Mike

Yes, you are right. I apologize. It was the phonetic alliteration that seduced me. I wasn't paying good attention there. The jury shall disregard that comment.

First of all, there's a big difference between being selected to be a minister in an organization and being selected to get the Word into writing in great defiance of stale traditions and erroneous doctrines. Two different jobs, two different selectors, two different standards. The reason our standards differ from God's standards is our inability to see deep and far in time. God gives us standards where (since we will often err in applying such standards) we err on the safe side. God, Who sees all, need not play it so safe, and can make moves we consider not on the safe side.

Balaam would have been rejected as a minister, yet God selected him to bring forth some pure words that greatly blessed God's people. He's another Biblical icon that helps us understand the very stormy seas we went through mixed with great blessings.

9 minutes ago, OldSkool said: "…. There are clear qualifications for a minister, qualifications that VPW included in his books and totally ignored in his own walk. The guy was corrupt. These arent unfounded accusations. His own grandchildren have told me a lot more than i post here. Many of the abused post here. GSC tells the other side of the story, the side twi wants covered up." I agree, for humans selecting ministers, he'd be out. For the God Who's ways are not out ways, He is allowed to select anyone for a specific job He wants. God sees things we human selectors can't see. Our selections are pretty good, but miss some things. God's selection is perfect. I'll bet a lot of people were very unhappy when He selected Paul to bear the Mystery. Paul would have been rejected from the minister's job too, had he applied to human selection committees. I'm very unhappy with it also, the way things turned out, but I am happy with the books. Somehow God got them through and distributed them around the world.

I think the ones getting blessed were the new people. When I was new it was pretty much all blessings. As we older grads "graduated" into ministry responsibilities and into the TVTs, things went pretty sour in some places at some times. I was lucky to have dodged most of the crap until 1983.

sorry. misread post. eyes bleary

My take on all this is that we are supposed to compare ourselves with Biblical icons and dare to think we can do even better. That’s what I see having Christ in us means: we got more than most of those Biblical icons. It is an extreme position to take. I know that, and I see Christ in us as extreme too. When you ask me to please not compare like that, that’s pretty difficult for me to comply with, seeing my decision to come back to the PFAL writings and work then again fresh. My sorting out of my TWI experiences ends up being thankful for some things, and rejecting some things. I think the reason so many of us did have positive experiences was due to our exposure to these writings. As we grew in ministry responsibilities most of us drifted from the simple writings and headlong into TVTs. That’s the stuff I am most suspicious of and reject often. YES, vpw drifted from them too, and admitted so in several ways over a span of decades. I’ve collected them, and posted them here. When I compare any modern person to Biblical icons it’s for good reason, not simple, shallow hero worship. Did you notice I also compared vpw to King Saul? Did you know that Saul must have been a great guy who did lots of good things? In time he drifted and drifted real bad. I see it as Simpleton City to harbor an image of a pure bad guy. With it you lose credibility in being able to explain what happened to us in the Way. We got incredibly blessed. You have to include that. Many grads are still very thankful to God for what they learned and we need Biblical models to explain how a man can bless so well with one hand and curse so well with the other. Biblical characters can explain how that happened to us. Your pure bad guy thesis is totally lacking credibility.

This is worth repeating: My amplified version of the passage on page 83: Even some of Wierwille’s writings must be deemed unworthy, and he was given the commission of bringing forth God’s written Word for modern times. YET, despite this commission, his own words are just as untrustworthy as everyone else’s.

No. What we should do, and should have done long ago, is line up actions with what it written. I find it necessary to purge lots of what I heard from lots of great teachers from the Way. It's only the written works that I want to preserve. All the crap of the TVTs is not easy to purge, but it is necessary.

Romans 7 Oh wretched man that I am. I too have trouble practicing what I preach. When a human is in a position of great power, their sin hurts others more. I know when Saul, David, and Solomon were out of fellowship, it could be very hurtful to others. When a powerless man sins, it's often very private and easy to smooth over, and press on when fellowship is restored.

This is just simple grammar. It's complicated by the emotional mindset of some.

