Mike

That's not the case, though. I have great respect for those laws. I was most impressed that they are highlighted in the U.S. Constitution! They are a product of the Enlightenment thinkers. They foster thought and invention that benefit society. But misapplications of those laws to a single family, or to a small town church do earn my flagrant disrespect. I can respect the people who hold such erroneous grudges, but I don’t respect their stands. The greatest misapplication of those laws is when God is the original owner of such ideas, but our law system is not equipped to recognize His ownership. When such an ownership conflict occurs, I’ll side with God and take the consequences from societies laws. But I do respect them, none the less.

You can do it now. I was simply trying to clarify better for you what I had intended to say. I was answering the little logic dilemma you had posed. I just don't see any logical inconsistency in what Dr taught about him receiving revelation kind of from scratch. God taught him. No problem for me.

My use of it is from the Advanced Class. I was just passing along one of the uncontested items of that class. At lease, I never heard of any controversy with it. What I posted was vanilla AC material.

Trying to get me thrown into the Doctrinal Forum?

I was thinking of his trip to India and the article he wrote in protest. He also made waves when Donnie was hurt in an accident and possibly broke his back. Peopel were freaked out about that healing and actually angry. He was not obscure kin the Bible Belt.

waysider, You wrote: "... items that have been proven to be demonstrably inaccurate..." Proven by whom and proven how? I have found that most approaches here were started with a pre-determined outcome in mind. That is a fundamental point of method I would (and have) refuse to knowledge as an honest start. I use a point of method that is the opposite, very much like we were taught to approach the problems and inaccuracies that are found in all the ancient manuscripts. How research is conducted within PFAL should be the same IMO. So, like the original scriptures, the inaccuracies are illusions that can be worked out with patience, time, and guidance. When I find an apparent error in PFAL I take my time and it usually goes away in a fairly short time. Some are slower.

It's glitch city and we're all plagiarizing each other! (I'm having similar Quote button problems.)

God can teach a man how to receive revelation by starting with phenomena. He did that for the temple boy (Elija?) who kept waking up the sleeping prophet thinking the prophet had called him, all the while it was God calling him. The boy heard phenomena from God, and it initiated a successful teaching in how the boy could receive revelation. We must know how to operate the manifestations, including the revelation manifestations. But phenomena is something that is of God's doing. Nice, try, though. I like logical thinking. PS - Moses and burning bush. Paul on road to Damascus, etc.

In the 50s Dr was making all kinds of waves in his church, making a lot of enemies. It's hard to imagine no one told Kenyon and the others that VPW was using those texts. In 1962 they started gearing up for a much larger non-obscure ministry. They filmed the PFAL class in Black and White. It had hand drawn charts and Dr's camera skills were terrible. I don't know how many segments were made, but I saw one. It was laughable. YET, they (many collaborators and financial contributors) kept pressing and got it all together. That 1967 color video still impresses me today. Obscurity was not at all in the plan. The audience was widened still by the Life and Time Magazine articles.

ADAN was originally farmed out to Devon Adair publishing. Plus, the filming of the class was an investment in non obscurity. BTW, it's the 50th anniversary of it's filming.

Oh yeah! Covfefe! Isn’t that the new Russian cogno-hypnosis meme that starts self replicating after the third repetition? ... Be careful with it.

OldSkool, Which of these following three arenas of thought and activity do you think your link and your mindset are coming from in making such proclamations? Book Market.....Academic University.....Family of God I usually use plagiarism for #2 the “academy” and copyright infringement for #1 the market. Notice #3 is a little different in this post. Same theme, though. New details. IF it is the case that I’m right and Dr did get these revelations to “put it all together” then the REAL ownership of the intellectual property is God. I’ll say it again a little differently. IF it’s the case that God gave a revelation (or two or ten) to some of Dr’s sources, then it’s perfectly right and proper for God, the owner of the idea, to tell Dr to go to Styles and use this, this, this, and this, but not that, and not that. Did you know that in at least one place Dr said that one or another of his sources had received a revelation from God? I can look it up if anyone’s interested. Why did none of Dr’s sources sue him for copyright infringement? Maybe because they too knew the true ownership of the ideas. How many brand new ideas does that make for this post. I don’t mean “brand new” in the sense that I just originated them. No sir! That would be plagiarism or something like it. :) What I mean by new is how many of these ideas I’m throwing out are new to you folks? They are worth more than a knee jerk rejection. Please take a month or so to think about them before tossing them off. I took years to ponder them.

waysider, I discussed this with Rocky above. Here's a repeat: No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here. Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.” That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad. The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot! Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal? If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal? I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars. You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good. Peace.

