WordWolf

Contrast that to Solomon, say, who got to ask ANYTHING from God, and asked for WISDOM-so he could rule God's people wisely. (Otherwise, he would still have ruled them...) So, vpw wanted EVERYONE TO LISTEN TO HIM. THAT's why he wanted answers. NOT so that he could help people-we know he was plenty loud when he KNEW he had no answers- but so EVERYONE WOULD LISTEN TO HIM, and his congregation would GROW. You know, the people giving him MONEY. =========== No, I don't think the incident happened, but even his construction of it is very telling. Further, he's never seen HEAVY SNOW before. He described a heavy blizzard white-out as looking "BLACK". No, it all looks "WHITE"-it is a "WHITEOUT" condition. As in "Oscar, is there a blizzard outside?" *looks* "I can't tell-it's all white!" One of these days, I'll sit down and compile all the different accounts he's "officially" given of this supposed incident that still completely failed to change his life, except in how HE describes his life. ========== Finally, my favourite... Mrs W leaves out something very interesting when she discusses this incident. "never told anyone" "kept to himself" She didn't say "EXCEPT ME". If such a thing REALLY HAD HAPPENED, wouldn't the FIRST words out of his mouth, upon encountering his wife again, be "I've GOT to tell you what happened today..." HOWEVER, SHE didn't hear this until the early 1970s, nearly 30 years after it supposedly happened. (I get that date because she also said he told it first to the corps, and they didnt begin until 1969 with the Zero Corps. Therefore, he told-at earliest-the FIRST Corps, 1970 or later.)

Well, it DIDN'T. He SAID it was the same program. To claim it's the same program is as accurate as claiming his Kindergarten was the same as his Doctorate program. Based on WHAT? He JUST started READING the Bible!Must have been all "music" and homiletics. They provided the music, he provided the homiletics. Before this, radio had Christian music, and had homiletics, and had BOTH. (Fuller, for one.) NOTHING was original in this, except adding vpw's name. Lie. TRUTH. Must be harsh for the Sunday morning services of the past year- he wasn't going to the Word for 2-3 new teachings a week. He must have been getting material outside the Word- that wasn't "NEW"-meaning he got them from somewhere ELSE and taught them. And, of course, the only people he could GET was young people,and, having no background, they worked for FREE for experience, and he was able to pad his OWN resume and add the show. One young guy, four young women. Hmmm........

MRS w says Which I believe.Then, of the same timeframe, vpw describes the SAME thing as such: So, Mrs W saw this as him learning, but vpw claims it was ENTIRELY because they were impressed with him as a professional. Actually, they saw he had a degree, and asked him to EDIT. If they were REALLY impressed with him, they would have asked him to WRITE. Big difference. As an editor, he cleans up the grammar, spelling, punctuation and so on of the writers. He's not kidding, either.This was his first exposure to taking the work of other Christians, reviewing it, and making modifications to it. All he had to add later was "cross out their names, and write his own name in crayon" and he'd have his signature style for his career all the way through 1980! Ok, we've got the tithing thing origin, and the origin of "Vesper Chimes" the radio show here. Of course, you can't do a radio show with music and stuff with older people, that's a younger people activity. He saw Fuller do it and it worked, so vpw did the same thing and tried to make it work. It didn't work as well becasue Fuller "was such a humble man and wanted to bless people." As opposed to vpw who.... And put forth ALWAYS that it was a church with "ANSWERS" despite his personal conviction that he HAD none. But, make no mistake, he no doubt would call it "the GREATEST CHURCH" something something.

