Oakspear

Yup, and interpretation means to let moose...

Post on Grease Spot. It worked for me.

I never really had anybody try to "melt my face" until 1993 or 94. I wasn't in the Way Corps, and when I was a WOW our coordinator, who was interim Way Corps, was so far from doing the program himself that he never really roads our butts about much. The first time or two somebody got in my face I was so stunned that anybody would talk to me like that I froze. Mostly I just shut up and took the crap because my then-wife interpreted any resistance to the abuse on my part as disobeying "leadership", being "out of fellowship", et cetera. Since we already had problems in our marriage I wasn't willing to strain it any further by having her think that I was possesed or something :D-->

Oldies: They still really, really, really want you to "abundantly share" and still use CSBP. Wasn't that one of your main doctrinal beefs? Maybe try going over to "Family Tables" and start a discussion about it.

One thing that a lot of parents don't realize is that very young children will tell what is not the objective truth without batting an eye. Why? Not because they are necessarily trying to deceive, but because, as "the center of the universe", the way they want things to be is the way things are. The way that they feel becomes reality. Why do you think that a child cries that a parent "yelled" at them when the parent was talking in what they thought was a normal tone of voice? Eventually we teach our children that the way that they see things is not necessarily the way things are. Children who never learn this and move into adulthood with the same center-of-the-universe mindset have problems. Some of the same kind of problems that we've been talking about.

I sometimes get piles on my bum. Does that count?

My second example, about the dogs analogy, is also an illustration of how these examples and analogies sometimes took on a life of their own. During the waning days of my "innieness", another GSer and I (who was also an "innie" at the time) were comparing notes about various errors and inconsistancies that we had found in WayAP and PFAL. One of these was "private interpretation". We believed that Wierwille had it wrong, and referred to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, as well as verses that used epilu? in questioning our respective "leadership" about it. Both of us got an explanation of how hunting dogs act, how they are trained, more than anyone could possibly want to know about dogs loosed on the game, but NO reference to a single bible verse, NO reference to a lexicon that would contain the actual meaning of the word...nothing, except a detailed explanation of the explanation.

Oh I remember that ROA. The first time that we decided to bring all the kids (SIX - in previous years one of us would stay home with the younger ones) and it rains for the first two days. It's hard for a tent to remain watertight when a freakin' RIVER is flowing through the campsite And on top of that, it the freakin' CLASS on Living Sanctified -->

Anyone who has spent any time around me knows I have a very sensitive b.s. detector. Any time one of my children was accused of anything, whether by a teacher, twig leader, another child, anybody, I would sit them down and ask them a lot of questions. I could spot an inconsistancy in a story a mile away. I could smell a lie in the next county. If they convinced me that they were wrongly accused, or their accuser had misunderstood the situation then I would back them up with every fiber of my being. If I found out that they were in the wrong, they took their lumps (not literally ), and God help them if they lied to me. Parents who unquestioningly believe everything that their "little angels" tell them are fools. Parents who never back up their children are cruel.

Are you the Bob Burke from Long Island?

Let me add that just because you think that bad things didn't happen to you in TWI, doesn't mean that bad things didn't happen to you in TWI. I find that I, and others who post here as well, rationalized away some of the crap that happened. Maybe the bad didn't seem so bad in comparison to what we thought we were learning, or was worth enduring because we were "moving the Word". To a certain extent we were conditioned to accept the abnormal as normal.

From Wierwille, courtesy of Galen: From Bullinger, copied from appendix 182 of the Companion Bible

Where did I say anything positive about this foo-foo water? To my knowledge I've never consumed any. --> And you couldn't tell that the "TM" after FEDGOV was a joke? --> and THIS section, geez, I didn't know you were into conspiracy theory ]"FED", when referring to Greenspan, is an abbreviation of "Federal Reserve", but you knew that, right? :P--> Then it's got to be evil, eh? :o--> Yup, yup, yuip. Where do the Illuminati figure into this?

Wierwille wanted us to "check it out" for ourselves, sure, but armed with off-beat definitions and assumptions. What happened to those with dissenting "research"? Shown the door.

I decry the attempted destruction of Israel by the descendents of these survivors! Decry it I say! ;)-->

Sir! Step away from the orange book! Slowly now, keep your hands where I can see them

It was the plaid suits and the ruffled shirts, that's why :D-->

There was NO weirdness in the 70's?Oh wait, you didn't say that, just that ALL OF THE WEIRDNESS hadn't arrived yet :D-->

They both wrote that Matthew was the regal line, dmiller, they differed in that Bullinger said it was Joseph's geneology, Wierwille said it was Mary's

I have no idea, but both Bullinger and Wierwille believed it. If you have a Companion Bible it's in appendix 182, Wierwille covers it in The Word's Way chapter, "The Lord's Brethren". Perhaps it was because only one person could be king at a time. If Jesus had an older brother who was of the same royal lineage, apparently both Bullinger and Wierwille assumed that Jesus would not have "legal" rights to the kingship, but that the older brother would inherit first. I'm not attempting to argue for or against the "older brother inherits first" position, merely pointing out that both Bullinger and Wierwille cited it as a reason why "the Lord's brethren" could not be Joseph's sons by an earlier marrige, but had to be his younger, full, brothers. Huh? Actually we are talking inheritance. Levites? Yes. And I believe that in some instances Wierwille's take, or opinion, makes more sense then does Bullinger's. Other times the reverse. It appears that you misunderstand my point Galen.I am not saying "that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger"; I am saying that, at least in the "Lord's Brethren" example, he disagreed with Bullinger's premise (that Joseph, not Mary, was of the royal bloodline), but agreed with his conclusion (that older sons of Joseph by a previous marriage would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic kingship). The conclusion makes no sense unless you agree with the premise. Wierwille taught that it was through Mary that Jesus became heir to David's throne. If so, any sons of Joseph by anyone other than Mary would have been irrelevant to inheritance of the kingship. My point is that he merely copied Bullinger's conclusion in appendix 182, somehow missing that the conclusion did not follow his own premise. That to me indicates that he did not understand Bullinger

I was once asked to call a woman in town who was running an offshoot fellowship with her husband. She and I had known each other years earlier. I was told to find out details about their fellowship by pretending to be interested in having my kids take PFAL.

When I was booted moving was not really an option since my kids live here with my ex-wife. I immediately stayed to move the word by avoiding twigs and PFAL classes :D-->

Actually Belle, you spelled Twyril correctly :D-->

Pineapple & canadian bacon on a pizza probably won't hurt you either, but you won't get me to eat it :D-->