Mike

Being in a strange loopy Godellian mood the other day, I wondered what the word ACRONYM stood for, so I looked it up on Google and this is what I found: ACRONYM - Abbreviated Coded Rendition Of Name Yielding Meaning :-) ACRONYM - Alphabetic Collocation Reducing Or Numbing Your Memory :-) ACRONYM - A Contrived Reduction Of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics :-) ACRONYM - A Completely Random Order Never Yields Meaning :-) ACRONYM - Abbreviation By Cropping Names That Yield Meaning :-) ACRONYM - Alphanumeric Code for Remembering Odd Names You Make up :-) ACRONYM - Abbreviated Code Rarely Or Never Yielding Meaning :-) ACRONYM - A Crazy Reminder Of Names You Misplaced :-) ACRONYM - A Concise Recollection of Nomenclature Yielding Mnemonics :-) ACRONYM - Alphabetically Coded Reminder of Names You Misremember :-) ACRONYM - Abbreviation Code Rendering One Name Yielding Mnemonic :-) ACRONYM - Arcane Capturing Rod of Never Yielding Mystery (MouseHunt) ACRONYM - American Committee Really Out To Numb Your Mind :-) ACRONYM - A Concise Reduction Obliquely Naming Your Meaning :-) ACRONYM - A Clever Re-Organisation Nudges Your Memory :-) ACRONYM - Alphabetical Character Rendition Of a Name Yielding a Meaning :-) ACRONYM - American Committee Research on New York Mayors ACRONYM - Academy's Choice Reading, One Newspaper for You and Me (Newspaper of IMSA) ACRONYM - A Cross Reference Of Notes Yielding Messages :-) ACRONYM - Alphabetically Condensed Representation of Neologically Yclept Magniloquence :-) ACRONYM - Automatic Computerized Reorganization of Names Yielding Meaninglessness :-) ACRONYM - Annoyingly Cryptic References or Names You Make :-) ACRONYM - A Cryptic Reminder Of Names You Meet :-) This edit has been posted by Mike: 25 December 2010, 11:40 PM

All of my posts here are saved in a folder I call "The Critical Grease Texts." If that would work, then it's yours.

Shoes for DEFENSE !

Hi Abigail, Thanks. And I'm very glad to see you again too. I haven't forgotten how you reached out to me in friendship.

I'm getting old, but still loving window cleaning. Are you still swinging a squeegie too? Your e-mail address has changed from 5 years ago and I can't reach you that way. AND I can't find a button to PM you here. Maybe you can fix that. Your e-mail contact setting is on "private." .

I am doing well, thanks, and I hope the same for all of you... EVEN Raf! :blush: My activities have moved on. I finally got it, that hardly anyone is interested in looking under the unturned stones that have proved useful to me. I can totally understand this for many of the people here, but it still strikes me odd that so many others out there, who profess loyalty to VPW, so willfully ignore his final instructions to us that this thread uncovers. Yes, my activities have moved on. I am working the material more for myself now, and I've found several archivists around the country with whom I share old Way materials. So, don't worry, waysider and cheranne, this final teaching wont get lost again after GreaseSpot retires. It's being distributed far and wide in audio and text form. And thanks, Pawtucket, for your gracious manner with me here. I know from talks with pamsandiego how much stress you've had eo endure, some due to me, and am thankful you dealt with it so well. I hope lots of us can keep in touch. Send me a PM for my e-mail, or look for me on ..... what's his name's Facebook.

Yes, Kevin... er, I mean Buck.... ah, I mean Jonny.... Yes that makes me Facebook friend number 333. :)

I still care about all these things... ... but I've calmed down a lot. :)

Woff !

Oakspear, I think you're trying too hard to "protect" the upper leadership. They were not at all attacked nor put down. At that lunch meeting Dr was relatively "put down" himself. He fully admitted he couldn't do it again, because he was at that exact time viewing the original class for his first time. The revelation was that the "re-do" idea was not of God, and Dr was humiliated himself, in that he allowed everyone to talk him into it. He admitted there that he did NOT have God's "go-ahead" on the project. The revelation was that the 1967 film class WAS of God and would do the job. I'm very GLAD they kept the 1967 class. It's still hot today, 33 years after the lunchroom incident, and 43 years after the filming. I know of nothing in the clone ministries that comes even close. The mediocrity of ALL the clone classes attests to the validity of the revelation. *** dmiller, Howdy. Nice to see you again too, and Oakspear as well! In a long gone thread I once posted here the entire transcript of that SNS tape, "Masters of the Word." I can send that transcript to you by e-mail if you want. Plus, some grads in Colorado ten years ago amassed and MP3ed ALL of Dr's SNS teachings and his Tape of the Month teachings into one 17 CD set and are still selling it for 88 bucks. The SNS tapes were never copyrighted so they are totally legal, and findable, maybe even via a Google search. I've seen them advertized on grad websites. If you want I can send you an mp3 of said teaching. Send me your e-address via PM. I don't know if or how to send an attachment via GreaseSpot PMs.

