers like the rest of us, so what they make, they mostly keep and can invest in more land. When I was at the Indiana Campus, I often heard about the big Amish auction place in Shipshewana. There were Amish restaurants in that area that always had a line out the door...I've seen that in Pennsylvania, too.

I don't think "all nine all the time" ever was intended to mean that anyone could/should operate all nine all at once. That's just silly. :D

Bingo! You're up, George.

Oh heck yeah, Tom Strange, I know who she was. My mom and dad used to drag me to Ma & Pa Kettle movies when I was a kid. Okay, the jig's up. I guess I have to deliver. I'll ponder a bit and will be back with clues.

Goey, I apologize for my defensiveness. I just reread your post and my response, and yes, I did misread/misinterpret. I did not, however, do so intentionally or dishonestly. I should know better than to post when it's late and I'm tired (and apparently grumpy). I think we are actually closer to agreement than disagreement. I just overreacted to what I thought you were saying. Belle, you're right--I can't remember the last time (it was probably more than a decade ago) that I quoted VPW in sharing anything from the Bible or cited PFAL, for that matter. If discussing the Bible, I quote the Bible, not a person.

johniam, church in the home wasn't invented by twi, even if you don't count "church in the home" as mentioned in Acts. In fact, "Twig" was the third home fellowship I participated in, back in the late 60s, early 70s. Twi was just part of a movement in that direction, a movement that I think gained momentum because a lot of people were getting fed up with their churches during that time, particularly the young people. I went to one class of one offshoot and found it to be pretty boring--regurgitated PFAL. But that's just me. Some people want to continue in twi doctrine (or something close to it) and twi practice minus the scandals. I say fine for them. I have no objection if that's what they want to do. It's just not for me. As for growth, I'd ask some people who are involved in CFF. My impression (and I could be wrong) is that it's one of the larger spin-offs from twi. Except for one Pentecostal church I attended before twi, and the Baptist churches I visited with friends, I never heard much hellfire and brimstone preached in church. I never heard much of anything preached in church, which is why I was searching for answers outside the "mainstream." I'm not attending a church now myself, but from what many have posted and from what I've observed, it sounds like there are lots of churches that have a lot to offer in terms of different types of fellowships and activities. I wouldn't credit twi with that. Churches had to change because many of them were failing miserably.

Moony, that must have been really hard for you back then, given the pressure of "everyone must do it." My son went through something similar after he took the "new and improved" Intermediate class that came out in the 80s. Because of all the ridiculous man-made "rules" added (e.g., length of the interpretation must be roughly the length of the SIT"), he was so scared he'd be called on in a meeting and screw it up, he stopped going. Skyrider said: Or maybe better yet, just teach about SIT in the small, home fellowships, and if anyone's interested in doing it, answer their questions and help them if they need encouragement. I no longer believe in the "all nine all the time" that VPW promoted. That approach led to so many failures in "ministering" of healing, and to cookie-cutter tongues, interp., and prohpecy, etc. I now believe different people have different longsuits, spiritually, and to force them all into the same mold only sets them up for self-doubt and dissapointment.

Socks, I'm not saying that all teachers have hidden agendas beyond wanting to impart knowledge. I'm simply saying that I don't think something is untrue or true just because of who taught it. Jerry said: And I'm saying I gained an appreciation of the Bible and a greater love for God in PFAL, despite the sins of the man who taught it. It's up to me to continue to build on the good things I learned, weed out the bad things, and keep moving ahead.I understand the difference between the Bible and the facts of history. That's why I said I don't think we're ever going to fully understand the Bible by putting it under a microscope, as I said in my earlier post. PFAL was, for me, at the time when I first took it, a good starting point for me. Just the idea that I could read the Bible for myself and understand some of it was worth parking my behind in a hard chair for 30-some hours. I don't think it messed me up or hindered my appreciation of the Bible. Please understand: I'm not a big PFAL cheerleader today. Recently someone asked if I wanted to sit through it again, and I said, "What in the world for?" She also asked if I thought her son should take it, and I said, "No. Teach him yourself--you don't need PFAL to do that." Don't know what else to say. Goey asked: Of course it would. I, for one, never said it wouldn't. This is why I seldom get into these types of discussions. If you don't agree with every criticism of PFAL, you're mocked as a Kool-Aid drinker. That just ticks me off. If I don't see it YOUR way, then I'm submoronic. Nice. That really helps me see things your way.

