Raf

Mike's preceding post must be seen in light of his stated method of handling errors in hisssss preciousssss PFAL. "Needs and wants" was not mentioned in this thread. That's a straw man, and it does nothing to address any of the actual errors we've presented. I don't appreciate your deliberate attempt to distract us from the purpose of this thread. Your attack on my motives is, likewise, summarily dismissed. I won't bow before your idol, sign your green card, or sail on your ship (a ship so full of holes that you might as well launch it on the ocean floor to save time). I will acknowledge your dissent by either removing an error from the list or by discussing why I disagree with your attempted explanation. But if you think I'm going to write "this error evaporates when you change your perspective and become a meek master," you're sadly mistaken.

Oldiesman: I don't think I understand your question (so my answer would have to be no, for the moment). The list I am compiling will be in the same format as my opening post, along with a "discussion" after each one reflecting the various debates we've had on this thread. Is that what you meant? I also need to note that one can still greatly value PFAL while still acknowledging that these errors are, in fact, errors.

Folks, I'm compiling a master list and would like to include acknowledgements. If you want your name or handle acknowledged as a contributor, please let me know. Jerry Barrax and Karl Kahler will be included unless they specifically instruct me not to. Everyone else, please write to me so I know whether to use your name, handle, or neither. Anyone who has contributed to the thread may write in, regardless of what YOU think of the value of your contribution. Raf

Riiiiight.... There's still, what, 17 or 18 cracks in that precioussssss foundation? According to Wierwille, the existence of any ONE of those cracks sends your whole set of books crumbling to pieces. Oh, but that's right, you've learned how to make those cracks evaporate.

Jerry, you posted off topic, and that's rude. ;)--> Pawtucket: PLEASE TAKE THIS POST AND PUT IT ON THE MAIN GREASESPOT PAGE! THIS!!!!! is why we missed you so much Jerry.

Here's another one that was overlooked. I didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle... ... Jerry posted at about the same time I did, and I did not want people to miss his post, so I'm copying it...

Ex10: Please do. rafael@livingepistlessociety.org Steve: I'm not ignoring your post. I'm just overwhelmed by it. I'm not sure it's a derailment, but at the very least it is a fascinating discussion. Rafael

Dot, thank you so much for sharing that. I believe you. What hurts me is the knowledge that people will look at your story and casually dismiss it because it disagrees with their hero worship. For what it's worth, I believe you. Al, Sorry I got defensive. Raf

Whoah, Al, first of all, calm down. Did you miss the MULTIPLE times I said that a willing participant does not excuse the reprehensible behavior of VPW or LCM? Would you like me to point out the mutliple times I said that... and the time I came back and made sure I said it AGAIN on ANOTHER POST just to make sure the point was not lost? Before you accuse anyone of stubbornly swimming around in the swamp, make sure we are at least arguably guilty of committing the offense. In this case, we are provably innocent. I agree with you: it does not excuse LCM's behavior. It does not excuse Vic's behavior. Okay? Okay?

Excath: Thank you for replying to my post so promptly, and for sharing your heart with us so that we know these things really happened to real people. Oldies: No sweat. I remember we clashed quite famously, and I really respected the way you handled yourself throughout. Now, if only I could get you to understand where I'm coming from on the subject of giving... Oh well. One thing at a time. The Living Epistles Society

I didn't think you were requesting or expecting a response. There were too many people, too many, who were abused at the hands of two men (and their minions) who refused to heed the Bible's clear instructions on sex. They hurt God's people in God's name, twisting the scriptures to satisfy their lusts. They abused the trust of God's people, then spread vicious and hateful lies about those women when the women tried to reconcile the MOGs' behavior with the God they were told is all love. I have no sympathy for what they did, and hold them responsible for their behavior (as I hold myself responsible for my own). With that said, there were SOME (1? 3? 9? I don't know) women for whom the encounters were consensual. They didn't speak up because they aren't "victims." The existence of these women does not invalidate the existence of real victims, nor does it excuse the reprehensible and ungodly behavior of the MOGs. Does that count as a reply? I really meant no disrespect. Raf

Oh, and by the way: the fact that I believe such women did exist does not in any way invalidate the contemptible abuse of authority exhibited by VPW, LCM or anyone else in a position of leadership. What they did to God's people in God's name is utterly reprehensible and should be exposed for the same reason that Solomon's ridiculousness needs to be exposed. We cannot allow it to be repeated.