I can think of another reason, and it's one I prefer. It's because God spoke contrary to what the other leaders were saying. As I've posted long ago on this, at that BRC lunch Dr made it abundantly clear that God first told him to scrub PFAL'77 entirely. Then, as he obeyed and told us this, it seems that the revelation changed and he was given the "go-ahead" to do the class, but not as a replacement for the old class.

erkjohn is right. The decision to NOT use the new PFAL’77 to replace the 1967 film class was made by Dr. Wierwille alone, and he made it about 5 days before the new class started. I was in the BRC basement at lunch when he came in and announced this decision, and I remember it very well as a pivotal moment. He noted that this decision was contrary to what all of the upper leadership wanted. He said it was by revelation. He said that he was incapable of doing again what had been done in 1967, and that God said the old class would do the job just fine. He said a lot more as well, which I previously reported here years ago. A few days later, at the Sunday night service, one day before the start of PFAL ’77, he repeated many of these lunchroom remarks. Some of what he said that night was in the evening’s announcements and may possibly have been included on the “full service” version of the SNS tape of that week. But, for sure, some of what he said that night DID get recorded in the teaching section and is still there on tape. The tape is SNS #865, titled “Masters of the Word” from June 12, 1977.

Howdy Folks, I'm not posting much because I'm fighting GPA, my Greasespot Posting Addiction. I'm also working to pay my bills, which is a challenge for a window cleaner in the rainy season. I'm also trying to respect the management here by posting far less profusely, and thereby helping to keep the peace. I do have a tiny bit more to contribute to this topic. Jesus Christ's only rule for faith and practice was the written scriptures, which were available to him at a very early age, and were in quite good condition, otherwise John the Baptist would have been charged with the job of fixing them. Jesus quite well mastered those scriptures and he used them to judge the truth of all situations he ran into, both social and religious, and EVEN supernatural. When confronted by the devil in the desert, Jesus compared the words spoken to the written scriptures he had well memorized and he ruled (or judged) the devil's words inaccurate. Jesus guided his entire life by the OT scriptures, even when it came to him receiving revelation. He knew that his Father would not contradict His own written revelations with a direct revelation, so Jesus' only rule even served him there. He judged (or ruled) everything by the written scriptures. They were his ONLY rule in that he did not bring in his own opinions or feelings. There are many, many Gospel scriptures that bear this out. Now, on one occasion he did SUMMARIZE his only rule down to the two most important commandments, but he still retained and used all the other words written in his only rule for each specific situation he encountered. He had one rule, and only one. It was plain and simple, and didn't require him to research to obtain it; he just read it and walked by it.

Here's the killer question I had in mind to settle this issue: What was Jesus Christ's "only rule for faith and practice" ?

If those mere thumbnail "only rule" offerings were actually used in someone's life then sure problems result. No thoughts regarding the Return can be judged by them, so all such thoughts would have to be rejected as nonsense. Same with healing. Same with MANY things. Those odd people I mentioned the other day who use the KJV as their "only rule" do not have such problems. They have other problems with that "only rule" but at least it's big enough to include the topics of healing and the Return. They might misjudge certain thoughts within those two topics with their KJV, but they can do MUCH more with it than anyone can do with the thumbnails.

Ok, now let me eblaborate. ;) If these were anyone’s “only rule for faith and practice” then they could not entertain the notion of The Hope. There’s nothing in these thumbnails to build the idea of Christ’s return. Even his first coming is left out, except for socks' tiny line that says "who loved me and gave Himself for me." The idea of "gave Himself" is not at all spelled out. What about physical healing. If I am sick and any of those thumbnails were my “only rule” then I would have no believing for healing. I’d have to add to those thumbnails for hope and healing, as well as dozens of other root issues of life. Think of the chaos if the U.S. Constitution were a thumbnail like these. Nothing could get done in the legal field. The brilliance of the Constitution is that is still is relatively small, yet it covers a lot. Of course it leaves a lot to the states and their constitutions, so the analogy is not perfect. An “only rule” needs to be big enough to cover all instances of life. Otherwise, a person who literally has a thumbnail “only rule” has to stand aside most issues that involve any details their rule does not touch or cover. To say that we should love is fine, but what exactly does love mean. If the only rule doesn’t define it, then either it stays undefined or definition must be added to that rule. What about the 900 promises of God? A thumbnail “only rule” can hardly get to any of them.

maximum brevity: TOO SHORT!