Most people would have either used a room IN the church, or a "home office" or BOTH.vpw instead chose to PAY MONEY to RENT and make into an "office/study". The only POSSIBLE advantage I could see is that it gives him PRIVACY. Can anyone see any other reason for a separate office? If not, why did he want PRIVACY? I'd LOVE one photo of how he furnished it... Somehow I skipped over this, but others caught it. AGAIN, whatever vpw got ahold of was "the best". This seems to have been an unbreakable habit of his- ALWAYS the best, never "serviceable" or "well". I also noticed that this was right after his MASTERS. Thus, he knew he didn't have a DOCTORATE, yet he thought it was the best education money could buy-although it was INCOMPLETE as far as "money could buy". I also noticed his life-histories always gloss over Pike's Peak. They never mention the YEAR he graduated. We know it wasn't now because he graduated with his Masters in 1941 (presumably Spring-thus May/June, and started his first pastorate-this one- July 1941. So, there was no time for him to START a Doctorate program yet. "Bible study and teacher-training". But this was BEFORE he believed that the Bible was God's Word and he actually started READING it. What was he basing this "training" on? All he was trained in was "Homiletics", or "how to give a sermon". But he knew he was lacking in ANSWERS. How then did he expect their "edification and growth"? It wasn't until AUGUST 1942 that he even MET Rosal1nd R1nker! And he ALREADY was discouraged and was searching. Hm. July 23, 1942, he writes "Your response will help to determine the value of this column..." and in AUGUST 1942, he's ready to give up being a minister. Seems not only was he desperate for approval, he had no endurance in him. No IMMEDIATE applause means he's ready to quit. If he wasn't getting attention, by gum, he's wasting his time! But, having FOUND nothing, he STILL guaranteed results, as you see.... In other words, vpw knew, in 1942, that he had NO ANSWERS and was FRUSTRATED that he was UNABLE to HELP people, THEN went out and began a newspaper column promising ANSWERS and HELP to people. In other, other words, he intentionally sold an EMPTY BOX labelled "color tv" to people. In other, other, other words, he intentionally tried to convince people he had answers which he was CONVINCED he did NOT have. In other, other, other, other words, he was a fraud from the beginning of his "professional career" as a minister.

Any chance we can get a "wonderland" format thread on this book, skyrider? I for one would love the additional insight we get from the information plus the group analysis...

Between ROA 88 and ROA 89, approximately 80% of twi had left. (Meaning 80% of the people IN as of the opening of ROA 88 had left before the opening of ROA 89.) As some people here pointed out, some of those people left at least partly as a result of PoP or the other stuff, and lcm's "oath of loyalty" thing was the straw that broke the camel's back. Some people had left BEFORE ROA 88, the largest group as a result of PoP plus the Adultery thing plus the travelling leadership. I remember that BEFORE ROA 88, their bookstore had already stopped restocking JAL's books, and the current catalogs had their listings taped over. AFTER ROA 89, and thru 1990, a number of people who were in as of ROA 89 had left. That includes some of the music groups and people who were appointed Limb Coordinators after the PREVIOUS Limb coordinators were fired in 1989. That could be checked because ROA 89 introduced the current roster of Limb Coordinators. Since, statistically, 80% of them were new to their office, it made sense to introduce them. Also, the 'put them onstage' thing was a pat on the back for choosing to stay rather than desert the ship as soon as it started to sink. So, during the late 80s overall, including 1989 and into 1990, twi lost MORE than 80% of its followers, and statistics I read put them at something like 17% of previous membership as of 1991, which means they lost 83%, depending on when the count was counting from. After that, each year, twi experienced "negative population growth", meaning more people were leaving each year than were arriving each year.

You guys do know a "drink", for purposes of games like this, is a "SIP", and "2 drinks" is "2 sips", and only "DRAIN GLASS" means you have to finish a beverage, right? I mean, you could take very SMALL sips. (Then again, I knocked a few conditions down from 3 to 2, and 2 to 1...) Teetotalers could always have an incredibly weak rum and coke or something, or just drink a soft drink, so long as they kept up. The game would be more about the game, and not the intoxication. Then again, if we DID use the "chorus choir", we'd probably have to only run the game until the teaching started. Between their introduction, the cheezy stage-time, and opening prayers and songs, most of us would be pretty finished off.

"Office Space"???

I like that line with the preceeding line, "One likes to believe in the freedom of music, but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity." A quick indictment of the music industry, and not a new story.... Yes, that's "Dance Hall Days", by Wang Chung. This song means they're not a "one-hit-wonder", since they had 2 hits. 'Wang Chung', if memory serves, means "perfect pitch", approximately. Your turn again, Mr Weapon. ;)

Well, we knew he wasn't "particularly patient" because he always took the LAZY solution to problems. We also see that not being able to help people sure didn't slow him down from trying to teach the Bible.....

I came to a conclusion roughly equivalent to yours. There's a corollary to Occam's Razor that says of NONE of the current answers FULLY explain what's being explained, then ALL the current answers are WRONG and the answer is something else.

