Raf

Thanks D. Now, why can't I grab the screwdriver?

Can't find the battery! Argh!

Umm, before I kill someone or break something, what's the point of this danged room?

How do we define "largely plagiarized" or "mostly plagiarized?" I don't know how much of RTHST was plagiarized. I can point to a few egregious examples in that book, but I don't see, for example, any one other than Wierwille teaching that these are manifestations as opposed to gifts, or that these are 9 manifestations of one gift. I give him a lot of credit for that one, although those who believe they should be called gifts will obviously disagree. That, however, is a doctrinal question. It's clear to anyone paying attention that the portion of the PFAL class and book devoted to keys to Biblical interpretation owe much to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, but how much of that can accurately be called "plagiarized?" Am I not allowed now to teach keys to Biblical interpretation without quoting PFAL? The keys preceded both Bullinger and PFAL, didn't they? I believe Wierwille plagiarized. I believe it was even more extensive than I originally realized (someone on another thread threw a Wierwille quote at me, perhaps not realizing that Wierwille had plagiarized EW Kenyon word-for-word on that particular point). I was stunned to find that BG Leonard, not Wierwille, coined the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God." I am happy to say Wierwille plagiarized, because it is true. I would be hard put to say that he largely plagiarized, or that he mostly plagiarized. Ultimately, when I teach someone "how to become a Christian," I'm not going to come up with much that is different from every single other Christian teacher on the subject. So... what do you mean by mostly?

I think the point is that they're overused and that they take up unnecessary space. I told my writing class that I would take a full letter grade off any paper that contains the words "basically" or "essentially." I challenged them to come up with a single sentence in which those words were necessary (excluding the preceding sentence, of course).

The Plain English Campaign

I think it was better than mediocre and am grateful I took it. Far from perfect, of course. A lot of error? I think so. A lot of truth too. Hey Eagle, welcome. Coffee?

Thanks for posting, LLP. Even if we disagree. I think Mel hoped for a profit, but I would be hard pressed to argue that was his primary motive. He could have made huge profits on any number of projects, as he has in the past. For profit to be his PRIMARY motive, one would expect him to appeal to our basest tastes, not our most noble. Disagree with his decision to make such a bloody film? Fine. Everyone's entitled. But ascribe it primarily to profit? Gotta disagree with you there, buddy. Pleasure chatting with you.

Folks, In pirate's link, click on the words "Next Page." THAT's the letter we're all referring to. Oldiesman, Taken strictly at face value, one could see how you could conclude that the letter contained godly motivations. But it's your decision to take the words of LCM in that letter at face value. Everything he did subsequent to that letter speaks more loudly than the letter itself. Immediately subsequent to that letter he was the spiritual head of the ministry. DURING the time of that letter, the people supporting him said things like "I'm going to stand with the ministry that taught me God's Word" (as opposed to standing on God's Word, period). They said things like "God chose VPW and VPW chose LCAM by revelation, so if VPW was wrong to choose LCM, then God is stupid." This is what they were saying AT THE TIME. This wasn't about drawing a spiritual line in the sand. It was about drawing a corporal one. Of COURSE!!! they're going to claim to be offering the godly choice. And the thing you're saying that's right is that the other side was NOT necessarily being more godly (though some on the other side were). But that doesn't make Craig's motives godly, no matter what the letter says. No matter what the letter says, he was still forcing a choice between men. No matter what the letter says, it was still about control of the corporation, not about moving God's Word more efficiently. He obviously convinced himself that the control of the corporation WOULD move the Word of God more efficiently, but one would only need to look at what he did afterward to establish that this letter did not have God's glory as its motivation. I know this was a difficult decision for everyone, but that letter was not godly. The people who heeded it may have wanted to honor God, but their decision did nothing more than embolden a tyrant. This is not to say that those people are to blame for what happened. It is well established that the other side was not necessarily any less carnal. I'm simply saying that those who stayed got snookered by LCM, just as many who left got snookered by CCG and their local leadership. Just look at what happened afterward: most of those who left are glad they did. Most of those who stayed are sorry they did. That doesn't tell you something about the true motives of LCM?

Oldiesman, You can't get oranges from an apple tree. A good tree brings forth good fruit. Everything that happened after the 1989 letter branched off from that letter. Yes, from a worldly perspective, you get rid of those not loyal to the company. I agree. But take a step back: if you want to say it was impossible to know that at the time, that you made your decision and you thought it was the godly one, that's fine. No one can fault you for that. But stop ascribing these pure motives to LCM when everything he did at the time and afterward indicates his motives were self-glorifying, not to the glory of God.

Thank you, CC. You took the words right out of my mouth. LLP, I won't spare you any elevation of Mel Gibson's motive beyond profit. If you think that was his sole motive, then that opinion (not you, the opinion) is stupid. And yes, it's mean-spirited too. I guess "charity thinketh no evil" doesn't cover a producer making a movie to bring a story about the sufferings of Christ to the masses. Your later post is far more nuanced, and appreciated, for whatever that's worth. Gibson didn't have to make this movie. He didn't have to finance it with his own money. Was he hoping for a profit? I'm sure he was. But was that his top priority? Doubtful. So please spare me the insinuation that you don't find anything wrong with profit as his motive. Your "please spare me" exposed your sentiment. You don't need to see the movie if you don't want to. Jesus Christ Our Passover is just as graphic, without the disturbing visuals. This movie glorifies Christ. That's my experience, and just as I can't talk you out of YOUR experience in a freedom-choking cult, you can't talk me out of my experience in a Christ-glorifying film. So spare me.