The big issue that I am trying to get to (and even finish) is that none of you moved beyond PFAL defining your everyday thought, because you never HAD it in there to begin with... ...you had SOME of it in there... ... but it was partial and it was distorted. What you moved beyond was your own ill formed partial impressions of it. And you CERTAINLY haven’t moved beyond the things that went wrong at TWI! No, those things many of you want to remember, exaggerate, and never let the pain go. You seem to revel in the negatives. I have moved beyond the negatives. They bore me, unless I’m dealing with one person in private about some pain they have from those days and they want to move beyond it. Otherwise I ignore that stuff. *** Now getting back to what we missed on “only rule” I again ask WHAT WAS WRONG with those three offerings of “only rule” in Post #241? Why are those blue fonted offerings NOT what Dr was talking about in the class when he talked about an “only rule for faith and practice” and the other synonymous phrases for same?

Hi Todd, Judging from the closeness of timestamps to our two posts, I take it that your post is not a response to mine, but a response to all that is above my post. In response to your post I'd say that I want to know what to believe in SOME situations, but the need seems far less in others. For instance, I want to know what I can expect from God and what He expects of me. But when it comes to my favorite flavor of ice cream, or music I feel like I'm on my own and don't much need to have a rule as to what I must believe there.

Ok now, there’s an awful lot of jibber jabbin going on here but I don’t see anyone talking about “only rule” do I? I’ve posted a lot of the teaching on this that we supposedly received in the class, and you folks are showing me (and the world) just how you probably missed it the first time around: you’re too focused on other matters. Now I’m going to go over a what a few posters declared as their “only rule” and we’ll see why each one does not qualify as an “only rule” as we were taught it. I then eventually will pose a surprise killer question, maybe tonight, I’m not sure. *** To last night’s question I see no one found the answer. The question was: “Where did VPW tell us that the Word was buried? The following is from Elena Whiteside’s “The Way: Living In Love” pages 178, 179 (with my bold fonts) : I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me. He shakes his head slowly smiling. It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you. But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today -- a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God. You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah. The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need. Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency. This is not the surprise killer question, but does anyone know where VPW again used the word "buried" to describe the Word, only years later? We all heard and/or read this passage from “The Way: Living In Love” many times. It was on these pages we heard that VPW almost quit because he couldn’t find anything in his study and research that he “wouldn't ever have to back up on.” That’s what a rule is. It’s set. It’s finished. It doesn’t need revision or improvement. It has other characteristics too. Let’s get to them. In a few cases grads presented their “only rule for faith and practice” confusing it with things like the idea of “the most important” rule for conduct, or confusing it with the “greatest commandment,” or confusing it with an abbreviated thumbnail summary of a system of rules. On January 15, on the “snow” thread, in Post # 401 Twinky wrote: “One rule for faith and practice: well, here's mine. God is love and in him is no darkness at all. Because he loves us, God will never leave us nor forsake us.” On January 31, on this thread, in Post # 107 socks wrote: “I do have a single rule of faith and practice, actually, to the original topic - and again in Galatians as it's written in these words, a perfect way to view it for every Christian - ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.’” On February 1, on this thread, in Post # 140 waysider wrote: “If I had to declare ONE rule of faith and practice, it would be The Golden Rule. It transcends religious boundaries and theological inclinations.” Now, I ask you all (again, though, still not the killer question): What is wrong with these three offerings? Why can they NOT serve as an "only rule for faith and practice" as we were taught it?

No, no. It's not circular reasoning at all. You misread what I posted. What I am saying is that Marks offerings (and others too) or and "only rule" do not even fit the criterion as to what an "only rule IS according to our teaching in the PFAL class, and that THEREFORE they did not understand what Dr was teaching there. The implication is that there are other things that they did not understand, and that complaints against the class are coming from people who did not properly receive the class. THEREFORE the class MAY POSSIBLY be correct. Look closely at the logic I just presented. It does not prove PFAL is a valid "only rule." It only proves that the criticisms by these individuals are not valid. A few days ago I submitted an "only rule" that DOES FIT the category of what Dr taught an "only rule" is, yet this particular "only rule" was not a very good one. Do you remember me talking about this? I posted on it twice. It was the KJV. That is an 100% valid as an "only rule" as Dr taught but IT'S CONTENTS are not 100% true. Do you see the distinction here? A valid "only rule" may be a terrible one, or a pretty good one, or a God-breathed one. I'm only working here on what is a valid "only rule" AS PFAL TAUGHT IT.

