WordWolf

Jung-Myers-Briggs test. http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

From what I've seen, "the best of times" was either (or both): A) when I was new, didn't know the "behind the curtain" details, and before it got a lot more legalistic or B) when a bunch of us just went off and did stuff because we enjoyed each other's company, before that became mandatory Seems everybody has the same answers on that. (Except for a few who say it was always the best of times.)

THE BRIDGE BUILDER by Will Allen Dromgode, 1934 An old man, going a lone highway, Came at the evening, cold and gray, To a chasm, vast and deep and wide, Through which was a flowing sullen tide. The old man crossed in the twilight dim; But he turned when safe on the other side And built a bridge to span the tide. "Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near, "You are wasting strength with building here. Your journey will end with the ending day: You never again must pass this way: You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide -- Why build you a bridge at eventide?" The builder lifted his old grey head: "Good friend, in the path I have come," he said, "There followeth after me today A youth whose feet must pass this way. This chasm that has been naught to me To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be. He, too, must cross in the twilight dim; Good friend, I am building a bridge for him."

Formal programs, that's something else entirely. Supposedly, everything not a class or program was entirely voluntary, but during the 90s, that became a fiction everywhere. (Before that, it was a fiction in some places but not others.) Now there's something I can agree with wholeheartedly. So long as "some others" means "the people carrying out Craig's orders."

So, if there's no paper trail, it never happened. Here's what we do know. lcm made a number of draconian statements in public concerning money, and said twi'ers should be expecting to give 15%. lcm has closed-door communications with the corps and leadership as normal. Leadership at all levels begin shaking the people down for 15%, and invoking social sanctions when they don't. (Face-melting sessions, lots and lots of "oversight", leaning into what normally would be called "harassment" if private citizens did it. So, lacking a sealed document saying "I, lcm, demand 15% or you're fired from this group", all of that is just an amazing coincidence, I'm sure. twi's NEVER been in the habit of putting policy in writing. This is, of course, the perfect blanket excuse for excusing them every bad policy they ever enacted- "I never read this policy, so it didn't exist and they never had it." Mind you, even if this DID magically excuse them, doesn't it strike you as VERY suspicious that you can't find a policy manual or handbook for twi even to save your life?

"Peace and trust can win the day in spite of all your losing"

Waysider: "I do recall a twig of senior citizens who were told by a representative of HQ they would either have to disband or stop representing the twig as part of twi. If memory serves me HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...............OH! ........did I mention none of them tithed? This was many years ago. There probably aren't too many of them still with us. I know they were quite hurt when all this took place." This was about them not-tithing. If they tithed, twi would have been just fine with their makeup. Is anyone here a big enough fool to think otherwise? (What am I saying?) Radar: "UH...............YEAH, OF COURSE I HAVE. Anyone involved with twi from 1994 til present will have at least a handful of stories, including one of the founder's sons." Skyrider: "The percentages went from 10% to..."one should be willing to give 15% in the grace adm". And, by 1997.... martindale was pushing his plurality giving doctrine. All full-time way corps heard these teachings. By plurality giving, martindale stated that one -- after paying off these bills and having their need met -- should be WILLING TO GIVE THE REST TO TWI. As former corps (left twi in 1998).....I detest how the board of trustees (craig, don & howard) deceived good-hearted believers and extorted money for twi's coffers. All the while, taking trips to the Bahamas and southern Florida and stashing millions into twi investments. Thankfully, I refused to go to believers' homes and demand a financial reporting of their income and absing. Oldies...........get off this thread. You have NO IDEA what twi's "official" policy is. rolleyes.gif " Oldiesman: "Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread." What's the point? When people get into specifics and eyewitness accounts, you just move to discredit them anyway. It gets tiresome to keep doing this same dance to EVERY tune. "I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions." You may see it that way. Everybody who's sat thru years of you posting-with few exceptions- all seem to draw a DIFFERENT conclusion. "I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?" Doesn't sound like "simply asking questions"-looks like spin control on the accounts in effect even before they're shared. Although you "can't imagine in your wildest dreams" is remarkably candid. That's been true about lots of "this happened to me" stories so far. ============= I'll throw in this one for free. AFAIK, nobody's saying that Don had two 400-lb kneecappers slam a person into a wall while Don held a gun to their forehead until they handed over the money. If you were being intellectually honest and communicating in good faith, you wouldn't be so obtuse on this. Don's complicity is PRIMARILY in the NEGLECT of his fiduciary responsibilities. People were leaned on to give money and to follow leadership blindly. When they hesitated, they were screamed at in detail, and their reputations were smeared. They were indoctrinated that leaving twi meant leaving God's Protection, and many or MOST were told horrible things would happen to them or their families, including that they and their family members would DIE. No, I'm not aware of someone speaking this "leave twi and die" in the 70s. However, it was COMMON in the later 90s. We've got threads mentioning this. We have autobiographicals on this. We have AUDIO FILES on this. If you're still not up to speed on this one, I recommend playing a little "catch-up." You've only had YEARS to read/hear this stuff.... Let me rephrase this more simply, for those people who STILL don't get it: twi taught that you had 2 choices: obey blindly or leave God's protection and have horrible, Job-level things happen. One of the points of obedience was money. MUST tithe, MUST push to 15%, or you're in trouble; STAY in trouble and you're kicked out of twi AND God's Protection. (THIS WAS COMMON IN THE 90s.) Public spectacles and examples were made of people who left- which tells the rest "stay or we do this to YOU next." The bod was well behind the shakedown of money under this "doctrinal" and "leadership" smokescreen. Each member of the bod either agreed to it and signed off on it, or was so incompetent and neglectful of his fiduciary duties that he did not and LET it go on. Now, it sounds like others know MORE than I do, but what I outlined is MORE than enough. For people with HONEST questions.

