Mike

CM, If you don't want me to refer to your name or what I think you are saying, then please do not post again in the discussions in which I am engaged. Thank you.

Tom, You are showing desperation in how you attack me. I didn’t compare myself to Noah. I compared my situation to his situation. I compared my lack of response to his lack of response. I think that’s why we have accounts like his, to help us relate to their situations. That wasn’t even a nice try, it was a desperate one. I compare myself to Jesus Christ all the time, and find myself lacking in most areas. Don’t you. ************************************************************** ************************************************************** ************************************************************** ************************************************************** Hi What the Hey, You wrote: "I was just wondering Mike - Do you use a "speech to text" editor to post here? I certainly can't figure out how it would even be remotely possible for you to respond to so many people and also post so prolifically here on GSC without it." No, but I have often though of using one of those voice to text programs. I have an old one, but it takes a lot of tweaking to get it up and running well. I don’t have a wife or kids so my time is more free than most. The reason I drive myself to post like this, in spite of the many attempts to frustrate and stop me, is because I see my family is in a desperate situation. I’m very impressed with the fierce strength of the evil forces that got all the ministry leadership to blow off Dr’s repeated ten year urgings to master the simple texts of PFAL. I know what those forces are cooking up next now that they have nearly totally succeeded in wrenching everyone away from those texts. What we went through in the last 20 years is identical to the rejection of Paul in the first century by all his leadership who were ashamed of him being in prison. After the leadership was gone then it was easy pickings and a lot of terrible things happened. I’m strongly motivated by love to see it run different this time.

CM, You misquoted me misquoting you on that. I never said that you said that. It does look like that's what you're advocating, though: allowing the spiritual to dominate the physical, as it eventually should. I disagree with your short-cut to that dominance though.

Goey, You wrote: “Mike, even if I didn't believe the Bible and assumed the evidence you gave to be true there is still no way I could conclude that: Therefore PFAL is the Word of God. Why, because the conclusion does not naturally or necessarily follow the evidence. In other words, those things could all be true and PFAL still not the Word of God.” Yes. I can concur on this. I think you’re wise in not believing PFAL to be God-breathed from what I have presented. You haven’t been visibly around my posting lately, but in the past several months I have often and explicitly explained several times that I cannot reasonably expect to prove or inspire belief in PFAL being God-breathed. These admissions are in this thread, but it would take some looking to find them in such a large thread. All I can do here is inspire or induce or help usher those who have a hankering to do what none of the upper leadership of 1985 TWI did, and that is to obey Dr’s strong urgings in his last teaching, and increasingly strong in the last ten years of his life, to master written PFAL. I believe that God will do the proving of PFAL being God-breathed to those who meekly obey Dr and crack those books in a big way. *** You wrote: “So it's like you said Mike, someone would have to "already want to believe" that PFAL is the Word in order to really believe.” Close, but not exact. It’s people who are inclined to do what Dr urged and master the books that I expect to someday reach. These would be the thousands who were blessed with his teachings and who still somewhat teach the same in their fellowships. *** You wrote: “This, I imagine, is why you don't use sound logic very often - it just doesn't work to help your cause. And it is also probably why you suggest that we are "too logic oriented".” Oh I like to use it for what I can, but for God-breathedness I don’t think it can be done at all, by anyone. Another recurring theme, not only on this thread but in all my posting for three years, is to challenge those who believe the original manuscripts of the Bible were God-breathed to logically prove their case. So far no Bible believers have tried to take me up on this challenge. If you want to be the first, please start a thread with such a title and I’m sure some would try to help you with this kind of proof, but I think the logical atheists and agnostics and many others with logic backgrounds would mute the effort. I think you’d all quickly find why I don’t even try to use logic to prove the God-breathedness of PFAL, and never have. The only way I knew in the good old days to “prove” the God-breathedness of the originals is to invite someone to fellowship and to take the class. I use the same strategy here of inviting grads who liked Dr’s teachings, and who saw how all of top leadership distanced themselves from Dr’s advice to master the written forms of PFAL, and who feel the urge to try to do what leadership failed to do. *** You wrote: “I suggest that logic and faith can co-exist in harmony. And that having faith does not require a dumbing down by abandoning sound logic and reason.” I agree. I try to use it in my invitation, and in my handling of the contents of PFAL, and in my recounting ministry history from the tape and print record.” *** You wrote: “Mike, I agree that most of us have things we accept by faith. Not necessarily because we wan't to believe them, but because we are somehow compelled to. These things transcend certain kinds of logic. For example, no one can really deductively prove that God exists, or even that the Bible is the Word of God for that matter. But, pointing out that we accept things by faith doesn't really help your case for PFAL -- or get folks to believe your message.” Here we converge in our positions in a most satisfying way. I would merely add that my message is more an invitation to open the books a lot, and not a logical proof of what to believe about the books. I think the books will do that BECAUSE I believe they are God-breathed. In other words, I think the big proof will be performed by God on an individual basis. *** You wrote: “For years, many folks here and elsewhere have heard the message that you have presented, yet the best I can tell not one single person anywhere has accepted it - at least not the PFAL is the word of God reissued part. ..... Why?” Why? Because you are forgetting seaspray, with whom I am in constant contact, just not on this board. Another reason is because few souls want venture into this lions den to join me with such a “Kick Me” sign taped on their back. I was specially prepared for this battle, decades before posting. I’m not bragging, just marveling. Example: it just happened that I lived for two years back in the mid 70’s with one of Dr’s PFAL book editors and we became best friends for life. Another best friend was a longtime editor of the Way Magazine. One of my longtime lusts was researching the first century canon development, which is the writing and eventual acceptance of God-breathed writings 2000 years ago. My life developed into loving the writing of long handwritten letters witnessing to old friends decades ago. I picked up the necessary typing and computer skills to compete here when word processors became available with home PC in the early 80's. In the ministry meltdown I was graced with many rare materials I use constantly, such as transcripts of the class and AC long before anyone else had them. I was prepped with a hoard of information to devote to this grad outreach cause decades before posting on it. Yet, I still had very wobbly legs in venturing into these forums three years ago with this kind of message. I would never expect those who God prepped for other jobs to join me here without sufficient armor. Behind the scenes there is a bit more acceptance of me and my message than what is posted. *** You wrote: “I suggest that since it cannot be proven logically, that there is just nothing compelling about it. It would seem to me that if it were really God's message, that it would be hard not to believe, especially by PFAL fans and those who thought very highly of VPW. But it seems even these folks aren't persuaded or compelled to accept and believe your message.” Ok, so from what’s been discussed above, I’m only trying to get my invitation to open the books a lot to be logically compelling, and I’m saving the job of convincing those who do meekly master the material for God to perform. If we look at Noah’s efforts to convince the world of his message for the time it took to build the Arc they look pretty bad too. Look at Paul’s efforts and how thoroughly he was rejected in the later part of his life. It took time for people to accept the epistles he wrote shamed and in jail. I’m willing to wait for people to accept my invitation.