I think I have it: Dog + Ma Kettle = Dogma? I'm showing my age here. I'm sure lots of us have no clue who Ma Kettle was!! I'm going out in a little while, but if I'm right, I'll try to think of one later tonight or early tomorrow morning.

Skyrider, you make some good points. I knew a few first-time PFAL students over the years who were freaked out by session 12. Honestly, not many (at least not many who expressed it), but some. And judging by the number of posters on GS who now say they think SIT was bologna, perhaps it shouldn't have been presented as something everyone should do in session 12. I think Galen might be onto why VP emphasized SIT so much--not because he intended SIT in session 12 to be an ambush or a means of manipulation, but because it was something he sought after for so long and thought it should be the pinnacle of the knowledge in the class. I don't see an agenda behind everything VP did. I know others disagree. Granted, he had his agendas, but I think many things just sort of evolved rather than being part of some big, well-thought-out plan.

Goey said: No, but lots of things were said and done by those teachers that had nothing to do with history or grammar. Their "agendas," so to speak, were part of them and therefore part of their interaction with the kids, and that came through subtly in their classes. For example, the girl-molesting teacher was extremely flirtatious with the girls in the class. You don't think that set up some of the more vulnerable ones for getting boffed by a young, fairly attractive male teacher? And the English teacher once allowed one of my classmates, in the public speaking class she also taught, to open a can of beer and drink it in an exercise where the student was supposed to speak on "how to do something." Teachers have influence over students no matter what they teach, and when they have an agenda, it comes through. So no, I don't think it's apples and oranges at all. Their bad behavior didn't wipe out what they taught that was accurate. Any teacher, preacher, doctor, or other person of influence and authority, has a responsibility NOT to use his/her influence and authority to take advantage of those in his/her care. The sins of VPW rest on his head and I'm sure he'll answer for them. Don't think for one second I'm defending his behavior. But frankly, I heard nothing in PFAL that would make me want to--or worse yet, feel like I had to--get into bed with the man. Now, did he say other things at other times, particularly to Way Corps women, that furthered his agenda. Yep, I'd agree. But in PFAL? I don't see it.

Okay, this is what I've been chewing on since last night. One thing from PFAL I no longer believe is that I should be so obsessed with the "accuracy of the Word" that was driven home so hard in that class. Why? Not because I don't think God's Word is inherently accurate (I do think it is!), but because I believe we all "see through a glass darkly," if I may borrow that truth to make my point. I don't think any of us (and that includes both the PFAL proponents and the PFAL detractors, EW Bullinger, VP Wierwille, BG Leonard, and the most popular preachers on television today) are as smart about God and God's Word as we think we are. I'm going to go out on a limb here and risk getting some people from both sides of the "PFAL is accurate" vs. "PFAL has errors" arguments mad at me. I think it's quite possible that you can trot out all the "proof" from Greek words and Hebrew phrases and the like that you want, but I don't think that approach enables us, as imperfect humans, even with holy spirit within, to absolutely prove/disprove what we believe about the Bible. We can convince ourselves and each other that way, but by study alone, we don't prove anything. We confirm what's true from the Bible by acting on the knowledge we do have in a loving way, not by picking it apart under our not-so-perfectly focused microscopes. I don't "prove" gravity by reciting everything Isaac Newton said about it; I "prove" it by not floating into space when I walk around on this earth or by dropping a can of Pepsi on my foot. I'm not saying studying the Bible is bad. Not at all. I'm just saying it's more limited (and limiting) as a means of arriving at truth than some of us are willing to acknowledge. Limited by our humanity and our inability to always listen to God's still, small voice. Limited by the changes in culture and language that have occurred since the Bible was written. Limited by preconceived notions that we might not even be aware that we have. I find it ironic that the quest to prove or disprove what's in PFAL, which seems to be at the root of both sides of the PFAL argument sprang, for most of us, right out of Session 1 of PFAL. Maybe you all are different, but I had never, in my 26 years of life before PFAL, heard anyone harp so much on the accuracy of the Word, as if it's something we can attain in this life. I doubt we can. For sure, there are certain truths in the Bible that ring true in my heart of hearts: Jesus is Lord. We can and should trusst in God. God is love. Love overcomes--a LOT. And of course there's lots more. But no one has proven to me, for example, whether Mary Magdalene slept with Jesus or whether there were four or two crucified with Christ. And you know what? I don't care. I do care that Jesus is Lord, that God is love, etc. I didn't learn any of those things from study alone, but from a combination of study and living. One thing that contributed to my leaving twi was the growing overemphasis on study coupled with the growing underemphasis on applying what we were learning by walking in love and genuinely looking to God to guide us. Collectively, twi became one big puffed-up Bible-headed beast. In short, twi (the organization and its "leaders") broke all its own rules. For example, the flowers did have to be on the altar just so. Wearing a three-piece suit to a Sunday night service became more important than showing up with a heart to love and serve God and each other. I realized twi was just another church, like the ones twi criticized, and that I didn't want to "go to that church" anymore. Love does edify. and knowledge does puff up. Does that mean we shouldn't seek knowledge. I don't think so, but I do think it means that having/imparting knowledge, without love, is worth squat. I'm not saying or implying that anyone here is puffed up and unloving. I'm just saying it's something we all need to beware of. So to address the original post in this thread. If you want to provide PFAL for people, I think that's fine, so long as you present it as a class on the Bible and not the class on the Bible, and so long as you and your home fellowship are willing to study other sources, as well.