Since I'm seriously sure about that one, I'll put the next one into play. (Oakspear can just smack me if I missed it somehow.) ======== "Take your baby by the hair And pull her closer, there, there, there Take your baby by the ears And play upon her darkest fears"

I've thought about posting this one myself. It's "the Spirit of Radio", by Rush. Was thinking about them just this morning. ==== Ever hear "Bob and Doug McKenzie" team up with Geddy Lee of Rush to do "Take Off (to the Great White North)"?

That includes the guy who pointed out the rules. (Me.)

With vpw, I think at least a lot of it was about money and comfort. (Based on his life story & personal history.) He wanted a comfortable living, respect, and to not do farm labour. (IMHO.) With lcm, remember HIS life-story. lcm was recruited clear out of college. lcm was impressed by vpw, and offered him unquestioning loyalty. lcm went from full-time high school to full-time college to full-time twi. Remember, he went STRAIGHT into running programs AS SOON as he came out of the way corps. He never even had ONE YEAR working full-time outside of twi. lcm was then DESIGNED-slowly- to have no conscience, to give vpw full obedience, to expect unquestioned obedience from others, to believe the mog got the best of everything, to believe "he had to loosen up sexually" (as vpw told him), to believe the mog was to be treated like divine royalty He was NOT trained to think of money. In fact, although his EARLY training emphasized it (he was told that he was kicked out of the corps if his tuition ever fell behind), he was told to disregard it once he was in charge of his first assignment-the wow program. So, lcm never really sweated MONEY so much-he was taught to expect it to always be there. He was NEVER in charge of a program that had to maximize expenses or be financially practical. So, his considerations NEVER took money into account. So, when he ascended the throne, he figured the money would always be there, and never gave it another thought. What he was concerned about was getting the blind obedience vpw got, and lcm expected. When vpw faced less than 100% blind obedience from the corps, at least TWICE- he kicked everyone OUT of the corps. The second time, he "allowed" them to reapply if they swore an oath of loyalty to him. lcm's most characteristic trait was that he expected whatever worked for the corps should work for EVERYONE, and that the corps should take whatever orders he felt like issuing. So, when lcm was faced with less than 100% loyalty, he did what vpw had done with the corps before on a SMALL scale: he demanded an oath of loyalty-but from EVERYONE. The result was that a few people had left in the past few years, but now EIGHTY PERCENT of the people present when he demanded his oath WALKED OFF. That means ONE in FIVE people STAYED. He had caused the hugest drop in membership EVER...and he was just getting started. After a few years with lowered membership, he began making LARGER policy decisions requiring blind loyalty. He replaced pfal with his wap crap-expecting loyalty to overcome its obvious deficiencies. He put all corps on full-time salary-and demanded an accounting of every 15 minutes of EVERY day. He had all people who questioned him kicked out and their reputations savaged. If you lived on grounds, you were THROWN out. (He learned that one from vpw and the way corps.) So, in short, he never saw the money slipping away because he was trained to ignore it, and he fired anyone who ever tried to issue a warning. Disable the brakes, and send the train down a steep hill... Sorry, but NUMERICALLY, it was possibly 10%. The RAMIFICATIONS were huge-failings by the bot, questioning the bot. The big numbers left in 1989-1990. (More than 80% of the group in about 365 days, 80% in 1989, perhaps another 5% in 1990.) After that, the 1990s featured a steady LOSS in numbers. There's perhaps 3000 adults in the group NOW, perhaps 2000. (My guess: 2500.)

themex, if I still didn't answer your question, I did not SEE your question. If you want me to TRY to answer it, try posting it again. Rephrase it-use different words, say it more than one way...something.

Did this song appear on the soundtrack to "Traxx"?

Bumped to the top, since it came up again.

(ALL ERAS) one drink for EACH adjective used to describe Jesus Christ in the intro. Example: "God bless you in the wonderfully victoriously living name of our precious Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" means 4 drinks. (Lord, Saviour and Christ do not count.) 2 drinks when a military reference is said to actually be an ATHLETIC reference, a la AOS. 1 drink when the only explanation given for a bald claim is "you'd believe this if you worked The Word on this." (Example: "The Roman soldiers molested Jesus. You'd know this if you worked the Word." "Mary Magdalene was a drug addict. You'd know this if you worked the Word.") 1 drink whenever Ephesians is called "the greatest revelation ever given to the Christian church" or equivalent. 1 drink whenever "faith" in the KJV is changed to "believing" 1 drink whenever a Version other than the KJV is quoted 1 drink whenever the word "brainwash" or "cult" is used DRAIN GLASS if something complimentary is said about Christians in another organization; drain a SECOND GLASS if the group is NAMED AND the compliment is NOT followed by an insult that removes the compliment. ("Those Presbyterians have really helped that community. They're incredibly sincere-BUT sincerity is no match for TRUTH, if only they had the truth of God's Word...") Twi-2 and 3: one drink for each reference to our topic of the month in prayer (i.e. the topic is "JC Our Promised Seed", the prayer calls JC our Promised Seed) DRAIN GLASS if any non-twi Christian is quoted concerning the teaching topic- unless it's to mock them. ======= BTW, "whenever lcm yells" is NOT a valid condition- he yelled so much the drinkers would just pass out.