Tom, I'm not interested in either of your proposals. *** dmiller, You wrote: "I did read all your answer, even though I did not quote it here." Please read it again. Your answer is there. *** WordWolf, You wrote: “you're saying that numbers are important.” No I’m not. I’m appealing to those very thousands who respect VPW and PFAL, and not to you.

Raf, I am willing to tolerate ridicule in exchange for the few who do listen and absorb. Some have believed. ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** WordWolf and Goey, I didn’t offer "the benefits to thousands" as a "sequitur." I said that we could add the benefits to the claim of the promise, and I meant it for added evidence , but still not as a logical proof at demands belief in the God-breathed PFAL. It lends credence to those who already want to believe, but does nothing for those who want to reject. Goey had written: “It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm.” I responded with: “No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it.” I was merely trying to give the “alleged promise” some company. You guys are too logic oriented. I suspect you can’t prove to anyone that your deepest commitments and beliefs are right on, not even to yourselves. Those things are the kind of bet we all make without prior proof to self and without communicable proof to others. *** I’m looking forward to responding to Oakspear. His post seems to be the only one seriously looking at the subject matter within PFAL and not at me.

Hi Tom, Back to your old tricks again, huh? Two can play the paste game. I didn't think it would come in handy so soon, but: Since my DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you- you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack- I don't see why I should entertain endless permutations of your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything, it's ALWAYS an attack on my beliefs. That's dishonest, ungentlemanly, and tacky. But hey, that's you, so whatever. Actually, Tom, I'd love to get into this subject of seeing the Lord Jesus Christ and what that means, but I already told you it will require some setup and some shutup. I will say this, he was clothed with power from on high. He was wearing the Word. He is the Word become flesh. You see, Tom, you only know the seeing with the senses. I know I'm sounding a little like CM here, but in many respects he's right about the spiritual dominating the physical. ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** Sprawled Out, I think one reason posters keep coming back, even after multiple threats to quit, is because my message (it’s the message I adopted, not one I wrote) is at the VERY HEART AND CORE of nearly everything that went right and nearly everything that went wrong with TWI. Of course, I think that the True God knows this and His adversary knows it too. The True God inspires whom He can to hang out in the vicinity of my adopted message in order to hear it, and the adversary inspires (I did NOT say possess!) whom he can to hang out and obfuscate it.