Thanks Zix. So at the very least there was ONE person who fit the description with LCM. It doesn't excuse LCM, but it makes it harder for that one person to claim victim status. Now, is it so hard to believe that out of the God knows how many women who slept with Wierwille, MAYBE, just MAYBE, a handful also fit that description, even with Wierwille? Not a majority. Not even a lot. Just SOME. And it still doesn't excuse Wierwille, but it robs those very few possible people of "victim" status. Is that so unreasonable? I appreciate that Zix dug up that page from Karl's site. And I appreciate that I've built the kind of record on these boards where people will know that I am no apologist for Wierwille. I have found that Oldiesman is honest about his positions and will listen to reason when it comes to those who challenge him. I question some of his positions and opinions. I do not question his motive or heart.

excath: I'm trying to be real delicate here. Let's put your experience aside. Okay? The following question has NOTHING to do with YOU or what YOU went through. It is not directed at YOU. Okay? Would you agree that at least SOME PEOPLE might possibly fit the description oldies presented? SOME? Not all. Not even a majority. Let's say, four people. Would you agree that of the many many people who engaged in adultery with Wierwille, that it's possible about FOUR of them were Wierwille worshippers who were more than happy to shower their favor on him? I think SOME people fit that description. I think that does NOT distract from VPW's responsibility as a Christian, and particularly as a Christian minister, to refrain from such behavior. So it doesn't absolve him, but it does lay the tiniest bit of blame on those women, however few they may have been, who looked at Wierwille's seduction as a blessing rather than a curse. In any event, I think Oldies is a nice guy, and I know you're hurting when you call him the things you called him. Sorry for butting in.

Ever try to pull a splinter out of the paw of a pit bull? Seriously dangerous work. A lot of people here were wounded. Some physically. Many emotionally and intellectually. Pulling the splinter out can be really painful, but there's no real relief until that happens. For some people here, the splinter is still in. Talking about the need for forgiveness is like trying to pull it out, and that really hurts. It takes work to convince them that the temporary pain of removing the splinter leads to a much greater healing. But it's easy for me to say, because I don't have a splinter in my paw. The analogy only goes so far. Suffice it to say that if I were to try to remove a splinter from the paw of a pit bull, I'd try to be a little more careful rather than tell it to shut up and let me pull. Also: in case you're not aware, this message board is for ex-Way members. It's not solely for Christians. There are many people here who reject the Bible and Christianity. There is no consensus on this board as to the need for and value of forgiveness. So when you come here talking about "deliverance" and other ideals, you can expect some hostility in return precisely because some people have no more interest in the Bible than they do in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Words to consider.

How about, "I'm leaving TWI." That should work wonders. :D-->

Okay, I'll accept that I misread you. Is it possible you've misread the people who post here? Is it possible you don't understand them nearly as much as you implied by offering such stern reproof? Is it possible that you have as much to learn about holding people accountable as others have to learn about forgiveness? And is it possible that we reach our answers, and maybe at times a consensus, through exactly the kind of conversations that are the norm here at the Cafe? The Living Epistles Society

You know what, Erick? You don't have to defend yourself to us, and we don't have to defend ourselves to you. This is an open forum message board and the people who are here, are here of their own free will. If Mike wants to call Wierwille's work God-breathed and spent 32 years ferreting out its truths, that's his business and not ours. If he wants to TALK about it, then it's our business only insofar as he has MADE it our business. If I want to go over the books Wierwille wrote and sort out the good from the bad, not only is that my RIGHT, but it's my BIBLICAL RESPONSIBILITY and I will NOT allow you to criticize me for exercising it (not without responding, anyway). "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." I choose to apply that to Wierwille's writings. Don't like it? Too bad. I understand where you're coming from. I really do. But if you have a problem with people discussing the works and impact of Victor Paul Wierwille and L. Craig Martindale, then this is the wrong Cafe for you. Not that I want you to leave. I think your perspective is as valuable as everyone else's. It's just, what are you doing here if it's not to discuss TWI doctrine, practice, history and influence? The Living Epistles Society

You proved me right and I proved me wrong? How rich! :)--> Does anyone know why or how Shavuot got changed from always being on a Sunday to being on a specific date every year?

