Oakspear

Is the concept of "THE Man of God for our time" a biblical one? Regardless of whether Wierwille or Martindale fit the bill, does the bible support the concept? Sticking with the new testament, which Wierwille claimed was "written to us", I'm just not seeing it. During the gospel period, when Jesus was still walking the earth, he was obviously the top dog. What happened after he ascended doesn't read like anyone was annointed as pope, or MOG, or President. Peter seems to be the spokesman, maybe even a "first among equals", but after some years, he takes to the road, raising people from the dead, witnessing to the gentiles and living with the tanner in Joppa or some such town. Paul takes a prominant position, but appears to defer to James in Jerusalem. Seems to be more of an administration by committee, or consensus, than an heirarchal rule by one man at the top of a "Way Tree" or a pyramid. So, where does the MOG idea come from? From all indications, the Old Testament. Moses sets up a system whereby he can "judge the people" without having to deal with thousands personally. Moses was without question a ruling MOG. It was also a special situation, the Hebrews having escaped Egypt, but not having taken over "The Promised Land". Once in Canaan, there wasn't a unified government until Saul's kingdom. How does this apply to now? It doesn't. But I'll entertain opposing points of view

Please...supply...a...chapter & verse...reference...from THE BIBLE...to back up...your assertion...that...there is...a MOGFODAT.

Martindale was NOT ordained with the title: "The Man of God of our Day an Time". Whether RFR obeys him is another story.

You know about the lies and cover up, yet you still believed Martindale to be the MOGFODAT?

Nope. 1st time at Rome City for Wierwille's class, 2nd time also at Rome City for Martindale's version one, and Sioux Falls, SD for Martindale's version two.

Do you mean "Don't be an Okie"?

This conversation about the Advanced Class got me thinking about how we as wayfers would often be thoroughly and obnoxiously convinced about things we did not understand. When I took the AC in 1978 there was a handout called "the numerics of the manifestations", where Wierwille ties in the numerical order of each manifestation as it's listed with the significance of each number as taught by Bullinger in Number in Scripture. When Martindale taught his second version of the AC (the first was just a reteaching of Wierwille's PFAL Advanced Class, the 2nd was officially The Advanced Class on the Way of Abundance and Power) he taught the manifestations in the order that they are listed in Corinthians, with the exception of the so-called worship manifestations. Before the class was released Martindale mentioned that for years he didn't understand the whole concept of "the numerics of the manifestations", but taught it anyway! How many things did we all spout off like "there are no starts in the north" from Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed to the whole concept of "God can only give what he is: spirit"?

I would guess that $500 included lodging. I remember $250 as the class fee through the 90's, with varying extras depending on whether you were housed on or off TWI grounds

Even if your figure of 12,000 is correct, it would hardly be overflowing, when you consider that at its peak the ROA hosted over 20,000 people.

I think you're missing the point. Blaming the devil when your habits are unhealthy and destructive is foolish. While bad things sometimes happen regardless, deliberately abusing our bodies can be avoided. VP preached often about how those who got sick were "not believeing", and said that cancer was a devil spirit, yet he died from cancer. Ironic, wouldn't you say?

"Accuracy" outweighed compassion, or we believed that they were the same. That, it and of itself, says a lot.

They came up with some new ones this year; I've got "Sacrifice" hanging outside my office door - it's interesting to note who gets the Aztec human sacrifice reference and who doesn't. This one is kinda spooky.... http://www.despair.com/demotivators/madness.html

But not surprising. Serial liars can be convincing, but rarely take the time to make sure all their stories line up

It depnds on whether I have to get up the next morning One of our local hot spots has been doing early shows once a week, usually Wednesdays, 6 - 9pm. Susie & I saw Chris Duarte at one of those a few months back. These days, most of the music that I take in is local bands, but Lincoln has quite a few good bands, especially blues.

http://www.despair.com/sacrifice1.html

1. None of the proponents of water baptism are saying that it is necessary for salvation. Some are saying that it is necessary in order to obey God's Word. Opinions vary. 2. Just because a verse does not specifically mention water, does not necessarily mean that water wasn't involved. Baptism can literally mean immersion in water, or it can be used figuratively. Context can tell us which. 3. Wierwille's take on a verse or concept sometimes was the correct one, sometimes not. His teaching often only "fit" if you ignored parts of the bible. Some on this thread are attepting to make it "fit" by considering topics that Wierwille didn't. 4. There are many apparent contradictions (or real ones, depending on your view) that Wierwille never touched. It is not "tail-chasing" to try to reconcile these. Despite a yearning for "the simplicity of the Word", its anything but simple.