Referring to the beginning of your post: No, WW, I simply saw your words as useful to me if slightly rewritten. There was no comparison between me and Mo other than what yo manufactured. *** Referring to the ending of your post: No, as I’ve explained before, both barrels were blasted at me 3 months before my first post here. When I started posting it immediately got even worse. It’s been slowly calming down ever since, except when people like you need some of your own medicine. *** I’m not sure I want to bother reading the bulk of the post. I’d like to quit this thread.

P.S. I like Mormons. Several of my customers are Mormons and I have long wonderful discussions with them as I clean their windows. I often spend more hours talking in their homes than I do work. They are some of the most honest, hardworking, healthy, and kind people I've ever seen. When I was traveling cross country to go WOW in 1982 my car broke down in Utah very late on a Saturday afternoon. When the filling station clerk saw my plight he called the mechanic who immediately came back to work and fixed my car, and at a very reasonable price. I knew they were Mormons because I witnessed to them. I never forgot them. For all his criticism of other denominations and religions (and rightly I think), VPW held high respect for the Jane sect in India and the Mormons. He praises Mormons in “Christians Should be Prosperous.”

WW, I meant no comparison between me and Mo at all. Just NONE! I haven't even read the recent exchanges between Allan and Mo. I just landed on this thread late last night and saw your scolding of Allan and thought to myself that what you said to him I've been trying to say in a succinct way to others for years. I felt it was a Godsend and a funny one at that. As far as not minding my own business, may I remind you that this is a public forum? As far as me posting my message on “EVERY thread he can find a pretext to with his belief-system,” that’s totally inaccurate. For every thread I do post on there are ten I wanted to post on but refrained. Call me a liar. I think it won’t be the first time I heard that, nor the first time I shrug it off. Large portions of the following green section were edited or added about 15 minutes after first posting. As far as "Mike now has entire threads dedicated to his belief-system," could you please name the threads (plural) beyond the one "official" PFAL thread in the Doctrinal forum? As far as "He's determined to keep using the GSC as his podium as long as he's permitted to" could yo tell me why that's bad to you? Yes I want to use GSC to get my message out, don't a lot of other posters do that at times. There ARE other reasons I post here, quite a few. I probably post on well less than 1% of the threads here. I think my message is helpful and healing to people bewildered by the ministry meltdown. Isn't that what GSC is all about? I know it helped me, an entire fellowship in SoCal, and a handful of others around the country, so I adopted this message as my own and want to share it with other grads. I didn't write this message, I was taught it. It's only "mine" in the sense that I saw it, liked it, agreed with it, got a lot of deliverance from it, and adopted it as my responsibility to pass on. I can take no credit for it. For another inaccurate accusation I submit these words of yours about me: “usually-by calling his responders "unfit workmen" "crybabies" "a busload of bozos" and other terms that suggest they did not document their positions, and that Mike was somehow superior.” There are times I do SOME of that and if it is with someone who has been civil with me I try my best to return the civility. If it is someone who has been rough with me I sometimes, if I think it will do them or someone else some good, then I return fire roughly. Sometimes I refrain. Calm down WW. Your emotions cloud your thinking. *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** *************************************************** templelady, It’s too bad WW read into my short post much more than I had stated. I meant it when I said to him that I had not read the recent exchanges between you and Allan. I don’t like watching wannabe bullies like Allan at work. My post above was VERY detached from this thread, and I made such an off topic remark here only because I could see that the already-in-place derailment here is greater than any I’ve seen in a long time. For all our disagreements, both public and private I have found a comfortable degree of respect for you, and almost none for Allan. I think Allan is very often rude on this board, even though I agree with a number of points he makes at times. I have tried SEVERAL times to talk to him about this, and also discuss some fine tuning on his respect for PFAL, and to encourage him to proofread his posts a little better for grammar as others have, and to discuss some other points I have in common with him. Allan has completely shunned me in public and privately, just as bad as anything we saw in TWI. He won’t return e-mails, PM’s or post responses of mine. He is more rude to me than most posters here. He looks to fit the definition of a troll to me. For Allan to take on the Mormons or any other group is his way of building himself up. He has nothing to offer anyone, and if you’d like me to help you fend off his crass manner in any way I’d be happy to help, although it looks like you are quite able to deal with him yourself.

dmiller, I was all ready for bed and suddenly remembered another item. This is something that I’ve posted long ago, but I think not lately at all. Sometimes for doctrinal purposes I’ll use the audio taped soundtrack of the film class because it’s very similar to the printed record, but the exact wording of the film class stimulates MUCH more memory of readers than the corresponding slightly different print record.