"Can't Fight This Feeling," REO Speedwagon.

Let's see.... They stopped mentioning money every five seconds. They're making preparations to increase outreach. A coincidence?

Anything in particular you want more on? Yeah, actually. Anything from either the "Trusting God, Our Source of Abundance: We can expect to receive what God has promised us from his word" article, or the "The Benefits of Believing Together" article that correlates receiving from God with giving twi money, or obedience to twi as a requirement for the "benefits", or statements where God is REQUIRED to provide what you wanted because you believed for it. I'm expecting AT LEAST ONE of those tired old cliches will be there, and if all 3 are there, I'm awarding myself "The Hat Trick." (Or should that be the "Trifecta"?)

You and the courts see things differently than Oldiesman. I know the holders of the various copyrights certainly CAN sue, legally. As to anyone else, I have no idea.

Correct-the LATEST it became a policy was in pfal. Both pfal-vpw's class and wap-lcm's class included/include a book that talks about nothing BUT the tithe and how it's expected. Job 31:35 (KJV) "Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book." Taught in twi under vpw AND lcm- and mentioned during the AOS video. (Which we were expected to watch over...and over...and over... so it's easy for me to recall that-including the chapter and verse citation.) ================= I expect some people were harassed BECAUSE of refusing to tithe until they got sick and tired of being sick and tired, and left. Then the official reason they left was that they "copped out". The truth of the matter is slightly more complicated. ================= There's LEGAL sanctions (pay your taxes or you will be fined-pay the fine AND the tax or you will be jailed) and there's violence sanctions (give me all the money in your wallet or I will break the bones in your face) and there's SOCIAL sanctions. vpw himself taught on this, more than once. Here's the Scripture he used that I've heard him use.... "John 9: 1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. 2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? 3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. 4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. 5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, 7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing. 8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged? 9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. 10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened? 11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight. 12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not. 13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind. 14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. 15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. 16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them. 17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet. 18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight. 19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see? 20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind: 21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself. 22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue. 23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him. 24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. 25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see. 26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? 27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? 28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. 29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. 30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. 31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. 32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. 33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. 34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out." Now, to be kicked out of one church now, he said, is not a big deal- you can go down the block and join another. But in that place and time, to be kicked out of the synagogue was tantamount to being declared no longer a Jew. It meant other Jews could not deal with you as a Jew and so on. That's a SOCIAL SANCTION. You didn't do what they said- so your punishment is social. In this case, you were shunned. twi didn't hold a gun to your head. (Most of you.) However, all of you who were subjected to face-melting sessions by "leadership" for failing to tithe or abundantly share to the degree they considered sufficient, or failing to follow "suggestions" like "help me move" or "come clean my house" or "asking questions" faced SOCIAL SANCTIONS. Was there an overt threat of violence? No. Was there a threat and consequences? YES. You all saw people who left or were kicked out, and were told that this equated a death sentence since leaving twi ("GOD'S PROTECTION") meant harm and death were imminent. If anyone needs me to pull up some examples, I can do so. Was that a LITERAL gun? No. However, twi threatened death would come for the families-including children- who left twi. That's as close as they could legally come TO a gun without making a big bang sound.