Noooooo....don't make me read it :o :unsure: :wacko: :blink:

"Putting it together so it fit" could reasonably be described as telling his students: "Dr. Smith taught about ABC, but I think he was off on C; Bishop Jones taught XYZ, but his conclusions on Y do not fit 'the Word'; now Rev. Brown taught CY so well that it brought tears to your eyes, but he was too much influenced by WordWolf on AB & XZ to be of much value. Therefore by taking these specific parts of what Dr. Smith, Bishop Jones and Rev. Brown taught, we can see the truth of da Word" What Wierwille did was closer to this: "Open your bibles, look at such and such a verse. Look at all these other verses scattered around the bible. Listen to my rambling analogies. See! We can obviously conclude ABCXYZ! Ya know keeds, I learned a lot from Dr. Smith, he really taught the experience of ABC, but he just couldn't put it together from the Word (like I could) and Bishop Jones, I ran into him in Oklahoma in a snowstorm once, but women always lie. He taught me a little bit about how to X, but I documented it fron the Word. Rev. Brown did his translation of the Polish bible at my house. Name dropping and casually mentioning people who influenced you and who you say you learned from is a far cry from crediting those from whom he got fully formed, fully researched, and fully thought through and published ideas.

So...many...words :o

Mark didn't say that. He wrote out in detail why he believed and practiced as he did, and you mischaracterized it. There are plenty of things that the bible says to do, but aren't "salvation"; for example, it apparently says to speak in tongues, but doing it doesn't earn you salvation.

I believe that "snapping" is partly due to buying into the image of an exclusive group that "the world" is against. If you can be convinced that no one else has the truth, and everyone else out there hates you because of it, it's a short step to distancing yourself from family and friends, and changing all your habits and interactions. It's a vicious circle: you make a statement that you believe to be the simple truth, but is incredibly insulting, your family is insulted and gets defensive, you see the defensiveness, perhaps your rudeness is met by some retalitatory rudeness and insults from your family. The cycle continues to escalate until you are purposfully distancing yourself from your loved ones. You think back and remember that you were warned that your family would reject you if they rejected "the Word". You smugly think you've got it all figured out and that Satan is running your family, blissfully unaware that your actions are driving them away; your family is convinced that you are brainwashed, totally clueless that they played a role in the self fullfilling prophecy.

WW, you remain the king of summaries

In my opinion, "Word Over the World" was never any more than a slogan, devised by Wierwille to keep us pumped up and keep new members pouring in. I agree, Martindale had to come up with his own unique stamp on TWI to boost his MOGness. Interesting that Rosie and the current Board of Directors, although they rarely if ever even mention Martindale's name, still hold to this "revelation" from a man who didn't understand that screwing other guys' wives was wrong.

Martindale declared that the "Word was over the world" in the mid to late nineties (don't remember the year). He claimed that he received this information by revelation, although he had John Reynolds offer some statistics to support this claim. At the time it made no sense to me, membership was declining, whole countries and areas of the U.S. were void of TWI fellowships, by any objective measure, the "Word" was barely over Martindale's living room, let alone the world. Reynolds' supporting information talked about fellowships being run in regions of the world, as if one measly twig in Berlin somehow "made the Word avaialable" to all of Germany, let alone Europe. One of the things that Martindale "addressed" was that Word Over The World was an achievable goal, and not some hazy, ill-defined future event that never comes. Yet, by declaring that something had occurred, with no evidense or indication that it had, it became ill defined. What did you believe that "Word Over The World" was? Does anyone ever remember Wierwille layuing out exactly what it meant? My view, and I don't recall if I ever heard Wierwille say it, was that Word Over the World would be achieved when several conditions were met: 1. There were enough twigs in enough places so that everyone in the world would be able to get to one if they chose. 2. The worldwide "ministry" and the local twigs were having enough of an influence that anyone who wanted to get involved would know just where to go. With the speedy growth in the 70's and early 80's, this didn't seem so farfetched.

He comes across as lazy. He comes across as a shameless self-promoter. He comes across as a pathological liar.