WW, I could say the exact same thing of you and several other posters. Thanks for the text, though. I can use it in paste posting. Since my DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you- you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack- I don't see why I should entertain endless permutations of your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything, it's ALWAYS an attack on my beliefs. That's dishonest, ungentlemanly, and tacky. But hey, that's you, so whatever. Yeah! I like that.

CM, How do we tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions? Since you are convinced there is bad in my posting isn’t it logical that there can bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions? There MUST be something that is "all good" that we can use to tell the difference between good and bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions. I think that the "all good" is written PFAL. What do you think is the “all good” that can be used by anyone to tell the difference between the good and the bad in religion, science, theology, and eastern religions? If it’s not something that can be put on a table, seen by anyone, readable by anyone, and having some physical weight, then I’m not interested.

Goey, You wrote: “You also slyly used "version" in regards to "ancient scripture". "Version" does not apply to "ancient scripture" but to "Bible" as in King James. Geneva, etc. Context Mike --- Nice try - no dice.” There was a slight miscommunication here, and I think it was my fault. You had written: "Wierwille: 'The Bible is revealed Word and will of God' __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )" Then I wrote: 1) So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God. 2) And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God. 3) Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible. Line 2) of mine SHOULD have been written: “And any particular VERSION of a translation of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God.” I was thinking of an oft quoted by me passage from segment 16 of the film class where Dr says: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone a version, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." Here Dr indicates that a version is even less the true Word than translations. He later went on to explain that first a translation is produced, and then theologians work it with their flesh and religious bias to produce a version to be released to the public. I wasn’t trying to be sly. I was just trying to make line (2) closer to the same length as line (1) for ease of reading and comprehension. Now that you pointed this out, I see that the way I wrote it does lead to a miscommunication of what I was trying to say. With this correction in mind, you may want to alter some of the rest of your post, or maybe not. Please let me know. At the very least, though, I would suggest that you re-read my post #963 with this correction in mind. *** Yes, I am altering the definition of Bible, in a sense. This is not all that crazy a thing to try and do, though. It’s done all the time, and when it’s done en masse it leads to an additional usage listed in new dictionaries. It’s how languages evolve. The reason I am doing this definition alteration is because we are not here looking at how the general population uses the word “Bible,” but are rather looking at how VPW used that word. So, I’m suggesting that if we want to track with what Dr taught then we must determine if he used that word in the standard way or if he altered the definition at some points in his teachings. Context is the key to seeing this. For him to alter such a thing might be a quirky thing to do. It might normally be a thing that is a wasted effort because no one might be willing to follow suit and add a such usage of “Bible” to their internal dictionaries’ listings. However, for a leader of a large movement this is less likely to be a wasted effort, at least within the population of followers of such a movement. Add to this, if it’s true, God being behind the definition alteration and the effort is not wasted at all, and even likely to someday lead to a mass alteration of the definition, which would then demand new dictionaries to no only add the usage to their listings, but maybe even place it in the number one slot. *** The several items you supplied prove nothing more than Dr (like all people) had the privilege of using slightly differing definitions of the same word at times. *** You wrote: “Wierwille taught that the true Word of God could be gleaned from "the Bible" by using the keys he taught in PFAL.” Here it looks like “Bible” is used in the conventional sense, because its flaws are implied by the gleaning process. Yes, Wierwille taught keys, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that God inspired him exactly what to teach. *** You wrote: “He clearly taught that "the Bible" was the Word of God but he qualified that statement by saying that, " no translation or version of the Bible may PROPERLY be called the Word of God." Properly, becasue it was not the original. Clear as a bell what VPW was saying. -- That the Bible ( King James, Geneva, etc) is the revealed Word and Will of God. ---when it is rightly divided.” Sure, it is, WHEN IT IS RIGHTLY DIVIDED, but not when it is freshly taken off the shelves in a bookstore. And how do we get it rightly divided, and not humanly divided? By God inspiring him exactly what to teach us. *** You wrote (with my bold fonts): “Mike, PFAL is NOT the Word of God - properly or any other way. But neither can any version or translation of the Bible be PROPERLY called the Word of God. However, casually, the Bible (versions, translations) can be called the Word of God. Wierwille did exactly that.” Yes, casually. That’s how we started out in PFAL, casually. Some of us hippies may have been more casual than others. But is that how we are to end our studies? No. We are to become masters of the Word. In order to graduate to that level Dr told us to master written PFAL, not our casual KJV Bibles. *** You wrote : “But PFAL cannot even casually be called the Word of God where the Bible can be, because the Bible was translated from texts that go back to the originals that were ‘God breathed.’” No. The translations were not done by God’s exact revelation in all places and in all points. The translations were given by the flesh of men and committees. One translation contradicts another. Result: we either have no God-breathed texts, or God supplied our need in written PFAL. *** You wrote : “PFAL cannot be even casually called the "Word of God" because the evidence shows that it is simply a peice-meal collection of plagairized, stolen, reworked and possibly some original material (some good and some not so good) put together by VPW. It goes back, only to an alleged promise, sealed by an unconfirmed snowstorm. No, it does not ONLY go back only to that, but also to the benefits thousands of only somewhat careful and persistent students derived and still derive from it. The evidence you cite was produced by people biased against the truth of PFAL being from God, and refusing to utilize all possible approaches. You seem to think that God is forbidden to utilize the piece-meal process to get His Word into print? Why do you forbid God that? If God was involved in inspiring the pieces or parts of the pieces, then it wasn’t theft. God is the owner.