HOLY MACKEREL! That's a wild thread. Einstein, Heisenberg, Godel, Bullinger, and Ralph D all together. I'm including Ralph because I'm going to read his article in the feschrift. I have spent all my life looking at those science giants you folks are discussing on that thread. One of my favorites is Godel. If you are into him at all, Douglas Hofsteadter completely revised and revamped his GEB on Godel in his newer "I Am A Strange Loop." I highly recommend it.

OldSkool, I had not seen that in years. I saved it for my collection. What I find interesting is where Dr’s books are DIFFERENT from Styles. Plus, RHST went through 7 editions, lots of places where it was changed again, and again. Sometimes that reflects learning on Dr’s part; sometimes it can mean the revelation changed as the situations changed. Juedes got some wrong: Dr did mention those other authors, but not in the right locations and manners to satisfy the market and the academy. Dr credited those sources verbally to his students and sometimes they were on tape. I take it Juedes did not search all the SNS tapes for citations. Mrs. Wierwille also got it wrong. He may not have told her about the 1942 promise until much later, and I can understand that. She resisted his revelations at times. In CF&S he said that when he started teaching that water baptism was out he had to sleep on the couch for a week or so. But I know she was slightly wrong about the date. He told people as early as 1965, and probably earlier, just not her directly, maybe. I have an old SNS tape from October 17, 1965 # 214 Titled: “Selling Plurality – Acts.” In it is a very long parentheses, like a half hour, where he steps aside from the teaching and goes into the 1942 story and more. Many citations of Dr’s teachers and sources and methods are in this giant parenthesis. It sounds like this is not a “first time” revelation from Dr to his students. Someone cut this parenthesis out in the 1980s and circulated it on cassette tape with the title “Light Began To Dawn.” I have quoted from that tape many times here. His account if the 1942 incident is a tiny bit different from the account in TWLiL, but that’s to be expected from a decades old memory being verbally recalled. They do not contradict.

I'm totally unfamiliar with your first item here: " ...the various ways of how one can gather the meaning of a passage..." Can you tell me where in Bullinger this occurs? Also, where Dr taught on it. I'm curious. Your second item is familiar, but again I'm still unaware of most of it's details. I just never caught on to what the problem was. Oddly, this topic was handled by Ralph D in that feschrift book, and he took the position opposite yours. But I totally forget his points. I should look it up. But if you can give me a little more detail than "refers to the origin of scripture and does not prohibit a person from attempting to interpret the verse for themselves; vp twisted that around to mean no one should attempt to interpret the Bible" ?? I always both VPW and Bullinger were referring to the need to avoid PRIVATE interpretation and to seek o the AUTHOR's interpretation. Surely, you're not saying Bullinger encouraged any old interpretation? I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it looks a little like you were saying that. I'm just trying to understand why this verse bothered so many people that Ralph had to write that article.

OldSkool, he did not claim it as his own. He stated the opposite in writing and on tape. Many people THOUGHT he had originated it. I saw that as rampant in the many Wierwille worshipers which I observed and totally resisted all through the 70s and 80s. It wasn't until 1998 that I came to believe the books are exceptional. But he claimed to NOT be the originator of most of it. I will find the passage where that is written. It may take some time. It is posted here at least 5 times.

TLC, I remember. One point at a time is all I can handle.