Here's what we said before: (ALL ERAS) one drink for every time the phrase "Thank you Father" is said in a prayer one drink for every "clap-along" song (claps must be on the tape) one drink for every attempt at a joke by the speaker one drink whenever "traditional Christians" are mocked one drink whenever an "alternative title" is said for a renamed holiday ("Ho-Ho", "Resurrection Sunday", "Household Hearts") one drink whenever a class is being promoted one drink whenever a new product/music tape is being promited; two if it is claimed to be superior to anything on the market one drink when someone changes a word due to "original texts" ("the original text here reads 'Oldsmobile'...") one drink whenever a Greek word's pronunciation is MANGLED one drink whenever someone finishes a sentence with "what" so that the audience fills in the next word in a verse- "For God so loved the WHAT?" two drinks if it ends in "What, class?" one drink for redundant phrases, like "in this day AND HOUR", "international countries", "chorus choir"... one drink whenever a sentence ends with the needless addition of "see?" as if the speaker is imitating Edgar G. Robinson playing a gangster. ("That's what he told them, SEE?") one drink when "flip" and "Philippians" are in the same sentence. ("Let's flip to Philippians...") two drinks for the phrase "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation", three drinks if it ends in "...in the household" one drink whenever tithing is mentioned (referring to US- Bible verses and explanations don't count UNTIL WE are mentioned) one drink whenever "abundant-sharing" is mentioned two drinks for "tithe/tithing and abundant-sharing" one drink for "witnessing" one drink if some global catastrophe is mentioned, past or present- two drinks if twi "prevented" that catastrophe (assassinations of political figures included) one drink when a named celebrity is called "possessed" 1 drink for any translation "according to usage" 3 drinks when a speaker intentionally mispronounces "literal translation according to usage", i.e. "non-literal according to my misusage" twi-2,3 one drink whenever anyone says "standing household" one drink whenever anyone says "remnant" or "prevailing word" three drinks for "standing household of the prevailing word" one drink whenever speaker compares him/herself to an Old Testament saint. one drink for every time lcm curses (weak drinkers may pass on this one) one drink when an ex-TWI person is called a "copout"; two drinks if the "copout" is identified by name (first AND last name) one drink for every sports analogy, two if it's football one drink when the phrase "egg-sucking" is used one drink for "plurality-giving"/"plurality-give" (yes, that makes 3 for "tithe/tithing, abundant sharing and plurality giving") one drink when the tithe is mentioned as "15%" or HIGHER DRAIN ENTIRE GLASS if speaker admits to a wrongdoing, legal or moral (must acknowledge it was WRONG to do it AND admit doing it) twi-1 one drink when vpw addresses any audience as "class" no matter the event one drink when vpw says "Dat's riiight." one drink when vpw uses "wonderful" and "beautiful" in the same sentence one drink for "I wish you could see it in the original"

Hi there. Numerous tv shows have had their own drinking games. One of the most famous is the "Hi Bob" drinking game-where you watch a show and take a drink whenever someone says the words "Hi Bob" in them. Another was mentioned in a few magazines- the Sabrina game, where you take a drink every time the talking cat gets a line. One of the most FUN drinking games is the Star Trek:the Next Generation drinking game. Not because of the drinking, but because of the elaborate rules. This game's rules are based in spirit on that game. =========== Here's the basics on how to play. A) Arrange for cabs or a sleepover for after the game. :) B) Everyone prepares by having large amounts of their beverage of choice ahead of time, and a cup (preferably plastic) C) An audiotape is selected, and played, start to finish. D) At certain points, something will happen on tape. Players will then follow the rules, and drink accordingly. E) Basic rule-of-thumb for conditions: 1) one drink for something that occurs fairly commonly 2) two drink for something fairly uncommon or specific 3) three drinks for something VERY specific or rare 4) drain entire glass/cup for EXCEPTIONALLY rare stuff =========== Of course, at least 1/2 the fun is in coming up with the conditions or rules. Here's one catch when coming up with conditions: twi had a few "eras". For convenience sake, twi-1 is under vpw, twi-2 is under lcm, twi-3 is under rfr. Please specify WHICH era the condition applies to, or specify "(ALL ERAS)" or subsets (twi 1 & 2) I shall provide examples from the old list, so you'll get the idea. It's really not that hard...