doojable, You’re comparing apples with oranges. The quote you supplied of mine was addressed to Tom Strange and not you. You initiated the issue in your manner, but Tom repeated the issue in his manner. I chose not to address your handling of the issue, but Tom’s. Maybe you should have taken that nap before posting. I can’t follow what you mean about intra-thread commenting at all. Please repeat it if it’s important. *** I wasn’t being sneaky. There was a miscommunication. Oddly, the same thing happened with Goey. There it was I who erred and mis-communicated, but the same charge of being sneaky was leveled at me. Agape thinketh no evil. I was not being sneaky in either case. I’m still writing my response to Goey because his is longer.

dmiller, You wrote: “Why do you continue to mention tapes, when you have said they are only *history*. Seriously -- I'm wondering. What *new ideas and surprising facts* are we going to learn from them (via your presentation of such), and if we quote you on it, will we be refuted (as before) for looking at the *tape* vs. the *written*??” Why are you making a simple set of ideas unnecessarily complicated? Let’s divide this issue into two major divisions: historical value and doctrinal value. *** Let’s first look at historical value. In the quote you supplied I simply stated that the tape and print record has some valuable items for us all. What kind of value? Historical value. Many, many threads and posts here involve what happened to us in our TWI experience. Many, many threads and posts here involve what we were taught in our TWI experience. Many, many posters supply details to these experiences and teachings based on their memories. Memories are flimsy in many, many ways. Do I need to prove this? Gads, please say “No.” The tape and print record are better than memory. Is this hard to understand? *** Now let’s look at doctrine. Please keep in mind that I am speaking from the perspective that God commissioned Dr to teach His Word like it has not been known since the first century. If you do not keep this in mind, at least temporarily believing it as an intellectual experiment, then you will not understand what I say below, as well as many other things I post. If you do not like “intellectual experiment” then how about “step into my shoes to see this” or “try looking at it from my perspective.” If you do not want to keep this in mind, at least temporarily, and insist I prove it first, then you will NEVER understand me. Get it? If God commissioning Dr is too repugnant for you to hold it in mind for the amount of time it takes to read with comprehension, then it’s over and you CANNOT understand me. Your refusal disqualifies you from understanding. I was often told, and it makes perfect sense, that when Dr spoke, he was pretty careful to speak what God was teaching him. When he spoke into a microphone, he was much more careful to track with what God was teaching him and eliminate what he felt God wanted not spoken. Following so far? Wouldn’t you do the same if you had thousands of eager young students hanging on your every word? I’ve been often told by people who worked closely with Dr on printed publications that had his name on them that he was ten to one hundred times more careful to get EXACTLY, word-for-word and punctuation included, what God wanted in print. Two of Dr's editors I regard as very, very close friends of mine, spending hundreds of hours in converstions with them over a twenty five year span. I lived across the street for two years from another editor, but knew him less well. I also talked to and e-mailed with a few others. Dr put much more time into his print record, and much more effort, and checked it over and over and over (more times than I want to write "over") before releasing it. He focused on much more minute details than he did for his taped teachings. Very, very often his taped teachings served as preliminary, early drafts for a later printed teaching. I've often posted that the film class was more of an introduction to the books, than an end product. One major error of most grads, me included, was that we tended to treat the film as the big enchilada, and the books as mere souvenirs of the class. Dr tried to correct this for the last ten years of his life and we refused to hear it. We blew him off, and this guilt lies more with leadership, the “higher” the leader the more guilt. So, because I want to know accurately and in detailed form what God’s Word and will is, I now pay the most attention to the print record for doctrine. This was a major reversal for me starting in 1998 and it took a few years to reorient my perspective. Can I get some doctrine from tapes? Yes, but it’s less sure. Why is it less sure? Because Dr put less time into his tape efforts COMPARED to his print efforts. Physically editing tapes AFTER the original is made is infinitely more difficult and time consuming than editing print text BEFORE it is released. I worked in the Tape Duplicating Dept for two years. The AV Dept. had only a few hours to very slightly edit the Sunday night tape for length or noise reduction. It was very rare for anything to be removed from the teaching and never was anything added that I ever knew of. It would have been big news if something was added. Early Monday morning the "working master" tape was delivered to the Tape Duplicating Dept. and we had two days to make (I think) two thousand copies to be mailed out as soon as possible. *** When there is a conflict between a tape and a printed record in Dr’s teaching, the print takes precedence. For starting out in coming back to this Word God taught Dr and Dr taught us, it’s got to start with the print record as a strong foundation. After that foundation is laid and firmly in place some tapes can be brought in for supplementary benefits. That way conflicts between the two can be spotted from the more sure print foundation, than vise versa from the less sure ground. When Dr was starting to wrap up the last ten years of his ministry he often and increasingly urged us to master the print record of his teachings, not the tape record, not the Advanced Class, and I might add, not our somewhat corrected KJVs. *** For doctrine (God’s exact Word) the print record far exceeds the tape record. For history (what happed to us, accurately) the print and tape look pretty equal to me. *** Sometimes I post on history, sometimes I post on doctrine, sometimes I post on both at once or closely adjacent. As I have admitted several times, I sometimes err in this policy because of my vast and extensive tape history, a history much more tape oriented than most grads. Do I need to supply details? I could fill a page or two but I don’t want to bother. It won’t help anyone.