I have answered this in years past, but maybe I'm due to answer it again. When WE select pastors and ministers there are certain common sense and scriptural guidelines that we should follow. We do not have infinite wisdom, nor foreknowledge, nor the ability to read a person's heart, only their outward actions. We are often not so good at getting revelation accurate either. FOR THESE reasons the guidelines we are given when WE select leaders tell us to do it in such a way that we protect the flock, kind of erring on the safe side if any error is to take place. Now when GOD selects a man to get a specific job done for Him, and it's a job that hadn't been done by anyone in thousands of years, and God is not hampered like we are. He has infinite wisdom, foreknowledge, and the ability to read a man's heart IN SPITE of his outward actions. With all this in mind, do you think the guidelines for God are going to be the same for us? I don't. I think God is wise enough to not need the guidelines. You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it. I know hardly anyone has thought this through very far. This should be pondered for a while before a knee jerk rejection takes place. Now I wonder how many older posters remember me answering this question years ago. We know David repented because scripture gives us this assurance. Could you please give me the scripture that assures you that "The same was not true with VP Wierwille." I like the level of assurance scripture authority gives us, and I'm sure that if you have one it'll get the spelling of Dr's last name correct.

No Mark, it's not quite symmetrical. I have not repeatedly asked you if you studied PFAL, and not seen your posting that you have. I simply do not respond to those postings, especially when I see you offer invalid examples of your "only rule." I think your study of PFAL was unsuccessful. I did see your posts. You, on the other hand, fail to see many things that I post and indicate so in your postings to me. There is a difference. How many times did I post that I wasn't trying to prove PFAL as God-breathed and how many times have you tried to engage me on same? I strongly suspect you did your PFAL study the same way you read my posts, with your own agenda foremost and missing point after point. I see the many points and challenges you give me and choose not to respond to them. *** If you'd sit tight I'll eventually show you what we were taught on "only rule" and why your offerings were invalid.

geisha, Forgive me for not engaging in total. Have you ever thought through how the relatives of Uriah, a literal murder victim, must have felt in how to receive the Psalms of David? I have, and a lot. Now it's time to move on to the goodies, that waysider is patiently waiting for. Here is another portion of Session Six of the class: What about the religious field? Alright, here's a young child. Dad and mother belong to a certain denomination so this child is brought up in that denomination. And when the child let's say is nine or ten or eleven years old it visits with another boyfriend or girlfriend and goes to their Sunday school and church. And there that morning it's a different denomination. He hears it from a different viewpoint and it contradicts what he's been taught in his own church. Now he has two opinions in his mind. Two things lodged up there. Then let's say later on he goes to another church of another denomination. And speaking about the same passage of scripture he now hears a third viewpoint. These are all centers of reference outside of the individual seeking. ... ... ... So here I am in the religious field. And I go on to college then I go on to seminary let's say. And I study under all these men every one of the men I study under, every theologian I read is a center of reference for learning outside of the individual seeking. They are all lodged up here in my mind. And I have up here a tremendous amount of confusion. Oh, I won't admit this to anybody. But everybody that's ever passed through it knows it. Because he's never quite sure of any one thing. Because here's a great professor who said one thing and an equally great professor on the other hand said something which absolutely contradicted what this professor said. So I have this in my mind. I'm confused but I won't admit this because I want everybody to think that I'm not confused that I'm the man that has all the answers you know. But I'm really confused. So through the process of elimination again in my mind and in cataloging these things. Let's say that I come to the conclusion that in my way of thinking in my pattern of life and in what I believe is true; Martin Luther had the greatest curb on truth and the accuracy and I then in turn become what we call a Lutheran. That's right. ... ... ... All through the understanding of how the senses operate in the natural man. And how the five senses seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching that all of those five senses account for the information that comes to the human mind. And this is why we believe what we believe. Now knowing logically that we have to have a center of reference, every person, and I put it in the singular because this is truth. We have to have at least one center for learning which is outside of the individual. But most of us have had multiple centers; we are confused in a multiple way. This knowing how the law of learning operates and how this thing works I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me this Word of God, this Bible--not the King James version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit--that this Word of God is my only source for truth outside of the individual seeking. So FINALLY we're getting to the teaching on "only rule"

Hi geisha, I answered your post identical to this in the "only rule" thread.