sorry double post

One way of including the word “necessarily” in our analysis of PFAL p.83 is to write the phrase out both with and without this word, usually ignored by casual readers. A - Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed… B - Not all that Wierwille writes will be God-breathed… Now try to describe what are the differences in what these phrases say? My hunch is that most people here WANT it to say B, so ignoring the word “necessarily” is necessary. Of course what most here want most things like this: C - Not all that Wierwille writes can be God-breathed… D - All that Wierwille writes will NOT be God-breathed… E - None that Wierwille writes is God-breathed… …and so on. But alas, what is printed is: A - Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed… That word “necessarily” is a bugger to many. ******* Also on page 83 is the context. This actually is where the word “necessarily” becomes most crucial. The context is the untrustworthiness of man’s words versus how trustworthy God’s Word is. He gives a list of normally impressive names that some may think are trustworthy, but declares them as not trustworthy. Then he includes his own name to FURTHER emphasize how untrustworthy are man’s words. Even though VPW had been given the commission by God to bring forth God’s trusted Word, his own words (vpw’s) are ALSO in the untrustworthy pile. If only Wierwille worshipers had see this in the 70s !!! I did see this passage in the early 70s and it helped me keep a balance in what kind of respect I afforded him. I remember running video classes as the AV man, and elbowing or catching the knowing eyes of the instructor when these words would come up. It was often a highlight in the class for me. I knew what he was saying. When I called my good old best friend J.Fred Wilson about this passage he immediately remembered it as a high point of Dr’s claiming divine inspiration for SOME of his writings. J.Fred agreed with me that PFAL p.83 is a huge “Thus saith the Lord statement” in direct contrast to the context. Not contradicting the context, but complementing it. J.Fred totally agreed with me on the grammar and context analysis. He and Karen were the editors of the PFAL book. I also talked to D. Craley, Dr’s magazine editor, about this same passage and he agreed with me. Both were less enthusiastic than I in believing the content of the passage, but both agreed with me on the grammar and context of what it says. *** The gist of the two words “not all” is “some.” The gist of the whole phrase, INCLUDING the word “necessarily,” is: Some of what Wierwille writes will not be God-breathed, so that is untrustworthy like all the rest in this context. However, some other writings of Wierwille will OF NECESSITY be God-breathed, because God gave him that job. Here’s another of my amplified versions of the passage on page 83: Even some of Wierwille’s writings must be deemed unworthy, and he was given the commission of bringing forth God’s written Word for modern times. YET, despite this commission, his own words are just as untrustworthy as everyone else’s.

Actually, T-Bone, you bring up a good example here, but I differ on the application. What is printed in the Blue Book and that you quote is fine with me as is. It dovetails nice with many scriptures that tell us that God’s smarts are much better than our smarts. The TVT (Twi Verbal Tradition) distortion of this passage became this “…where the Word of God has first place, and reason is last, or not even on the list.” In agreement with some of your observations, it may be that on days and hours when he was out of fellowship, Dr himself would also contribute to this kind of anti-intellectualism that often invades ranks of leaders in all churches. Whenever some new person of great smarts would show up at fellowship, leaders could get a little nervous about possible one-up-manship games that can sometimes result. One way to keep the new smart person humble (or quiet and not challenging) is to demote their intellect with an over application of this Blue Book passage. This led to a lot of poorly developed critical thinking skills.

Does anyone know if there is a connection between the word "analyze" and "orthotomounta" (sp?) or "right cutting" ? Analyze involves cutting things up into easy to digest pieces, then putting it all together. Right cutting seems to be an idea along similar lines. I thought maybe the two words are from different languages, but mean much the same. It makes sense that in study and right dividing, analysis is to be found at the heart of things. Just wondering.

I may just need to read it all again, but it looks like no one was able include the word "necessarily" in their analysis of PFAL page 83. It's in there for a reason.

You folks are forgetting some details about analysis. I have no references for this now (I can get them), but from what I've studied and remember, Dr taught us that it’s ONLY in receiving direct revelation that we need to avoid analyzing. However, additional teaching of his on receiving revelation is the “16 Keys to Walking in the Spirit” list he goes through in the AC. Key #4 (from memory) says “Study the Word much. What you can k now by your 5 senses God expects you to know.” When it comes to good old 5-senses study analysis is both good and encouraged in Dr’s writings. A few months ago I did a computer word study in all of Dr’s writings and I could plainly see that the words “analyze” and “analysis” are treated as good words, and expected of all responsible students. Fullness and accuracy in analysis are easily seen as good guys in the written words of VPW. The reason I did that word study is because I see many grads (just like you guys here) who picked up the idea that Dr taught it’s bad to analyze. This error is directly from the TVT (Twi Verbal Traditions), and not from the written books and magazine articles we were told to master. It’s a sloppy interpretation of the AC material. SUMMARY: Receiving revelation - avoid analysis All other thinking - Use analysis a lot

Please pardon my foible here.

TLC, Quite a few posts are getting lost in the shuffle. I have two voluminous batches of WordWolf posts that are piling up. Because of a backlog at my job, I’m switching to a slower mode of posting. I will be looking for your lost post as I slowly read the previous pages. A brief repetition of it will accelerate things if you think it’s important.

JayDee, I have no intention of subscribing to the "pure bad guy" theme so many have bonded with here. It's just as distorted a theme as the "pure good guy" theme that Wierwille worshipers held in the 70s and early 80s.

JayDee, haven't you ever noticed that you can be out fellowship and nasty one day, and the next day get it together and see that God has rebounded much faster and that you can do some good for someone? Have you ever committed the greatest sin? That is, not loved God first? Degrees of sin are a human burden. God forgives bigtime. Is that new to you?