Sorry to say I bought it too. I honestly did not see myself as standing with Geer because I went to ROA and opened up my earballs, as VPW would say, and I listened to those who did their best to convince me (and my friend) to stick with TWI. Their arguments were entirely carnal and easy to disprove with an open Bible. But with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I now believe POP was a bunch of self-serving hooey. Let's face it: choosing between LCM and CCG was like choosing between Bush and Gore: was there really a way to win? (that was a joke: please spare me the political bashing).

What evidence do you have that Donna misspoke? I have tons of evidence that shows rather conclusively that LCM thought of himself more highly than he ought to have thunk.

When someone calls someone else "the spiritual head of this ministry," you're danged right I'm surmising he's trying to usurp Christ's authority. And in case you missed the 90s, I was right about it.

My original reply here was emotional and inappropriate. Sorry.

Forgive my mistaken wording: although I think the meaning is the same. At ROA 1989, Donna Martindale specifically referred to her husband as, and I quote, "the spiritual head of this ministry." Now, had she been talking about the titular head of an earthly ministry, I would have agreed. But spiritual head? VF didn't share that with you because he wasn't at ROA 1989. But can you stop and think that maybe he had observed enough to know already that this is what the BOT was thinking at the time? You can't think Donna's statement came out of the blue while she was on stage one August night. Logically, this had to be something that was stated and repeated in Craig's echo chamber (maybe not the same words, but certainly the concept). I'm not saying the people who left were not carnal. I'm not saying the people who stayed were carnal. But LCM was. Period. There was no godliness to that letter, and the only point he had, which was valid, was still carnal.

Nonsense! They had the same root! That letter was the trunk of an evil tree, and the decisions which followed were the fruit of that tree.

By this time Craig had already convinced himself that HE was the HEAD OF THE CHURCH. These are not my words, they're Donna's, uncontradicted by Craig. So in a sense, VF was RIGHT in his assessment of Craig. Craig had already rejected Christ and esconced himself in the Lord's rightful position.

Some folks seemed to like this statement of mine (can you add your own statements to this list?):

OM, I think you have a point, as long as we all keep it in perspective. Of course it makes sense that people who oppose TWI should leave TWI. Craig was right to expect that. Based on what's been revealed here and on Waydale, I don't think there was necessarily a right or wrong decision at the time. I think history proves those who left at the time made the right decision. We were spared the "thank God for making Craig Martindale the spiritual head of this ministry" nonsense. We were spared the "homo purges" and the patently unChristian, gutter-language letter LCM sent on that subject, we were spared WAP, we were spared the no-debt policy, the cancellation of ROA, the "genuine spiritual suspicion," and the list goes on. Those who left were also far less likely to stick to Geer as time went on. Sure, some people did. Some still do. But many more do not. It seems a whole lot of us took that "no carnality" rhetoric to heart. Even if VF did make a carnal decision at the time (I don't know if he did, but you make a decent case), in the long run he did not. I think there's something to be said for that. I for one am glad LCM sent that letter. And I'm glad I went to ROA for myself, rather than blindly following the New York leadership out the door. The whole episode taught me, in ways that words never could, that leadership and trust SHOULD go hand in hand, but WON'T necessarily do so. If titles impressed me at one point in my life, they no longer do.

Ultimately, yes. By refusing to choose between one man or another, Finnegan effectively chose to be fired. Once that was done, he could make the decision to pay attention to Geer (promote his newsletter and tapes, etc). However, there came a point when Finnegan rejected Geer's leadership, and now Finnegan's teaching, to the best of my knowledge, is markedly different from Geer's. This, to me, is evidence that the decision to "stand with Geer" was not necessarily carnal. Ultimately, it was not, because ultimately, the decision was NOT to stand with Geer. I'm sure there were times when it was, in fact, carnal ("I'd rather follow this man than that man.")

That's great, WTH, but perhaps we detected a little cynicism in the "Gee that's great..." which is not necessarily unreasonable. It is a figure of speech to call something "great" when you're really saying the opposite. I think it's fair to ask for a clarification on that, because I don't think it's reasonable to think that they felt Mel Gibson's movie was great. It sounded like they were dismissing it. But in this case, I don't know what was actually said. Insurgent, is there any way of being more specific about what was said, without compromising your identity? Did they literally say, "Gee that was great?"

Hmm. I guess one iota does make a difference.

Well, I've been reading reviews of Dawn of the Dead. Can't find any warnings about excessive violence, or any qualms about the director/producer's obsession with gore. Fascinating. Get this: one of the reviews calls it "surprisingly touching." Dawn of the Dead. Touching. Unimaginable. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on March 19, 2004 at 16:57.]