lcm's article included the following: Here it is again... lcm made the claim that Abraham being called "the friend of God" is directly connected to Abraham having tithed. That's a logical fallacy, and I'll let another website explain it-since they can do a better job than I can. http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html "Correlation and Causation: We experience the world in a time-oriented manner through cause and effect. First Lucy ate that white berry, then she became sick. First I hit Bob's foot with a hammer, then his foot swelled with a purple bruise. I conclude that eating the white berry is what actually made Lucy sick later. I conclude that being hit with a hammer is what later caused Bob's foot to swell. It is logical enough on the surface. Often, it seems clear--absolutely clear--that a specific action caused a second event to happen. This is what is known as causation. Many events appear to be the results brought about by identifiable causes, and the human mind is geared to look for these cause/effect relationships. We get into trouble when the mind seeks or creates an artificial cause/effect relationship that doesn't actually exist. After something especially beneficial or harmful occurs, we want to know what caused it. We tend to focus on the first action we noticed before the effect, then assume that it must have been the catalyst triggering the later event. Nine times out of ten, we're right. It was the white berry that made Lucy sick. It was true that hitting a foot with a hammer makes that foot swell and bruise. That makes us lazy intellectually; we forget that, one time out of ten, we pick the wrong cause. In Latin, this type of logical mistake is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which means "After this, therefore because of this." It's the idea that any event which happened first must be the particular event that caused a good or bad event later, and once we find a possible answer we tend to snatch hold of it and then stop thinking about other possibilities. For example, suppose the fall term of classes ends in December. The manager of a toystore in the local mall hires one new worker. This worker is a college student named Stacy. She wants to do some work before spring term classes start. After Stacy is hired, the store's sales shoot up by 300%. "Wow!" the manager says to herself, "That Stacy is a fantastic sales worker! I haven't hired anyone else but Stacy. Still, since we hired her, our sales have tripled! I'd better give her a raise!" Is the manager's conclusion logical? Is it true that Stacy must be fantastic at her job? Odds are, nine out of ten readers at this point are nodding, thinking to themselves, "Yeah, it makes sense to me. You hire a new girl, and the sales go up. No other girls were hired. It must be the new girl's work." On the other hand, the tenth reader stopped and thought, "Wait a minute.... Didn't you say Stacy was hired in December? That's right around Christmas time. Maybe the reason the sales went up wasn't because of Stacy, but because of the time of year." The manager's conclusion now vanishes in a puff of logic. Which one were you? If you spotted the logical fallacy, puff out your chest and strut around in pride as an intellectual champion. You were clear-headed and avoided the post hoc error. If you didn't spot the problem, and made the same assumptions the manager did, don't feel too ashamed. Often causation is trickier than it looks. The problem is that correlation is different from causation. Correlation is when two or more things or events tend to occur at about the same time and might be associated with each other, but aren't necessarily connected by a cause/effect relationship. For instance, in sick people, a runny nose and a sore throat correlate to each other--they tend to show up in the same patients. That doesn't mean runny noses cause sore throats, or that sore throats cause runny noses, however. Forgetting that leads to sloppy thinking. Proud journalists point out that, in the last hundred years, no peaceful nation with a free press has ever experienced severe famine. They argue that freedom of the press prevents blunders in governmental policy and it allows more efficient advertising and dispersal of commodities like food. But is that true? On the other hand, no country with a tradition of honest, publically monitored elections has ever experienced massive famine in the last hundred years either--at least not in times of peace. Which factor "caused" the surplus agriculture and trade to prevent the fearsome famine? Was it free speech or free elections? Arguably, neither caused it. Perhaps it's all accidental. Free speech or elections might have no effect on agricultural output. Or have we got our cause and effect is backward? Did having sufficient food ensure a stable society so that free speech and democracy could blossom in the first place? Perhaps in famished lands, free speech and free elections fall by the wayside during and after the famine, and thus these hungry countries tend to slide into repressive dictatorships. If that's true, then repressive dictatorships might not actually bring famines upon themselves through clumsy management or a lack of advertising, as earlier suggested. This is not just a moot intellectual point. Public policy often hinges on spending money to bring about a specific effect. For instance, consider New York City in the 1980s. The city at that time was a dangerous place. Crime was at an all-time high then. Murders, prostitution, and drug-dealing had reached epic levels. New York had tried stiffer penalties, longer jail terms, mandatory counseling, methadone treatments, and a variety of other approaches without denting the ugly problem. Mayor Guiliani hired researchers to come in. What was one of the early findings? Analysts spotted a correlation between graffiti in an inner-city neighborhood and the relative crime-rate in that area. The more graffiti, the higher the crime rate. Treating this as a cause/effect relationship, New York's mayor Guiliani decided to alter the funding for the police department, cutting back money for some types of law-enforcement, pouring money into an city-wide anti-graffiti campaign, and arguing that a cleaner city would diminish the visual "mindset" of crime in the area. He enacted a zero-tolerance policy by prosecuting taggers who painted on public property, and he cleaned up Times Square and the trashiest parts of the city. As overall crime rates dropped in the 1990s, the mayor touted his program as a success. Impressed and surprised, other cities tried to duplicate New York's approach. They enacted similar financial policies and created similar laws. They hauled in hoodlums and cleaned up graffiti . . . and they all failed miserably. Crime in these cities either remained the same or in one or two cases, worsened slightly, even though the changes they made were nearly identical to that of New York. What happened? Why couldn't they duplicate New York's success? The problem may be one of false causation. That correlation between the amount of graffiti and the overall crime rate doesn't necessarily mean that graffiti causes crime to happen--no more than the correlation between black eyes and broken noses in people who lose fist fights means that black eyes "cause" broken noses. The crime-rate in an area also correlates to the rate of unemployment, for example, and New York's unemployment was dropping steadily through the 1990s. Perhaps rising employment caused crime to drop at just about the same time the mayor started his anti-graffiti campaign. The rate of drug abuse in a given area also correlates to the number of crimes in that area. The city had started constructing larger drug treatment clinics in the late 1980s after the decade's peak of coccain addiction. Although the construction funding had been spent in the late 1980s without visible effect, many of these clinics actually started operation only two or three years before the fall in crime in the early 1990s. Perhaps after two or three years of treatment, a significant fraction of cured addicts no longer needed to engage in crime sprees to support an expensive and illicit habit. It's not at all clear if there was just one cause--maybe the combination of rising employment, drug clinics, and the mayor's anti-graffiti campaign together had a synergistic effect that was missing in other cities where the anti-graffiti program didn't work. One recent book on applied economic theory, entitled Freakonomics, has gone so far as to suggest plausibly the source of the crime-drop nationwide in the late 1990s and the early 2000s has been an unintentional result or by-product of abortion policies thirty years earlier! To give a more recent example, on June 28, 2003 Reuters News Agency reported on a Hungarian medical study of 221 men who carried cell phones. The study found that men who carry cell phones in the front pocket of their pants rather than in a jacket or briefcase had a 30% lower sperm count than the average male population as previously measured in 1970. Immediately an outcry appeared to start law-suits against cell phone companies for causing sterility in men, and some consumer watchdogs called for warning labels on cell phones. The problem is that the study only found correlations--it did not determine clear causation. As Dr. Hans Evers pointed out, many individuals who carry their cell phones in their pants pocket rather than their jacket pocket do so because they are smokers. They carry their cigarette pack in their jacket pocket instead of a pants pocket--to avoid crushing their cigarettes--and thus must carry the cellphone in their pants instead. It has long been known that smokers have a reduced sperm count. Perhaps smoking caused the lower sperm count rather than position of the cell phone per se. Also, the study did not take into account other factors like stress levels (stress can also cause a drop in sperm count); perhaps the men carried cell phones constantly because of a stressful job in which they needed to stay in contact with a company twenty-four hours a day. Finally, the overall sperm count of men may have dropped locally or globally as a whole since the earlier 1970 findings used as a control--possibly due to the increasing levels of chemical pollution worldwide. (Male alligators in parts of Florida, for example, also have 30% lower sperm counts than they did in the 1970s, but nobody thinks that's a result of their cell phone use!) The point to all this is that, if you are writing an argument, and you claim a cause-effect relationship exists, you should double-check and triple-check that it is causation and not mere correlation. It's hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely "correlated" to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist in addition to the one you point to in a paper. If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose. (Copyright Dr. L. Kip Wheeler 1998-2006. Permission is granted for non-profit, educational, and student reproduction. Last updated July 18, 2006.)

