Oakspear

templelady, obviously it is allan's business, so please, humble yourself before his great and all-encompassing wisdom and admit your error.

No -- he didn't say that. What he DID say was --- I WISH YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE ORIGINAL, (no *s*) and he always said that statement, when he was trying to explain (or cover-up) how he came up with some the interpretations that he did. It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*. Or sometimes it was read it in the original.Although he did clearly say that there were no originals "in extant", I can see some folks getting confused. I always thought he meant that we should see it or read it in the original language, which I wonder if he ever did

templelady: You need to show more respect for allan, who is an expert on all things that pertain to the LDS church. If allan says it's a Mormon belief, then it doesn't matter if the highest authorities in Mormonism say differently. Get with the program, why doncha?

Good point, although TWI was pretty clear that their ordinations, teachings, and maybe even holy spirit was better than everyone else's. I can't imagine any circumstances where TWI leadership would approve of someone getting ordained outside of their structure in order to do weddings. I know of a few instances where unordained limb or branch coordinators (once by a non-Way Corps, non-Advanced Class grad) did "ministry weddings", approved up the chain of command, but a judge did the "legal" ceremony.Here in Nebraska, the law states that an "ordained minister" can perform a wedding, but does not define what "ordained minister" means, and no one checks on the credentials of the officiant at a Nebraska wedding anyway. I don't ever remember hearing clear requirements for ordination while "in". Ordained guys and gals were usually viewed as being "a cut above" in the TWI pecking order, with occasional exceptions: Don Wierwille and Howard Allen, as well as Ermal Owens being examples that come immediately to mind.

You are such a troublemaker! Well, yeah, I am! But it's still a valid point. Anyone who speaks more than one language, or even has a passing familiarity with language knows that there are sounds in other languages that do not occur in English (the pops & clicks in the African language of Xhosa! come to mind, as does the hard, guttural "ch" of Hebrew and some germanic languages), and that some sounds in English do not occur in some other languages, I believe it's the "L" sound that is not part of Japanese.

I do not agree. I think that we have a good understanding of the bible in a lot of categories. I disagree with your disagreement What I'm talking about here, mex, is not clinging to a belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, but reconsidering (not throwing it out) that belief in light of experience.

Ambushed? I didn't feel that way. You could see it coming in the last few sessions, and everybody else spoke in tongues, right? SIT was something i wanted to do, i thought it was "cool". Regarding those excellors "sessions": never thought it made sense. If "the spirit gave the utterance", why would you need to build fluency? Getting more comfortable speaking in tongues out loud? Yeah, I can see that. And that alphabet thing, how can you decide, with your "understanding" what sound each word will start with if God is providing the words? In later years I would screw around a bit in those sessions. Someone once described my tongue as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon. Sometimes when asked to SIT with a specific letter I'd open my mouth and not say anything...get an innocent look on my face a nd say "I guess my tongue doesn't have that sound".

Main Entry: di·a·tribe Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb Function: noun Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at THROW 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing 3 : ironical or satirical criticism

Oh yeah I am here I thought everyone needed some time for the information already provided. CK <_<

Our understanding of what is written down, no matter how authoritative, can also be illusory.

Pointing out errors in other religious systems when confronted with errors in TWI doctrine and practice is a logical fallcy of distraction, specifically the fallacy of changing the subject, subcategory, attacking the person or position of the one bringing up the error. This board is about TWI, set up to "give the other side", the answer to TWI's claims. The Catholics, Mormons, whoever else has error; so what? We're talking about TWI. Another thing that I see that gets out of hand IMHO is the use of analogy. Analogies illustate the point, they aren't the point themselves. Comparing something in TWI to something else doesn't prove anything, and finding a point of dissimilarity in the analogy doesn't disprove anything either.

Even from a "believing that the bible is true" point of view, a contradictory experience might be helpful in analyzing whether what you thought the bible said was true. Of course, if you're locked into one view, you'll ignore what's before your eyes.

Speaking of vague definitions of manifestations...are the manifestations defined in the bible? Or are the definitions Wierwille uses "private interpretation"? Tongues, Interpretation and Prophecy are laid out in I Corinthians 12 & 14, miracles & gifts of healing can be seen all through the bible, but what about the others?

Yup. Works real well. Agreed. It's not easy

The position that "it's truth no matter who taught it" starts from the assumption that it was "truth". Someone mentioned earlier about the problem of using Wierwille as a reference point. You want to learn about the bible? Go back to the bible. Why start with Wierwille? Why examine everything he taught, as if it were the starting point for all learning? Or worse, hold on to what he taught without critical examination because we're too lazy, or because we somehow were "blessed"?

Garth: I wasn't talking about you and Cynic when I mentioned dreams and scrawls on subway cars being the inspiration for doctrinal threads. Sorry, poor sentence structure. I was obliquely referring to one of our number who starts discussions about flying whales in Genesis, or posts 'words of prophecy'. Carry on

Pfal, as originally filmed, had twelve sessions. Several 1/2 hour segments were later left out: The Unforgiveable Sin The Day Jesus Christ Died (with his famous line about breaking their legs 'so they wouldn't run away') The T.I.P. (Tongues, Interpretation and Prophesy) segment - which included information that was later expanded upon in the Intermediate Class For a time in the late 70's, the 3 (or maybe 4) session Intermediate class, which was filmed a few years later, was included as part of the PFAL package. I took "the class" in 1978 and took a 15 (or 16) sesssion class that included the later-filmed intermediate.

