Oakspear

Apparently we're not a very wild bunch In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Yeah, funny, isn't it, Wolf. The infallibility thing was even more insidious. Very seldom would you hear anyone come right out and say that Wierwille or Martindale was always right, but that's what it amounted to. Even if the possibility of fallibility was brought up, only the MOG could decide if the MOG had been wrong. For example, just before I was kicked out, I had gone to one of the Trustees about doctrinal errors that I had seen. He referred me to my Region Coordinator. The RC gave a few examples of things that Wierwille had been wrong about and changed. When I responded with the observation that these errors were evidence that the current doctrine could be wrong, the RC told me that the Trustees would let us know if what they were teaching was wrong. This whole mindset is the very foundation for abuse. The whole concept that the leaders cannot be wrong, but if they are, they will let us know, is a blueprint for mind control. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Seems like we were just discussing this over in Doctrinal. :D--> I wonder if the apparent fact that some people spoke in tongues with ease, some had trouble and some admit to faking is because Wierwille's teaching that "anyone who is born again has the ability to speak in tongues" is wrong. It says that the manifestation (singular) of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal. Isn't "manifestation" synonymous with "evidence"? In other words, ever man will be given evidence of that holy spirit? Then verses 9 & 10 go through the "for to one is given..." and the "anothers". It took Wierwillian scriptural gymnastics to get those verses to say that everyone should speak in tongues, everyone should interpret, everyone should discern spirits, with his teaching that it really meant for to one (profit)...to another (profit)...to another (profit). Seems kind of a stretch. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Yeah, and nobody made the dogs pour their drinks out! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I'm not going to dispute whether speaking in tongues is or isn't real, but I don't believe that just because you do it and aren't consciously faking it, that's it's necessarily anything supernatural. People have been engaging in speaking in tongues, or, if you prefer, in something that to the observer looks remarkably like speaking in tongues, for a long time. It pre-dates Christianity, and still goes on outside Christianity. In TWI, and even in churches that elevate the importance of SIT, there is a great pressure to perform (SIT). There is nothing necessarily supernatural about being able to spout out a string of unintelligable syllables when under that pressure, or even when affected emotionally. Your brain will not freeze up when you tell yourself to speak in tongues even if God is not involved. As far as the interpretation goes, even if there is no conscious faking, it is not impossible to shoot out a quasi-biblical pronouncement if your mind is steeped in "The Word" day in and day out. Ever notice how, in general, interpretations were roughly equivalent in complexity to the level of bible (or Way doctrine) people had? Ever have someone in your twig who always said the same thing, or whose interpretation was painfully simple? Or reflected a misunderstanding of scripture or Way teaching? A few people brought up the practice sessions where you would start with the letter "A" and move through the alphabet. How many folks every thought that not every language uses the same alphabet, let alone the same sounds? How about starting a word with the letter ?, or maybe ÿ, or even ?. For a long time my tongue sounded vaguely Asian and contained sounds like pops and clicks. It was described once as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon. Also the whole concept of deciding what sound to start a word in tongues in seems to go against the whole "God gives the utterance" concept. So didn't anyone who did this "fake it" by definition? This is not to say that any of you who speak in tongues are faking it or deluded or anything, just that there are alternate explanations. I think that it is possible to be not consciously faking anything without the result being anything supernatural. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Thanks for sharing ExC --> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Thanks Grizz, I will be sure to mention you in my next book as someone who had the basics, but needed me to "put it all together". In theory, there is no difference between theory and skunk pelts...but in practice there is Oakspear [This message was edited by Oakspear on January 06, 2004 at 1:58.]

Ttessa: I didn't say it was easy darlin', just disorderly and unstructured. :D--> and I'm all in favor of riding on someone else's success! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Opinions that you are entitled to (not a complete list :D-->) The opinion that The Way was (or even still is) a godly organization The opinion that Wierwille was a good man who made some mistakes, but still taught us "The Word" The opinion that what you experienced in TWI was good, great, godly or "neat" The opinion that someone else's memories of the "good ol' days" is a delusion The opinion that someone else's opinion about the worth of Wierwille, PFAL, or TWI in general is WRONG remember, it's not a complete list :D-->In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

My use of the word "excuseable" had more to do with how people viewed the sins, rather than how God views the individual. It was my obsrrvation that some GSers, while ready to agree what an idiot, pervert, loud-mouth, etc Martindale was, seemed somewhat relucxtant to say or think anything negative about "Doctor". In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

...but we smoked and hugged in a most disorderly fashion :D--> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

The above list is not meant to disparage the amount of work that the actual cooks put into things, THEY were organized! Oh, we also smoked cigarettes and hugged each other In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Tucket is correct, we are incapable of planning get-togethers! Perhaps congentitally! There have been informal GS meets here and there for the last few years, the biggest difference with the SCWR was that somebody named it! Some of you may be overestimating the amount of order and structure there was in the SCWR. Shell and Rascal told herbiejuan to set the date in the chat room 2.7 seconds later he had done so Somebody (I think herbiejuan) checked into cabin prices at Tim's Ford Those who wanted cabins either reserved them themselves, or hooked up with someone who did, likewise campers several folks volunteered to cook we showed up we ate we drank "adult beverages we ate some more we drank some more we ate the next batch we sat around talking and laughing in between and during the eating and drinking we went home In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Now all I need is a sycophant to mindlessly defend me In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

I thought "skunk pelt" had become a bona fide part of the GS lexicon, I was surprised that some thought I had originated it. Well, you unearthed my plagarism, what next, will you start doubting my doctorate? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Dr. Oakspear, BsD

Rush was the band that convinced me to stop going to concerts under the influence. I had seen them once during the 2112 tour, quite impaired. About a year later I took the subway directly from work to the venue, didn't have time to "impair myself". Nothing was available inside. I was amazed at how much better everything sounded without chemical enhancement. Thanks guys. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

There is unrest in the forest There is trouble with the trees For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

........... In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Didn't mean to sound anal, but this thread was really going places...how did it become a banned word experiment? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Gee, I'd hate to see this thread closed down In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

You have to stop and think? You don't know 'em all? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Lightside: Since we're talking about six months, I'm assuming that there is still no cancer. Great! In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Done playing with your new toy? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

If RFR was installed as President with any kind of ceremony, including the transfer of the mantle, it was not made known to the rank and file. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear

Hiya folks: No way did I expect this thread to go where it has, but I'm glad it did. Thanks to those who ripped the scabs off of the old wounds in order that the truth might be better or more widely known. I started it because there seems to be people out there who think that Martindale screwed up a good thing, that he messed up what the godly and venerable founder, our "father in the Word" started. As far as the moral foundation of The Way, it was a stinking swamp when Martindale got in, he didn't make it that way, but he did choose to perpetuate the stench. To think that Wierwille was running a clean operation is to ignore the testimonies of those who were abused. This thread isn't about the doctrine, but any of you who still run the old PFAL classes, how can you stand to hear his voice or look at his face? In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is Oakspear