DontWorryBeHappy, Well that was easy. I’ve heard much the same message many, many times and in many, many styles. We all must bet our lives on something(s) and written PFAL is the best I know of. We need some kind of God-breathed text, and this is the best candidate I’ve seen. Know any others? Preferably in English, dispensing with the need for an “official” translation. Like JS predicted I’m doing well from my life’s selection of what to lean on most, as best as I can see. From my point of view I’ve picked the one root cause thing that went right in our Way experience: God got His freshly written Word to us IN SPITE of vpw’s foibles. That means to me that I can do a much better job for God than vpw if I am consistently honest with loving God, and keep my focus on ONLY vpw’s written works, not his personality and flesh. I think when he walked with God he blessed a lot of people. I was one. I have done a thorough job in finding out what Dr said about all this. You and most here have not done a thorough job in finding out what I myself have to say here. Your impression of my stand and attitudes is not accurate. You have no idea of how I have dealt (painfully) with Dr’s sin and its ramifications. I can assure you it’s not cavalierly. I went through many years of pain and confusion regarding all that. It STILL saddens me deeply, especially for the several women I’ve met and read here. Here is another example of how you have missed my message. You wrote: “You continue to delude yourself, after all these years, that everything dictor wrote was ‘written by the finger of God.’” One of the most often passages quoted by me here is PFAL page 83. It’s almost identical to how he puts it in the film class. On that page we read: “Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed…” Work the context. Work the phrase “not all.” Work the word “necessarily.” I have done that and in the company of two of Dr’s editors. Most people here get completely tripped up on the grammar. So, more accurately, it’s only certain written works of his that are God-breathed.

DontWorryBeHappy, I was writing my long post and did not see your most recent post. I’ll try to read it and catch up soon.

Waysider, You wrote: “Not only did Mr. Wierwille fail to cite his sources, he made a concerted effort to conceal their origin.” No, he did not hide (see quotes below) but in the early days, when the ministry was tiny, gave citations in a non-academic scattered fashion that included SNS tapes. When the ministry grew he switched to more conventional citations for the newer publications. *** T-Bone You wrote: “Ok - I get it - you think that you and vpw are above the laws of our land” No. I think God’s laws above the law of the land. However, in the spirit of conventional civil disobedience, accepting the law’s consequences if need be. Have you ever broken any laws? *** JayDee, You wrote: “Mr. Wierwille didn't want us to know what he plagerized. He wanted us to think it was all his original work” Please look at the quotes below. ************************************* I finally found the WLiL passage and its original posting by oldiesman replying to dmiller, but it’s a paste into my notes and the date and thread title were not included. I still have many more folders to look into for the original intact page. I can also see my memory of it was not accurate. I trust this to be accurate. It has some of my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the quotes). Oldiesman wrote most of it. First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Then oldiesman wrote: sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read. END OF OLDIESMAN'S POST ************************* These posts were made close to each other on January 27, 2005. I think the thread title is “posts on plagiarism” but that may be wrong. My records are not clear. skyrider posted: BUT.....WHAT I DO FIND INTERESTING TO NOTE.....is that in twi, we were always taught that vpw came up with "his research" INDEPENDENT of Bullinger. God showed vpw these things.....and he taught them (in pfal 68). oldiesman posted: God showed VPW these things via men of God scattered across the continent. His PFAL books say he learned from men of God scattered across the continent. I never heard he got PFAL independent of people. Maybe that's what you thought at one time? Mike posted: Oldiesman, You're absolutely right. Dr often told us he collected it from places God guided him to. Those grads who fell into the hero worship mode regarding Dr, but who never seriously worked the material he taught, were easily seduced and set up to believe he came up with it all, like a divine dictation, or that he researched it all out from scratch, whatever that means. Those who bought the hero image are the ones most bitterly disappointed when he fell short of their expectations. Those who worked the material were properly impressed back then and will be even more impressed when they work it again. ******************************************* And even earlier than 1972, in the PFAL film class VPW spoke these words which we heard many times: “Five records in the Word of God. You talk about questing, researching? I ran all over the country. I must have spent, five thousand, six thousand dollars in train fare, bus fare, air fare, motel rooms, everything else, trying to receive the power of the holy spirit into manifestation. Every place I ran, they told me -- some of them told me it wasn't for me, others said it died with the apostles. Some of them said, "Well, we can help you." But I never received, until, one day, a man taught me the accuracy of God's Word and told me that it was something that God had already put within me.

I'd say that biblical research, if it's being done by a small family, or a small town church need not meet academic or market standards. Then, if the owner (like if it's God) of the "borrowed" material gives permission, there is no foul. When that biblical research reaches a large size then conforming to market and academic standards it most recommended. That would be the "decent and in order" thing to do. This kind of conformity Dr did do after the ministry started getting very large in the mid to late 70s.