White Dove: Here is where we differ I just don't think that has anything to do with it. Biblical truth stands on it's own regardless of moral character ,obviously it makes it easier to accept with good moral character. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proven. Truth is truth be it a priest or a thief who say's it. Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough, or perhaps the context got by you: I am not saying disagreeing with this: Of course it does. What I'm saying is that I think it is foolish to accept that something is truth just because Wierwille said it was truth. IMHO it takes more than just looking up a bible verse to see if it reads the same as Wierwille quoted it to check it out for ones self. It goes back to whether or not you accept his premises, his definitions, his view of the world and the bible. For example, in the Doctrinal forum a relatively new poster started a thread about "love" in I Corinthians 13. Several others of us are challenging Wierwille's definition of agapē: "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation". maybe we'll find out it's accurate, maybe not, but the originator of that thread is unwilling to consider that the definition is wrong. While Wierwille's moral character does not invalidate the truth, if any, in his teachings, what it does do is undermine his credibility. One of his alleged moral failings is lying. It has been documented (at least to my satisfaction) that he lied about any number of things, enough that I should probably doubt whether "VP" actually stood for "Victor Paul" So, anything that he said without documentation is therefore suspect. For example, he claimed that there was "an old document" that stated that illegitimate sons were bar-mitzvahed at 12 - throw it out, no documentation. So, I'm not saying that accepting what is taught in PFAL is foolish, what I am saying is that accepting it without corroberation is foolish.

Really?Would you care to address each of our posts point by point? Or are you intellectually unable to do so? What, specifically, about them are insufficient? This is a discussion forum, so let's discuss As far as I can tell, Wierwille declared the definition of agapē "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" without explaining why. He did this fairly often. If he, the great biblical researcher, is right, then then you should be able to easily rebut my claim that he was wrong, as well as the evidense that I have cited. I'm willing to change my mind if some evidense can be supplied that the definition didn't come out of thin air. Frankly, ck, I think you're too lazy to try, too weak in biblical research skills get very far if you do try, and too ill-equipped intellectually to present your case intelligebly even if you are right. But have a nice weekend anyway. There's got to be some Dragonball-Z reruns on.

Just between you and me and the emoticons, I like that you have to travel a bit to find the Doctrinal Forum. Call me an elitist, but I've always viewed the Doctrinal area as a place where the discussion is a bit more reasoned, a bit more logical, where people actually trot out *gasp* the bible to back up their biblical positions. This is not to say that there isn't some shedding of blood down there, Cynic and Garth rumble from time to time about Calvin and predestination for instance, and there are stretches where threads get started based on a dream or something they saw scrawled on the side of a subway car. But on average, Doctrinal shouldn't be the place for the masses.

WD: I'm not speaking for anyone else, but here's what I think: Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille. Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings. :o Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources. Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say. Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations. IMHO Wierwille had many moral failings and abused his position as a minister. He was a liar, a bully and a braggart. While none of this invalidates any truth that may be mixed in with the error, it does eliminate any benefit of the doubt anything he said or taught can be realistically given. And in order to accept PFAL as is, one has to accept much of what Wierwille says without documentation, simply because he says so. The man's character makes it foolish for anyone to take what he taught at face value. Based on what is posted on GS (since I obviously don't know what goes on in people's lives outside of GS unless they choose to tell me) not a lot of questioning goes on in the minds of posters who still hold PFAL in high regard. If it does, it certainly isn't reflected in their posts.

That's no figment, Mark; the incorrect definition of "research" has been thrown around in the 80's and the 90's, it does not mean "to search again"; its another example of TWI's creating definitions out of the literal meanings of segments of words without regard to the actual meaning.re·search noun Etymology: Middle French recerche, from recerchier to investigate thoroughly, from Old French, from re- + cerchier to search -- more at SEARCH 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject verb transitive senses 1 : to search or investigate exhaustively <research a problem> 2 : to do research for <research a book> intransitive senses : to engage in research - re·search·able /ri-'s&r-ch&-b&l, 'rE-"/ adjective - re·search·er noun

I guess all of us Wierwille detractors should get together and agree on one gripe...after all, we are one monolithic group who don't have differing opinions. :blink:

If you say so, but you guys were already pretty deep into a ....ing contest, or so it seemed to me. "Say that to my face" when in the midst of a "battle" of words on an internet forum seemed to be frustration with getting bested in said "battle". But I guess I'm wrong. Do you lash out at the Mormons, Catholics, et al because you think that they are pushing their religions, you're irritated that so many bash your beliefs, or you just have a hard-on for these churches? Or another choice that I haven't thought of? Why thank you Allan, that's right nice of you. :unsure: I'm sure glad that I'm not bound by your view of my ultimate destination!

Ah, the elusive context...