Oakspear

Well, he hardens hearts (like Pharoah), why couldn't it be the same with blinding the eyes? Some kind of figurative usage?

Rascal I forgive you for not bringing more Beck's beer to the Weenie Roast.

We're voting for who we think is the beast? - the guy in the Book of Revelation? Joe B: just because you can't spot the trick, it must be spirit manipulation? -->

Yeah, let's share with Christian nations like France and Italy -->

And since these people were our leaders we naturally thought that they would have sage and practical advice in any situation, child rearing, medical, business, taxes. No one ever told me to beat my kids or toss them out of the car or anything, but there was plenty of stupid advice that we knew was stupid, but were pressured to follow (or at least quietly pretend to follow ;)-->) The branch coordinator who told us to not let our kids read in their beds before going to sleep because bedtime was for sleeping (gee, who can argue with that logic? -->) - telling our kids that they couldn't read wouldn't have a negative effect on their enjoyment of books would it? --> And the same idiot bc who told my son that he was in debt because he had to pay in some money to the IRS rather than get a refund; he was in debt, and therefore out of fellowship... The list is endless

Hawk: You can send the check to the usual P.O. box :D-->

Belle, Hawk is an eligible single guy; he cured me of a sinus infection with his pear juice, so I can definitely recommend him :P--> I hadn't heard that he had shaved though :D--> He's entertaining fer sure!

Hey, I'm a divorced guy! :o-->Reikilady, ya wanna chime in here?

I guess the most insidious practice was to treat any innovation by the rank & file as inferior. Heck, you could take one of the "actual errors", point it out to someone, and you were told to "hold it in abeyance" or that you weren't spiritual enough. Despite PFAL being billed as "a class on keys", enabling us all to be able to read and understand the scripture, the "keys" were convenient props to show how wise the MOG was

Several modes of change come to my mind during the Martindale days: Start teaching the "new" doctrine as if it had always been that way Focus on Martindale as the great researcher & apostle who has uncovered "new light" Insist that even though Wierwille didn't teach it, he always believed it and was waiting for people to rise up I don't recall any changes when Wierwille was in power.

Okay!

Yer talkin' Who's stoppin ya? -->

Once Wierwille's central doctrine and and it's somewhat unique aspects became engraved in the stone of PFAL, where there ever any major changes? When I was a few months from being kicked out of TWI TH, my Region Coordinator pooh-poohed my concern about doctrinal problems in the WayAP class especially and in the PFAL class as well. He pointed out that Wierwille had changed before, citing his change from being a trinitarian to a unitarian, and that TWI would change again if warranted. When Martindale taught his own classes in the nineties he made a few changes, notably the original sin changed from masturbation to homosexuality. Another really minor one was changing the teaching that the OT believers had seven manifestations to six. Other than different application of the bible (i.e. increased use of M&A) did Wierwille or Martindale ever come out and say "we were wrong - we did more research - here's the change - sorry we didn't get it right earlier"?

BF Dave: Yes, Wierwille did say that what he said wasn't God-breathed (although a certain poster may disagree what that means :P-->) and many of us thought that meant that the teachings were open to revision. But how many times did you hear of any revisions taking place? Probably not many. And when they happened it had to come from the top. Joe Twig Leader couldn't just stand up and point out the error and start teaching differently, it had to come from above.

Just curious or trying to make a point? I'm just curious...no wait...I'm trying to make a point

...and before anyone is tempted to think or type that I'll never believe, that nothing will convince me... Just because I ask questions, just because I doubt, just because I'm a skeptic, just because I refuse to follow blindly, doesn't mean that I don't have faith, doesn't mean that there aren't things that I believe in, doesn't mean that I haven't experienced apparently supernatural events. But the questions aren't going away.

Here's something that I'd like those who say that they don't have to prove anything, or are even a little annoyed at some of the skepticism, to consider: On one hand you say that these experiences were for you - personal, subjective, private - not for "the masses"; that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Then you go ahead and post them on a discussion forum, and are miffed when people discuss them. Often they are presented in repsonse to someone's skepticism and doubt, as if your story settles it all. I suppose it's your privelege to become indignant when someone expresses doubt in your account, but why should it surprise you? It's not always a manifestation of unbelief or atheism or secular humanism either, sometimes the questioning is just some honest "wanting to know what's what". If I hear a story about how some miraculous thing has supposedly happened, the intelligent thing to do is question. If something supposedly miraculous happens to me, it's STILL the intelligent thing to do! When all my questions have been answered (and only I can determine what those are) I'll believe.

Thanks socks, good explanation, good alliteration too :D--> I appreciate it.

Catcup: Yes, it was proof to you. Great. Fine. Wonderful. But you're the one who took the "proof to you" and posted it on a public forum. And told us that it couldn't be refuted to you or Bob, and pointed out that we weren't in your shoes. What did you expect? By the way, I'm not trying to refute your experience, to you or anyone else. Just pointing out that it remains subjective, unprovable and unrefutable. Probably wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't stuck in the "you can't refute it" line. Like you said: God's blessing to you of his own perogative. What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign? Did any of the Old Testament guys and gals believe just because somebody else said to? For all the crap Thomas the Apostle is given for not believing without seeing, all the other guys got to see first, including Paul who got a miraculous vision. All the writers of the bible got to experience God firsthand, everybody else is just supposed to take their word for it? For all the so-called clarity about seeking signs, there sure is a lot of it in the bible. Hmmm...sounds like a good thread topic...not now...the landlord is here to fix my sink :P-->

Lorna: As you say the bible says that tongues are to God, not men. It says that prophesy is to men band is edification and exhortation and comfort (not edification by way of exhortation and comfort, as VPW taught btw). It goes on to say that interpretion is so that the church may recieve edifying. Does that necessarily mean that it is to men? Could the church not be edified by hearing the praise to God?

Well...yeah, Catcup...no one can successfully refute what you are saying because as you so bluntly pointed out: we weren't there. The flip side of that is that neither you nor your friend can successfully prove it either. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence,there's no way to demonstrate either the truth or falsity of it. In this case, the "un-degraded country bumpkin" isn't around to let us hear his Hebrew tongue, or check into his background, or do any of the things that an objective investigator does to verify an account. No matter how many "irrefutable" incidents that people trot out, it seems that whenever someone does a scientific study of it, they can't verify that tongues are an actual language.

Thanks dmiller for the considered answer. That's why I like you: you don't get all huffy that an unbeliever is questioning your beliefs, you go "hmmmm" and think it through, and give an answer that (usually ;)-->) makes sense.

OM: You've never been alone in this opinion, just the most vocal and impervious to reason ;)--> So, since good things happened, VPW wasn't such a bad person? -->

dmiller: While I am usually skeptical when somebody tells me that a set of circumstances had to be God, I don't dismiss it out of hand either. I'll assume that the incidents that you describe were indeed God's intervention. Does that mean that EVERY event in every location involving every person was organized and set in motion by God? I don't see it. But I suppose that you and I can both effectively and convincingly argue both sides of the issue :P-->

Why dmiller?