Dot Matrix

I thought the cast was great!

What bothers me is each time it comes up that VP did something VERY wrong. The person who says so is slammed as a ?hater? ?evil? speaking for the father of lies, etc. Ya know it is okay to pull apart someone?s ministry and look at it without the act of examination being thought of as awful, hateful or ungodly. We were taught in TWI not to speak negatives. But what they did with that was STOPPED us from speaking the truth, or sharing our take on something that was negative. There have been examples of people dying and the family could not discuss it or grieve as it was perceived to be negative. IT was a negative thing that happened, to talk about it is being true to self. So, a person takes a look at the NEGATIVES then all of a sudden they are viewed as negative cause they want to look/talk/discuss/or try to make conclusions about what happened. We can talk about the evil stuff, we can conclude for ourselves, we can make the perp accountable for his sins, without *us* being evil. You know why I think this? GOD DOES IT. If one recognizes that the Bible is God?s book then one must also recognize that when he talks of his followers/leaders he/it lets it ALL hang out to be looked at and examined. David was a man after God?s own heart. Yet, God allowed us to look at his adulterous and eventually murderous activity. Did David wake up and change his course - YES. So, God who loved him still allowed his AWFUL behavior to be examined and recorded for people all over the world to read for Years and Years and Years. This is the same God who FORGAVE HIM. He could have just left that little period of time with Bathsheba and Uriah unrecorded. We have Anninas and Saphira. Not only did God strike them down for their activities of lying about money, he ?recorded? it in the same book. He showed us he does not tolerate these things. Also, I bet the believers were talking about it! And ol' Annias and Saphira were dead, and they were being talked about. Heck, I am talking about it right now. When he says in I Timothy 5:19,20 24, 25 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. Those that are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. Some men?s sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later. Likewise, the good works of some are clearly evident, and those that are otherwise cannot be hidden. I still think VPW was a false prophet and on Goey's thread in Doctrine he makes some strong points. I do think he had evil intentions, if one wants to extrapolate that to mean I am speaking for the Father of lies in a melodrama, I frankly do not care. It took years away from TWI to have clarity. And I do not think it "clarity" to advocate this kind of thinking: (again my opinion!) The people who will tolerate behavior in VPW that they wouldn't even begin to tolerate in a family member, co-worker,or a close friend. (Which was a very good point. Thanks Diazbro) [This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 13, 2003 at 18:08.]

Garth, So well stated:

Diazbro your post to Ckeer was very well stated! I love the point about it is okay for them to trash a dead "cop out" but if we discuss VP it is "he is dead!" Valid, good point.

WOW Other big foreheads leaping around in tights, truly it IS a scary world! On a serious note, why couldn't LCM just say I heard a concept I would like to incorporate here.... Instead of getting rev. or whatever the story was? BTW, the creed poem thingy was kinda cool.

Okay stuff is on the pile, thanks for the furniture Vickles Well TGN has the matches, stand back!

Oh Chinson, what better gift could you have then a man who LOVES you? Happy Birthday!

Makes me sick. Was there that much corruption or that many tares among the wheat?

:D--> It was fast paced and kept my interest. I love Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman so that was a Plus. I think you will like it!

It is interesting that it is on a Kenyon site, though... Raf? thoughts?

:D-->

Amen! What Suz said!

Evan I reread your post and WOW! Sounds like people getting MAD when Jesus healed a guy on the Sabbath! Deplorable!

Thanks I guess he had to say something nice at a funeral. What was on the tape that they wanted back so badly?

WOW "Leonard's conducted a class in Montana or Idaho I think, and didn't return to Brownsville for about three weeks. When they returned, their house had been broken into and ransacked, though nothing was found to be missing. Amazing Coincidence?" Greek2me- I am not surprised but continually "awakened" I guess is the word. How did Leonard view VPW? As a fellow Christian? Or a nemisis?

WW You are right. It did set us up for Mog's and Wog's. Kinda like a catholic priest - the go to person -- with Christ being absent. I recently spoke with a wonderful man who knows of PFAL, sat through it but never got into TWI. Instead, he is a minister else where. He also studied under Leonard and brought a fresh perspective to me about VPW being a False Prophet. He asked me where Jesus was in my life and I said pretty much a tag on the end of a prayer. When I stopped believing in the trinity it became confusing on how to talk to God and Jesus. Before I figured when I spoke with one the other was in on it as they "were one". In the Way, IMO, they pushed Jesus into the background, I believe it was to promote the seperation of God and Jesus as most of us had been trinitarians if we came to TWI as Chritians. Also, I was told of a "Jesus Spirit" which was a counterfiet and that was also a determining factor on TWI's involvement with Jesus. (Or at least the public explaination) So, we went through some scripture and talked. He said something like, "What do you think of a ministry which pushes Christ out-of-the-way?" Then, we talked about the false prophets and how in TWI Jesus was pushed into the background as Moggie got the front seat. He read some scripture on "anti-Christs", false prophets, etc. And with what *I* know to be true, it all started to line up. I knew we were in a cult but I was unwilling to think of VPW as a false prophet. Sometimes fresh eyes can really open things up for one. That is when I saw, IN MY OPINION, that we were not just in a little cult in Ohio. We were in a cult talked about in the Bible. False prophets; anti-christs. (For the nit-pickers, I said "A" cult like one of many, "A" false prophet, not THE false prophet. Anti-christs not "THE" Anit-Christ.) And how when Jesus was knocked back a bit we did then go to "leadership" as the head of the body. The moggies. Not to say that men do not have ministries and we should not go to them, but the Bible does clearly warn us about false prophets. We are to "test" them -check them out. Well, VIP and Forehead do not pass the smell test, IMO. I was floored at how genuinely tricked I really had been. IMO, it WAS so much bigger than I had ever thought. The devil was so much more slick that I anticipated. And I had done a disservice to God by buying into something and staying in something I eventually KNEW was not right. Praise God I left! Praise God you did TOO! (So, in an effort to be pragmatic let me say this now - I DO NOT care if you are offended. I do not have to run to get permisson from anyone to post this opinion. So, go balistic. If you do not see it as FACT, well when I post facts you don't like that either. :)-->) Reach your own conclusions. I might be right, I might not. Mathew 7: 15-20 15. Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Evan- Thanks for your sharing. It was heartfelt and gives us a little insight into BG Leonard. Thank you! [This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 16:32.]