I got here ahead of him, so I'll see if I can beat him to a complete answer. Here's the short answer: A) he hedged his bets. If someone later said "Hey, I found this thing that supposedly originated with vpw, but someone else taught it first!" "Well, he did say that none of it was original. THAT part's from there, but most of the other stuff doesn't resemble its original sources." He claimed "I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." That was his "out" about sources. He had his excuse if you ever "caught" him at something- so long as you didn't catch him at a LOT of it. (Which the GSC has caught.) The most he claimed was that he learned from other people's work- and then completely reworked it on his own, and when it was error, he dropped the error part. That's not true. He didn't rework the work of others. In many cases, he word-for-word cut-and-pasted their material. And when there was error, he dropped it if he disagreed, and kept it if he agreed. Bullinger thought the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are 2 different things, but they're used interchangeably in Scripture, so according to Scripture, they are the same. According to Bullinger, they are different. When he DID do changes, all bets are off. The changes often reflected less an understanding of the material, and more a desire to make cosmetic changes that made the material LOOK different. That's why his rephrasings of Leonard became more and more elaborate, eventually sacrificing accuracy in the interest of making changes. For example, Leonard's definition 'of word of knowledge' was simple and accurate. Eventually, vpw changed it until it was error- he made it REQUIRE the information be "IMPOSSIBLE" to be obtained by your 5 senses. However, all over the Bible, the revelation WAS something that the 5 senses COULD have told-but didn't. So, his claim that he "worked" the material is inadequate, because he retained any error that looked good, and his changes were primarily COSMETIC and not substantive. B) Now then, he buried that comment in the middle of TW:LiL, which was NOT required reading. Did that complete a consistent picture of a man who learned a lot from others, and simply COMPILED it? Hardly-the rest of the book paints the OPPOSITE picture. "TW:LIL, pg-179. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word." pg-190. "If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry, then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming." pg-201. "You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight. The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for. There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically. And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are Christian and want to do it. No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you to teach more than people are able to receive. Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught- no one would have been able to receive them." What's the COMPLETE picture he's trying to convey here? pg-239. "You teach what they can take. And sometimes you know a whole lot more. Things you could open your heart on, you never do, to those depths of perception. You go so far. You know the abundance available and the Father says, 'That's all folks! End of show.' And it's something you cannot describe to people. Just you and Father know." The COMPLETE picture is that he learned everything from God alone- except for little bits and pieces he got from other Christians, which were usable once he strained all the error out of them. That's completely the OPPOSITE of what happened- like taking 100% of Leonard's class and immediately switching HIS name for Leonard's and taking all the credit for all the work. What did the Orange Book say on the others he learned from? What did the White Book say on the others he learned from? Forgot? Easy to understand-they say NOTHING on them. Here's what they DO say: Orange Book, pg-119-120. ""For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read two or three theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning, its words." There he says he discarded the works of other Christians entirely, and used ONLY the Bible. What did he say in the White Book? (preface) "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." Note, again, that's after he got its entire material from Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard (with a smidgen of Lamsa.) That's also after he initially credited Stiles for the answers- but left out his name- then went back and removed all record of Stiles' name from the White Book. Forgot all this? I posted it maybe 24 hours ago on this SAME thread. Now, I find it a little curious that you've left many paragraphs which form a coherent whole with NO comments-as if they're invisible to you, but perhaps a single sentence -which HAS been explained before- becomes a near-obsessive focus, which must be addressed and explained again as if you've never been in discussions on it before. It's not a surprise, just a little curious. Perhaps HeGotOut will address the aspects I didn't expound on. [Edited to add the letter B).]