Actual Error? Here's a great opportunity for a bit of research. In Jesus Christ Our Passover, Wierwille writes that the Pentecost corresponds to the Feast of Weeks, and that the counting of the seven weeks begins on the Sunday following Passover (p. 388). He concludes that the 50th day will, naturally, always fall on a Sunday. Therefore, in his own words... According to Wierwille, Pentecost should ALWAYS fall on a Sunday. (It's logical to conclude from this definition that Wierwille believed the Pentecost in Acts 2 fell on a Sunday). Here's the catch. The Jews (JEWS JEWS JEWS) call Pentecost "Shavuot." It does NOT always fall on a Sunday. Either Wierwille was wrong, or history changed. Wierwille HAD to begin the counting the first Sunday after Passover in order to have Pentecost fall on a Sunday. Tradition places Pentecost on a Sunday every year, and Wierwille, for whatever reason, did not question it. But he ran into trouble trying to count only 50 days between the Thursday of Passover and the Sunday of Pentecost. So he began the counting the day after the weekly sabbath following Passover. I submit that the counting did NOT begin on the Sunday after Passover, that it began the day AFTER Passover. I submit that NOT EVERY Pentecost (on the Jewish calendar) falls on a Sunday. And I submit that the first Pentecost did not necessarily fall on a Sunday. Further, I question whether there were 10 days between the ascension and Pentecost. I see nothing in the scripture that declares this outright. These are presented as challenges and questions, not conclusions. I await your replies. ------------------------------------------------ This is an edit. I thought of deleting this post entirely, but thought it would be better to just post the answer which I just found (and in the process, show that I'm not unwilling to state that Wierwille was right about something). Lev. 23:16 makes it clear that the counting of the weeks is to end on the day after the Sabbath. So my basic questions are answered, and my submissions refuted. I still wonder why Jews today celebrate Shavuot on a specific date every year, rather than on a Sunday as the Bible specifically designates. That's not a PFAL error issue, but I'd still be interested in the answer. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on January 29, 2003 at 7:15.]

Goey, I think you certainly established that this is not an actual error. It's an interesting discussion, however tangential. Wierwille writes on p. 212 that there's no scripture that states angels sing. He does not say "sing melodiously." He simply says "sing." In context, one COULD suggest that he MEANT "sing melodiously," but the fact is that he doesn't. Further, there IS a scripture that says angels sing. There's no scripture that says, specifically, that angels sing melodiously. But there is a scripture that says angels sing. Finally, the song "Hark The Herald Angels Sing" could very easily be using the word "sing" in the same manner as the verse in Job. It certainly fits with the context of the song. So I think there's a case for interpretational error, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that Wierwille was right about melodious singing, IF that's what he meant. Rottiegrrl: This subject really fit on both threads. Thanks for bringing it here. :)--> I don't think Wierwille ever wrote that angels CAN'T sing. Why, that'd be stoopid. Mike: You will be able to do all nine manifestations, but you will never know that fornication and adultery are wrong, even in this present administration. Fine, take yourrr precioussss. You won't sign Jerry's green card. How classic. And hypocritical. Folks, before replying to Mike, remember his stated M.O. Bear it in mind at all times...

Oh myyy precioussssssss

I stand corrected... for the moment.

From the book of Job: Do I need to get into the fact that the "morning stars" is another term for angels? The argument is not from silence. It's from a failure to research. But unless there's a written quote of Wierwille saying "Angels don't sing," "angels can't sing," or "there's no record in the Bible where angels sing," then it's not an actual error. Find the quote and I'll add it to the list.

RottieGrrrl... If you have a copy of Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed, I'd start looking there for the quote. We know that in the Book of Job, God Himself declares that angels sing. But is there anywhere Wierwille states, in writing, that they do not?