TLC

His daughter was WC

Ughh... no wonder I never liked (or believed) that book. But, after dusting it off, it looks like you're right... so I'll concede the point. The tithe may have been a "law of prosperity" for Israel, but it sure as heck ain't for us. (That's besides the fact that I doubt TWI even taught correctly how the tithe worked for Israel when the law was in effect.) Just crazy how messed up those teachings are...

Yeah, "instructions" from Jerusalem... where they were so deep into the practice of the law that they were evidently insistent on getting everyone under a law or two. Sure, maybe it was palatable enough (compared to the much of the rest of the law) to the Gentile nations that it served to bring (temporary) unity to the church. But, it still looks like the imposition of very rigid "instructions" (aka... laws?). Sorry, but even though I believe the record of events is accurate, I'm just not persuaded what resulted at (or from) the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 is (or was) "the word of God." You can disagree, but it sure looks and feels like "the word of James" to me. TWI never called it a tithe... but there was more than a little pressure to give (financially) to HQ. But if you're going to quote scripture on instructions to the church on giving, the best I know of is going straight to 2 Corthinians 9:7 (which pretty much says it all:) "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." Not what someone else purposes for him (though plenty will try to poke and prod the heart in a direction they think it should go)... but as he purposes.

No. It should be moved.

Perhaps. But there were far more on staff than were lofty department coordinators. So maybe the difference relates more to whether it's viewed from "top down" rather than from bottom up. (Though, I realize how hard it may be for anyone as deeply involved as either of us apparently were to view anything from bottom up...)

Yikes! After giving this thread a quick glance through, I have a much firmer grasp on why political discussion are verboten here...

hmmm.... perhaps timing and differing perspectives makes a difference. after the POOP hit the fan, it seems one of the first "knee jerk" responses was to raise salaries of those on staff at HQ. Of course, I was gone by that time, so I can't personally attest to it (although others that we were close to did.) And on the field, there was much (MUCH) greater flexibility and freedom, both financially and with pretty much a complete absence of personal (spiritual ?) oversight. So, I'm greatly inclined to see it the other way around...

Why restrict or limit it to those on the field, sky? Think it was any different for the staff at HQ? BTW, no social securities were withheld from their "on a need basis only" pay until TWI was forced - by changes in the law - to pay it. Might not have mattered much for some... but for others, it meant needing to work just to qualify for it. Brings to mind a 35 or 40 year old conversation with Bob Wierwille (who was also reknowned for commenting that it would be easy to live on what the Way wasted or threw away...) In short, I think it all ties into the flawed notion of thinking that the church (of the body) started on the day of Pentecost (in Acts 2)... when it appeared that it was only going to be a relatively short (few years) time until Christ returned to set up His kingdom here on earth. So, it may have made perfectly good sense nearly 2000 years ago for them to sell everything and lay it at the apostle's feet, and have all things common. It's was just never meant for us to think or try to operate like that... 'cause it don't work. Didn't back then, either, when Christ didn't return when or as they thought he would. Which is why there ended up being poor saints in Jerusalem. They were quite literally, poor... meaning, financially strapped. And as far as Paul taking up offerings to take to Jerusalem?... well, again, that was what appears to have been right back then. I think it was God's way of covering for the nation of Israel's failure to believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah, even after his resurrection. But just because it was right back then does not automatically mean that is the way that the church is supposed to operate today. That would be man simply trying to live in the current economy, using the guidelines that were given and intended for a different economy. At best, it may have sporadic or limited results. And at worst, it results in widespread poverty. It ain't rocket science.

I'd edit how that was written if I could, but apparently there's a time limit that disallows it... as there's a possibility that "the second" man is an intended nuance referring to the change after his resurrection, whereas the "last adam" seems to lean more towards his similarity (at least, initially) to the first.

ah, ha... In the hands of the millennials, is it? https://www.youtube.com/embed/hLpE1Pa8vvI

Well, that looks spot on to me. Granted, he was a second man (or last adam, if you prefer.) BUT, after resurrection? One of a kind, for sure.