T-Bone, Please pardon my tendency to lump most posters together into one set of motivations and methods. I only remember the distinct personalities of a few posters compared to the whole roster, but I can slowly learn (or re-learn) to recognize those who want to discuss things thoroughly. I thank you for your response. One of the things I often urge grads (at least 5 times here) to do, in order to get plagiarism into a more balanced light, is consider carefully three different areas of human thought and activity. These 3 types of common activity are the bookselling market, the academic community, and a small family of 2 parents and 4 children. NOW, does anyone here remember this argument of mine? I would not want to place the same requirements on that small family regarding intellectual ownership and how knowledge gets distributed. Would you? Parents have to put footnotes on what they teach their children? Not reasonable. How about a much larger family of 4 sets of sibling parents and their 16 children? Would it be plagiarism to print out teachings and instructions to a large family like that? I’d still say no. When things started out with Dr's ministry they were just a small church in a small town. Should the collateral books been cluttered up with footnotes in that setting? I’d say no. In those days Dr invited lots of guest teachers to wherever his headquarters was. They got credit that way. Dr showed his students Bullinger and Kenyon. There were no secrets about his sources. But then the ministry started growing explosively around 1970, and as it started expanding out of its tiny family-size arena it started growing into the two similar arenas of the book market and the academy. Before 1972 Dr had Elena Whiteside record and quote him saying that he was NOT the originator of most of what he taught, but that mostly he had only “put it all together.” It’s also the case that in addition to deciding by revelation what portions of other authors to include in his teachings, he also decided by revelation what portions of those SAME authors to NOT include. I’ve never seen a poster here consider this when urging Wierwille readers to search out all his sources. What a burdensome homework assignment to give to students. Only a few in the tail of the bell curve will want to do that kind of thorough work. Also, as the ministry continued to grow in the 70s and into the 80s FOOTNOTES and accreditation were added to the new publications. A strong example is the credit given to Dr. Martin from Pasadena, the one who cracked the code to the star of Bethlehem. In Volume 5 is another memorable citation where Dr quoted a page or two from Kenyon with proper academic credits. Again, these developments are never included in the plagiarism discussions. If anyone here has a GENUINE interest in original thought (like I know I do) there is a fabulous book on it that is now 50 years old, but I've never seen a better one. It's called "The Act of Creation" and it was written by a smart, world renown polymath. I think he was teaching for the Psychology Department at Harvard when he wrote this book. It shows how creative thought happens in science, humor, art and literature, and it does it in GREAT detail. I did some Open Mic stand-up comedy for about 5 years not too long ago. I had heard that comedy workshop classes sometimes use the techniques inspired by the mechanics of this very enlightening book on human creativity and originality. It worked for me. Oh, and surprise,surprise! "The Act of Creation" was written by someone we all know! He is Arthur Koestler of "The Thirteenth Tribe" fame. Actually he's much more famous for his many other books, than for these two. Thirteenth Tribe is way too political and Act of Creation is way too intellectual to be very popular.

No, not forgotten, but I can be perfectly happy limiting my posting to the doctrinal forum, if that would help things go smoother here. Like I said earlier, I’m not here to fight or recruit, just to say “Hi.” That would also include catching up with the news, and cleaning up some loose ends if possible. I attempt to do the same thing with TWI about every 5 to 8 years, with varying results, sometimes not so bad. The only reason I jumped on to this particular thread is because it’s right on topic with what I posted on most. Most of my posts have (or be working gradually towards) a strong theme of YES! We should by all means share Dr. Wierwille’s books with others. So, at least I’m on target with topic, and with a bull’s eye to boot! Can this thread be moved into Doctrinal? If not, should I start a new thread in Doctrinal? I’m willing to cooperate. I’d love to see the same courtesy extended to me (try holding your nose) and allow me some thoughtful discussion, rather than just trying to nail me. Many of us have already been through 5 long years of that overly adversarial debate, and none of us want a repeat of what Oakspear called the Mike Wars. You might find you have had some misunderstandings of my posting, and you might find that I can offer some good. Peace. PS - Rocky, this started out being addressed to you, but I drifted and started addressing everyone.

T-Bone I also know that power corrupts. If I had a lot of power, my "missings of the mark" could have much more far reaching effects than they do now. This is just a guess, but I think it pretty well applies to all of us.

T-Bone, you're right. If I had suffered more, I'd have had a more difficult time arriving at my position. The confusion I had to deal with DID delay me a good 11 or 12 years before I came back to PFAL and started working the deeper details in the books. I feel much for those who suffered more. I think also of how Uriah's relatives felt. Things get pretty complicated and murky at times.

T-Bone, I can somewhat agree with you. It's entirely possible that SOME of those evil TVTs were from VPW himself. He had sin, because we all do. There were times when he could miss the mark he had written down. It's not HIM that I look to, it's the revelations God gave him. I was often annoyed at his policy decisions. It may be some were necessary, and intended only to be temporary, but TWI later institutionalized them via the TVTs.

Thanks Rocky, for the search engine directions. My eyes are not what they used to be. :) I will admit this again: As for the JS objections, he was VERY reluctant and exasperated when he admitted he knew of nothing that corrupting in the books that would hurt me, and that there was a lot of good in them too, hence my “doing well.” NOT best, he emphasized. You folks might face the same challenge he did and try to come up with page numbers and passages that are evil in the books and will corrupt me. JS was unable to do that. Interestingly, after years of protesting TWI, the CES organization put out a ten year anniversary booklet or letter. Right at the top was an open admission that VPW did indeed come up with a unique package of teachings that taught the Word like it had not been known since the first century. They had to admit that because it’s true. As for the books corrupting TWI: I spent many hours here showing how many thing in the book were either over our heads or had slipped out of our memory. I also showed how the Twi Verbal Traditions (TVT) that grew up around and smothering the books was the true operating doctrine at TWI, not the books. No time to resume my story right now. I’ll be back.

Is there a search engine for all the posts here? I was unable to find one.