Tom S. said to Dave: I get Socksie’s and your points, Tom—basically that VP had an agenda that went beyond the apparent purpose of PFAL. But I think all teachers (of any subject) influence the subject matter to some degree by who they are. Their opinions (and yes, many times their agendas) get mixed in with the subject at hand. It's up to the students to use their powers of perception to figure out what to accept and what to reject. Granted, many students of PFAL were young kids who were wowed by the whole thing and bought the whole package. But most of the posters in this thread are no longer in that category. We have grown up and, hopefully, our powers of perception have become sharper. So now, as adults, we should be capable of deciding for ourselves what we believe. To say we believe everything in PFAL because it was all God inspired (sorry, Mike) is, to me, foolish. But to say we believe nothing that was in PFAL because VPW was a scoundrel is, to me, equally foolish. That's just my opinion. Everyone else is welcome to theirs, of course.

Dave said: Those are my sentiments exactly. I learned American History from a male high school teacher who, as we found out later, had a proclivity for boffing his teenage (female) students. I learned English from a woman who turned out to be a drunk. Heck, I was led into SIT (pre-twi) by a guy who turned out to be a stinker and who later denounced any belief in God whatsoever. I still enjoy American history. Some of what that teacher taught us, I'm quite sure, was accurate; some was not. It's been up to his students to figure that out as we've continued growing and learning in life. I still use English--it became the basis for my career, in fact. I didn't toss out the points of grammar Mrs. Vodka taught us because of her romance with the bottle. What she taught has served me very well. And I still SIT. Not because the guy who introduced me to it was so great, but because it struck a chord in my heart that rang more true than anything I'd ever experienced, in terms of my desire to have a real and personal connection with God. I see PFAL the same way as I see anything else I've been taught. It's up to each of us to decide what to keep and what to toss as we grow and learn in life. If some want to toss the whole thing, that's their business. If some want to keep the whole thing, that's their business, too. I disagree with both those extremes.

I must admit, you really had me stumped! But I think I've got it: How to Lose a Man in 10 Days. Alas, I'm running late for work and I don't have the luxury of playing during my workday. I'd suggest someone else put up another one, unless you all want to wait until I get home from my trip to the hair salon after work tonight, or maybe till tomorrow if I'm too pooped (rough week here!)

Oh Tommmmmmm, we need a hint. Pretty please with a sno-cone on top?

Tom, if you change the last word of your last guess to Courtney's last name, you'll have it...you're soooo close, that's why I figured you knew.

I've got it, but no way am I tellin'. Nope. Not gonna do it. I'm not spending my precious time hunting for clip art...nuh uh. PS: I think Tom knows, too, and isn't tellin' for the same reason. :D

Well done, Geo. St. Geo. You're up!

Hmmmm, does this have anything to do with grasshoppers, grasshopper??

Well, there's some sorta clacking, almost like an old manual typewriter. Hmmmm. Still stumped.

It's not unusual at all for our experiences in twi to differ widely, TOTW, as I'm sure you've noticed. :) Heck, I was at HQ for 4 years and had no clue about the hanky panky going on. Ya just had to be at the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time.

We love you, too, Kathy. Thanks for being exactly who you are. And Shell, you're sooooo right. We all have our baggage, whether we keep it tucked away or bring it out for examination. It's a personal choice, and neither is wrong.