Note to self: the twi "never actually address the question" techniques are still alive and well in usage among twi "apologists". First the change of subject (he didn't speak English). Then make an irrelevant comparison. Then continue as if it's the same thing when it isn't, and hope nobody notices. The subject is the dodges and evasions used by twi to avoid explanations and uncomfortable questions- "spin control" as some people here love to say. In Mark 9, a father had a sick child. Did the father care about doctrine and the law? Not at that moment-he wanted his child healed. Sophistry was NOT on the table with him-just heal the kid. So, he went to the disciples. No healing. So, he went to their boss. "If you can do anythng..." Jesus put the responsibility back on the man. Was the man intending to put Jesus on the spot and trap him in talk? You'd have to accept that he was willing to have his child sick just to win an argument. SHAME on you if you think any parent with an ounce of humanity could seriously consider it. He wanted what-to give Jesus a trick question? NO. His child was sick, and he was single-mindedly focused on their healing. Did Jesus respond as if the man was trying to trip him up? No-he seems to think the man wanted his child healed, and the responsibility for the child was the man's, so he put the responsibility back on the man's shoulders. "Lord, I believe-help my unbelief." So, is this where Jesus says "You're playing word-games. I'm leaving until you can give me a straight yes-or-no answer. Next time tell the Pharisees to do their own dirty work" and storms off? NO. Jesus understood this had NOTHING to do with trick questions, ridiculing Jesus, or word-games. The man wanted his child healed. Jesus concerned himself little with the exact wording of his request for help, and prayed for the child's deliverance. Which the child got. I don't know what canyons had to do with the discussion, either, for that matter. Oh, look, a cloud! But what's it doing at ground level?