Wow, he actually thinks he is stealing their souls, or the victims are so devastated they feel as though he stole their soul? That poor little girl.

Thanks JB! Pretty eye opening stuff, isn't it? Raf You wrote: The Word takes the place of the unseen Christ That makes me feel better seeing it as unseen rather than absent. Inseen tells me he is there but I just cannot SEE him. Absent made me feel more abandoned. So, VPW took the line and changed it from "Unseen" to Absent! WOW..... [This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 3:52.]

I remember reading "How to Enjoy the Bible" and thinking the teachings were a lot like PFAL Hope, the same thing happened to me. I did not even consider it being stolen.

Raf What is the word-faith MOVEMENT? Was there a revival going on at that time?

Nice post Linda And thank you for your observations of me as well. They got me all warm and fuzzy... ;)--> You said I was melodramatic, I said I THINK YOUR VIEW to be shallow and short sighted. "You may think I am dramatic but I think your view to be shallow and short sighted." I never called you stupid nor did I call you blind, after Oldies went off on me, I did tell him I saw him that way -- that was a LONG time in the making, not just a result of his post to me. But his post to me was the final button pushed. For the RECORD, once again I did not say VPW was a child of the devil. I do THINK he was a false prophet. I listed the things VPW did, to back up my statement that I thought he was a counterfiet. You said: "Now this is just out-and-out melodrama. Are you trying to say you know that the Devil sent VPW and you even know why?? Sheesh, Dot. I really avoided spiritualizing in twi. I don't get why you want to do it now." Sorry, Linda I did not get the memo saying we could not spiritualize or have an opinion? :)--> You said: "But when I see someone stating as fact something that there's no way to know" It was an opinion, if you read what I wrote I have IMO in there, but as Goey pointed out, I do not have to write it each time to have an opinion. If somehow, you thought I was stating a FACT, even though I said IMO, then it was missed communication. Your response to my opinion was very strong and demeaning to me, in my opinion, as well. I believe we can be fruit inspectors and pretty well guess if a person was DOING evil they probably had evil in their heart. Again my opinion. I thought perhaps you were viewing things through rose colored glasses. If that offended you then I apologize. As I said. We disagree. --> Your post did explain your view and you do have a sweet heart. Thanks for taking the time to post it. :)--> [This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 13, 2003 at 18:11.]

WOW IT sounds just like some stuff I heard once upon a time.

To the top

Raf posted this on another thread, I feel it helpful: Some useful info, from a variety of sources... quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proving plagiarism in the United States requires the plaintiff to show that 1) the defendant had access to the earlier work [in the Wierwille/Stiles case, this has already been established - Raf] and 2) the defendant's work bears a "substantial similarity" to the plaintiff's original. It sounds like a legal blur because it is. Different courts have different opinions on what constitutes "substantial similarity." For example, jazz drummer Bernard "Pretty" Purdie filed a copyright-infringement suit against a rapper who lifted a lone cymbal crash from one of Purdie's recordings. He claims that his cymbal crash--a single beat--is so recognizably his that any use of it violates his copyright. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Slate.com I would htink that one cymbal crash is a little extreme. But that's music, and irrelevant to this discussion. Plagiarism means the existence of similarities that are "beyond probability or coincidence.? I lost the source of that quote. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anytime you quote, summarize or paraphrase, you must acknowledge the original source. Even if you summarize or paraphrase, if you do not directly credit your source through a citation YOU ARE PLAGIARIZING!!! If you quote a source, you must quote exactly, word for word. Cite the source in the paper with a footnote or parenthetical citation. (See How to Cite Sources.) Summaries and paraphrasing must also be cited. Cite these exactly as you would a quote. Summaries and paraphrasing are merely condensed versions of someone else's work! You must give them credit for the information. Simply put, PARAPHRASING is putting an author's work into your own words. Although the information is in your own words, it is still the original author's work. You have merely rephrased it! SUMMARIZING is writing out the main points of someone else's work in your own words. Once again, this is not information which you have created, therefore it is to be cited. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From Plagiarism.org Feel free to peruse the following Web site as well: Defining Plagiarism [This message was edited by Dot Matrix on November 11, 2003 at 2:59.]

to the top