Goey, You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘The Bible is revealed Word and will of God’ __ (Not any particular translation, but as it was originally given )” So, any particular translation of the ancient scriptures is NOT the revealed Word and will of God. And any particular VERSION of the ancient scriptures is even less the revealed Word and will of God. Therefore any translation or version of the ancient scriptures is NOT the Bible. So where IS the real Bible, the real revealed Word and will of God? Answer: The real Bible is in the first century, and not in any bookstore, regardless of the titles men put on books of their own doing. Problem: What good is this real Bible to us if it’s so far away in time and inaccessible? Solution: God re-issues His Word, and as His ways are characteristically not like our ways, His re-issue does not conform to man’s traditions in MANY ways and throws religion into a tizzy. *** You wrote: “Wierwille: ‘If a minister does not believe that the Bible is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.” Let’s work this a little and see what happens. It is my opinion (which MAY be totally on the money{Hi Tom}) that from the context, Dr’s use of the word “Bible” here in this passage may not the same as his more formal definition of “Bible” you supplied in the top quote above. People do this all the time, wander from one to another usage of a word to another with context supporting, and this is why nearly every word in every large dictionary has many listed uses. I’ve never yet seen a word with only one use, but there may be a few. I think Dr’s use of “Bible” in this passage is the standard KJV. Let’s substitute and se if it makes any difference. I’m willing to take this chance because in this passage I very well know that Dr is not talking about the minister holding in his hand an “as originally given” kind of Bible. Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the KJV is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.”” That looks pretty good to me. Let’s go back to the original passage, but this time substitute in Dr’s formal definition, instead of KJV. Mike’s paraphrase: ““If a minister does not believe that the set of ancient scriptures as originally given is God's Word and if he thinks that it is full of myths and forgeries, what would be the man's actions be if he followed what he believes? He would get out of the pulpit if he were honest with himself.”” Gee, that looks pretty good too. I’m happy. We can move on now. *** You wrote: “Mike: The Bible is tattered remnants: Unreliable __ ‘Just like the ancient scriptures suffered from man's interference in mis-copies, forgeries, possibly even total loss, and CERTAINLY mistranslation, so did the other sources have contamination.’” I’m not sure what the last phrase here is all about, “so did the other sources have contamination.” If I wrote it, I forget the context of it. It would be nice, if you’re going to quote me, to reference the location. Now, I totally disagree with your stating that my position is “The Bible is tattered remnants.” It’s a fact that the ancient manuscripts are fragments of varying lengths, none of them complete, and many a mere page or so. They are very tattered. What we have of them is not a complete collection, but only remnants, and worse, there are many miscopies and forgeries mixed in with them. Does anyone disagree with this? I don’t think so. It’s a fact that the critical Greek texts are modern scholarly efforts to reconstruct what the complete originals must have said, AND TOM, they are opinions, and in some cases mere (wrong) opinions. It’s a fact that translation is an art and not a science and many mere opinions get into the mix. There is great disagreement between linguistic experts and hence the many differing translations and versions in Bible bookstores. But it’s NOT a fact that my position is that revealed Word and will of God is “Unreliable” as you put it. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** doojable, I do that to sometimes. Everyone needs a rest from these things, especially when you think of how many words we are writing. I have sometimes taken off for months. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Tom Strange, We finally have some multiple points of agreement to celebrate! You wrote: “This thread (along with any involving Mike) always gets 'stuck' in the same pattern of Mike throws out his unorthodox opinions as 'statements of truth' and others state theirs in that they believe they are only Mike's opinions and they believe they are "not of God".” I agree we always get stuck, and I’d add that it usually revolves around the same theme of Dr being flawed and/or me being flawed, while I scream to get the topic back onto the contents of PFAL. I’ll also add that in the process, I think have been successful in injecting into the collective GCS consciousness many new ideas and surprising facts from the print and tape record on ministry history. I plan to itemize them someday. Just on this thread, just from memory, we’ve covered great ground on the law of believing and what was forgotten about it, counterfeit seed, the “lots of the stuff I teach is not original” quote that so many forgot, Dr’s many forgotten claims about written PFAL whatever label (God-breathed, super special, etc.) you want to use, and many more small items of forgotten PFAL material. It is certainly the case that very few posters here accept what I have posted in between all the distractions, but they at least have been exposed to it and have had a chance to START thinking on new paths. So, Tom, I’d disagree slightly on these threads being completely bogged down. *** You wrote: “For those who take the discourse seriously I think it actually helps them 'bone up' and re-affirm what they believe. Of course this too is just my opinion.” But Tom, if it truly is “just” your opinion, and not any more, and therefore wrong, then why post it? Oh... whoops... I’m trying to celebrate our agreement here. Yes, it certainly DOES help me 'bone up' and re-affirm what I believe. The challenges have been very enlightening. Dr tells how when he had a weekly (or was it daily) radio teaching it forced him to bone up on many more details than if he were just studying on his own. *** You wrote: “Personally, I think God has a lot of other bigger things to occupy His time than what banter takes place on a message board called GSC.” The banter, yes, is not worth God’s time. But the bringing back to our awareness of what He had written into PFAL, no, I think this is the absolute BIGGEST thing on God’s agenda. Back to some agreement: I’m particularly pleased in how you included all of GSC here, and not just the threads I post on, which was what your post started out focusing on. Last night I was sore tempted to write on how I thought God was not pleased by the some of the activities on MANY more threads than these I gravitate to. There are often many things I want to post on, but I refrain for many reasons. I’m glad I refrained on this one, because I think you put some things here better than I could have, and certainly with more GSC credibility than what I could have mustered up.

doojable, Have you come to rescue me from all the talk about me? I need it! **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** Tom, I got it. **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** **************************************************************** dmiller, You wrote: "What did Moses do, after he saw the burning bush, And what did docvic do, after he saw the snow ????" For Moses we have scripture to tell us what he did. For Dr we don’t have scripture to tell us what he did. We do, however, have the MANY thousands who came to know God from PFAL like never before and never since. You don’t see them testifying here at GSC, but that’s because they still respect him. Many of them have told me they wont come here for all the negative reports about him and what he taught, even though they do know many things went wrong in the ministry. These many thousands teach what he taught them in their fellowships, and that can be readily determined in many ways. ...Oh, yes, we also have the testimony of a few here that he had sin in his life, but scripture already had assured us of that.

dmiller, Good point. Your credibility increased. Not kidding. Not condescending. ****************************************************** ****************************************************** ****************************************************** ****************************************************** Tom, You wrote: “I know how to behave and discuss things with folks. It's as much about how one projects or portrays oneself as it is anything...” I’ll watch how you move closer to learn. In the meantime, can we drop this issue? I’m doing my best to be civil with whoever wants to be civil themselves. ****************************************************** ****************************************************** ****************************************************** ****************************************************** CM, Feel free to bring up any PFAL topics. Page number references will help. You wrote: "i'm still ready to talk pfal __ and it still has not been acknowledged by you Mike __ although i posted as well as others the exact words" With so many posts it's easy for me to miss some or fail to acknowledge some unintentionally.