In your opinion, twi was THE Messenger with THE Truth, then? I'm sure the newbies would like to know for sure.

Thanks kindly, but even the internet has better debators and arguers than me. Can't seem to find offhand the place where someone quoted vpw complainingabout the dedication of the corps, and how some of the current ones were only there to learn the (Dale) Carnegie stuff. I thought it was "vp & me", but it's apparently somewhere in "Passing of the Patriarch." Funny thing to complain about, for the guy who signed off on putting it IN the program in the first place...

Feel free to pm me if you've the time and inclination! I love to hear stories like that! (And if you don't, I can amuse myself speculating on what you said. There are many funny options to choose from.)

I don't want to put in the legwork to get into this right now. Here's my opinion, which is based on what I've read on the COS, which is not inconsiderable. (I'm no expert, but I've read more than a little.) AFAIK, there is no connection, past nor present, between any decision-maker in twi and any decision-maker in COS. AFAIK, there is no connection, past nor present, between the corporate entities of twi and COS. That having been said, whenever you have one man designing an organization to centralize money and power, and putting the label of "religion" on it, you will get similarities. In this case, there's even more extreme versions of the way corps and just about every progam instituted by twi, really. L Ron Hubbard had similar motivations to vpw, but used slightly different methods, and thus had greater success.

Ever think of making that your signature, BB?