Quite frankly, this thought is so foreign to me that I not only have a hard time relating to the concept, it's a challenge to even accept or comprehend that it was as widespread or as prevalent in TWI as most here seem to be attesting to. Perhaps the way I thought of or viewed "Christ in me" was (or is) rather different than how some (or many) others see it.

This is interesting. I'd like to see all sides agree on this. hmmm... Any way I look at what's said there, can't say I'd agree. Namely because I don't see or think of "Trinity" as a genuine biblical doctrine. Perhaps at some point things may end up deeper into it, but for now, suffice it to say that I view (and have since LONG ago) Holy Spirit (capitalized, or not) strictly as descriptive language, and not as a (3rd) entity, being, substance, personality, instrument... or any other word that might be used or thought of in any way as being separate, independent, or distinct from either: (1) God, or (2) Christ, or (3) ...for lack of any better or a more generic word for a spirit being, an angel. Hence, if a man has "holy spirit" with, on, or in him (take your pick, 'cause I honestly don't see or think there's much difference)... it communicates the presence of one (or more) of the afore stated choices. How and why anyone thinks or needs to put "something" (whatever they might think holy spirit is) between them and the Lord Jesus Christ, when its plainly written that Christ Jesus is the mediator between man and God... well, it sure seems to confuse the heck out of things right quick.

Mark, you appear to be universalist in your thought or language. Are you?

Seeing that you brought it to the forefront, T-bone, there are some number of things in this thread (which I had not read before) which stir me to comment on. May take a bit more thought, though, as it's been a while since engaging in much discussion about certain of these things. (However, I'll presume any readers here know or recognize that things relating to the Trinity are not issues or matters of salvation...)

Ah, so someone gets it... without getting their tail twisted or nose bent out of joint.

So quick to scrutinize for an opportunity to criticize, you are. Missed the "chuck the whole thing" parody, you did!

so, just chuck the whole thing... eh? 'cause some verses which aren't (never were) addressed to us are misapplied? (pfal has some issues, no doubt...) Or, pick and sing the (parts of) verses that ring a bell like... cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and... (you know the rest, but it's easier to just take bits and pieces.) The tree of knowledge of good and evil evidently had/has both good and evil. Evidently the problem is, it blinds us to the truth.

Still looking? say on...

what... is there more than one even half way sane choice? but maybe "choice" itself is an illusion (according to J. Assange)

Sounds like what Paul did. Not an easy thing to do, especially back in his day. Ever notice the lack of any reference to church structure in 2 Timothy? (It's something to think about...)

...failed to rightly divide (and separate) them. Wasn't until a relatively few short years ago (after listening to some number of teachings by an old farmer, Sunday school teacher, and layman named Les Feldick) until it finally sunk in just how many "issues" (I'll leave it at that) in the ministry stemmed from a failure to understand that the "gospel of grace" and the current spiritual economy didn't start on the day of Pentecost in Act 2. So, while many thought (and may still think) that TWI was really into teaching and understanding and abiding by the Pauline epistles... in reality (and sadly), it falls so incredibly far short of it, that this misperception and mischaracterization of TWI's teachings (especially in conjunction with the egotism bred there) is probably much more of a deterrent to genuinely understanding Pauline doctrine than it is anything else.

mmm... I'm thinking you might have missed (perhaps the most important) one. (Which, oddly enough, points back to a few things in the PFAL class.) 8) TWI has the answers. And once you have that, there's no reason to hear the rest of the question. (Okay, so I paraphrased the thought a bit. But maybe you catch my drift...)

According to your timeline, he graduated PTS before the Japs bombed PH... which doesn't give much credibility to your speculation on motives. (But motives can often be tough to flush out. Especially when it comes to certain relatively disciplined and/or "driven" personalities.)

The "subject" strayed well beyond its application and confinement to vpw, with implications that not only did many at HQ know (and/or should have known, had they half a brain), but that rape itself had blossomed into a widespread "cultural" situation there. But evidently you're so obsessed with pin the tail on the donkey, evidently that's all you care to see or talk about. So have fun with it, I have nothing further to say.