This is peanuts. I started a thread called "Welcome to the Greasespot Cliche Festival" when I thought it was time to collect all the tired-out sayings. That reminds me- I'll revive the twi drinking game now....

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface.] [Opinions here vary widely. Some are Trinitarians, some are not, some are not Christians. As for me, I'm fine with Christians on both sides of this issue. My complaint is against extremists on BOTH sides who have some sort of fixation with condemning the other side as "fake Christians" or worse things.] [in other news, hello. :) This forum has some advice for new arrivals in one of the pinned "sticky" topics up top. I recommend reading it. I'd also recommend-when making new threads- to attempt to put them in their related forums, and label them according to their subject. For example, this was about positions on "the Trinity". Therefore, "the Trinity" should have been in the title, but instead, it's labelled "the Way", which is so general it's like having NO title. Second, since this is a question about our Doctrine, it goes in the Doctrinal forum. Posters in general will be happier if you make some attempts in these areas. Thank you and have a nice day.]

*alters the quote to try to translate it* I think that's roughly what themex was saying. I just did one of those paraphrases like the "Living Bible" or whatever. Like them, my intention was to preserve the meaning. For the most part, I agree with themex. We DO have a responsibility for insulating the family from the WORST of offenders. We can pray for people, try to help them, get them professional help, sit with them and listen while they work thru problems, be there as they struggle to overcome temptations or addictions or other things. However, in some cases, the person is unwilling to change, or unable to change. In those cases, we must remember as well that we have a responsibility to the other Christians. Few people (outside of twi elite) would argue against removing criminals from positions of leadership over other Christians. Keeping them around where they can prey upon the people as a whole, however, is a different issue, and one that should not be swept under the rug.

*activates trans-a-lator* Speaking of pfal: foundational, intermediate, and advanced, yes. Speaking of the collateral books for pfal, yes. Concerning the Stiles' book, that's been documented into the ground by John Juedes and others. I posted links where you can make comparisons for yourself, and YOU see if they're not identical. Some of Bullinger's books I DO have and have read. Some of them are accessible ONLINE. We've discussed "the Rich Man and Lazarus" before, and some of us have posted links to it before. (You can find it online easily enough.) The direct inclusion of "How to Enjoy the Bible" in later pfal is blatant and obvious. As for the inclusion of Leonard's work, that's been covered in excruciating detail here as well. We have graduates of Leonard's class, and people who've personally flipped thru Leonard's photo album and seen the picture that vpw gave him when he lied to Leonard about running Leonard's class. (This was discussed in detail on the thread "the way:living in wonderland.") THAT this material was taken directly from the books (and classes) of others has already been well-documented. If necessary, I suppose we can try documenting some of it again. It's really more of a broken record THAT it was the work of others. The links already ON this thread about the White Book, frankly, would be a good introduction to you on this. ===== BTW, there are some people who claim that vpw "admitted" to lifting entire paragraphs, chapters, appendices and formats from others-and entire classes in the case of Leonard- because, if you find a copy of "the Way:Living in Love" and turn to one page, he says, in passing, that none of what he does is original. However, that passing comment is far, FAR short of fulfilling the moral OR the legal requirements-which are completely absent in all the pfal collaterals. No mention exists in the Orange Book that it is a combination of Leonard and Bullinger, with NO material that is not taken from Leonard's "Gifts of the Spirit" class or Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible". Instead, the book says he threw out all his books from other authors and ONLY used the Bible. Virtually the SAME situation happens in the White Book, which is Stiles and Bullinger, but BOTH their names are missing from the book. What IS in the book is that other Christians didn't have the answers that are in that book. (This is a LIE, since it's a combination of the books of 2 different Christians, and the books were in circulation when he got them.) Did you mean to question whether or not the material was lifted entirely from the books/classes of others? Did you mean to question whether it was wrong to do so? Did I miss your question entirely?