No one questioned that- so continuing to bring it up is at best, a non-issue, and at worst, a smokescreen. It is the claim that this was the SOLE USE that is being directly challenged. Separate issue-but it is often intellectually dishonest to respond to people'squestions not by answering them-but by giving them a question back. Supposedly, we had all the answers-but we're responding with questions? "I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you." Reminds me of Session 1. And what does it mean to "keep the truth of God's word on the offensive"? Was that supposed to be taken to mean be offensive when witnessing? This little snippet-with answering questions with questions-might suggest that if this is ALL the information on the subject- I expect there was a lot more... Or you could have just used the above example... " The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria, and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defence. This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Rom. 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητος (anapologētos) (without excuse / defence / apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation." Paul definitely offered a defense to Agrippa.(Agrippa: "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.") I question whether Jesus really tried to defend himself- knowing a successful defense-if it WAS possible-would have really wrecked "The Plan". But, that's a subject for a Doctrinal thread. Speaking of which, sounds like Paul was not on the same page about apologetics as vpw... They "sought to entangle him" verbally. They were trying to get him in trouble, and throwing up a smokescreen. There's a huge difference between that and never engaging in apologetics. In fact, you just made a case against vpw, using Jesus as a compelling example. (Luke 15 & 16.) Smokescreen. We're barely addressing "witnessing", because we all seem to agree that this was ONE-count 'em-ONE-usage of the term, and none of us seems eager to claim that it's entirely inappropriate to be used then and there. (Maybe in a separate discussion...) We're discussing the OTHER usages of the term, as in "If truth needs no defense, it also stands to reason that "Truth Has Nothing to Hide" and "Truth Has No Fear of Questions". While the original statement may be true, it has been used as a means to cover error and indiscretion, and to sidestep or rebuff questions." You may have missed somehow that THIS is where we were going with the discussion.

Are they no longer required to send in notes to hq about how much it blessed them after reporting back to the coordinator? twi is NOT as strict as it used to be...

Ok, here's the list. "A) "Better Spelling Basics B) Building an Understanding of Vehicle Purchasing C) Early History of New Knoxville D) The First Freedom: Religious Liberty in America E) Highlights of African History and Culture F) A history of the Huguenots G) Ideas to Encourage Reading in Young Children H) Maintaining Reliable Transportation I) Making a Home-cleaning Schediule That Works for You J) Powerful Paragraphs K) Sola Scriptura: An Overview of the Protestant Reformation L) Some Practical Aspects of Business Etiquette M)The "Write" Stuff" Now, A) and F) have been covered. That leaves 10 more topics. I'm sure the rest of you will want a piece of this- it's just one more way to show up the twi hierarchy. And it's fun! :)

Which is an unsupported assertion of Mike's. vpw was quite florid in his descriptions of the education he received- his father "paid for the best education money could buy" and he studied with "the top men in their fields", but somehow none of them got across to them what was made CRYSTAL CLEAR by my HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS- that ALL SOURCES MUST BE CITED AND DOCUMENTED. In college it was a lot worse. Supposedly, he made it thru a competent education at the high school, collegiate, Masters level and Doctorate level, and yet that didn't surgically implant a habit or knee-jerk reaction to cite his sources whenever putting pen to paper. vpw knew what a "textbook" was. vpw knew what a "workbook" was. vpw knew the differences between a "textbook", a "workbook" and a "study guide." Anybody who made it thru college should know the difference. vpw had all his books (all without exception) written as textbooks- as in "this is how it is"- with the exceptions of the syllabus for one class or another (which were "study guides") and the Home Studies (which were "workbooks"). Flip open the back of JCING, and read me the contents of the bibliography. :) Yes, even workbooks are supposed to include proper attribution, although it's understandable that ones that accompany properly-attributed texts may not do so-since they're designed as accessories to the textbook that DOES do so. (I'm not kicking that the syllabi and Home Studies do not.) EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD HAVE PROPER DOCUMENTATION NO MATTER WHO THE AUDIENCE WAS. ALL the classes. Even the CFS. We never found out, for example, what hygiene video or whatever he got the stills of the softcore porn he showed the class, and-for all the mention of the 2-women-plus-dog-video, we never were given the name of the video. (I'm sure because I would never have been able to erase that specific information from my brain no matter how hard I tried.)

Well put. That WAS the point I was getting at.