Goey, I know Dr doesn't use those exact words, but he does imply it, and quite strongly. Try reading those 22 statements again. You breezed through them all in less than 50 minutes from the time stamps, probably less. That's like less than 5 minutes per statement. I've spent years pondering them and still see new things when I return to read them again. ***************************************************** ***************************************************** ***************************************************** ***************************************************** templelady, I agree that Dr’s simple statements claiming guidance are not proofs in themselves. The reason I posted that list just now was because Tom asked if Dr said that kind of thing. The reason I originally posted those 22 items weeks ago was to show how much we missed, not to prove that Dr was right. The only way I know of to verify that PFAL is of God is the same general way many of us came to believe the original scriptures were of God: study, and a lot of it, and application in love, and talking to God about it a lot. *** You wrote: “Surely there should be one other person in the world who saw that snowstom, saw those gas pumps, was present when GOD Spoke to VPW, but there never was.” I expect that some did see that snowstorm, but it sounds like it may have been the small rogue type. Did you see the post several years ago by Lifted Up where he said he saw two such extremely small yet extremely dense snow storms? I’m talking so small that mere blocks away no one would see it. Would you like me to re-post that testimony? It would be a task to find it, but I know I can. I’m not surprised that no one was in the office with Dr to witness the event. It was a private thing between God and VPW. However, we do have the fruit. God promised Dr then that if hw would teach it, He would teach him his word like it had not been known since the first century. On the tenth anniversary of CES they issued a newsletter where they admitted, in spite of all their differences with Dr, that it was entirely likely that the PFAL package taught more of God’s accurate Word than any other package since the first century up to that date it was released. **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** Tom, I hear you, but must remind you that you’ve not been in my shoes. You have never been ganged up on here, and I doubt it ever happened to you outside GSC either. It’s a relatively rare thing to be attacked over and over by many people for a long time. I think I’m dealing with it pretty well, but I do know I make mistakes. I appreciate your concern, and again, will welcome any specific pointing to a specific error on my part in lacking civility, especially if you mention it in private, the way Jesus taught it should be.

Tom, I apologize. It looks like I chose the wrong word. Would “condescension” be a better one? It looked condescending to me, more than a compliment. I saw perfectly well that I was being polite to T-Bone when I was writing the post long before you pointed it out, and didn’t need you to point it out. If I am also wrong in feeling like you were condescending I again apologize. Please believe me that I know when I’m being polite and when I’m getting tough. Usually both are on purpose. *** You wrote: “I spent a great deal of time trying to communicate with you about this threorem: THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR POSTING IS NOT IN YOUR MESSAGE BUT IN YOUR METHOD.” Hey, I hear you, but do you hear me? I’m all for civil discourse, and don’t need compliments nor general communication regarding it. If I do err in this area, a specific pointer will do to help, and a private one is better than a public one, as Jesus taught. Those who do not want my message will not hear it no matter how much honey I soak it in. Those who DO want my message will brush off the sand and eat. Now let’s get away from this focus on me and my method. If you want to start a thread on etiquette and communication I’ll visit it and read it some. Right now I’m bored silly with all this talk about how I type my message. Let’s get back to PFAL. *** You wrote (on topic): “Mike... would you also be able to provide the quote where he said "PFAL is the Word of God" or "PFAL is God's Word re-issued"...? __ Could you post and reference that quote as well please?” Yes. I already posted 22 such statements of Dr’s on this very thread, the exact quotes and documentation referencing their locations. The first and second “thus saith the lord” statements by Dr were in Post #294, a long subdivided post, in the subdivision addressed to doojable, in purple fonts. I’m not sure if page numbers or URLs will work for everyone, but I use the GSC default settings to determine the number of posts per page, as I suspect most do. If that setting is changed then page numbers will differ, as well as URLs, maybe. The Post #’s should be the same for all, though. So, statements #1 and #2 are in Post #294 and is here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=280 Statements #2 (repeated) through #7 are in Posts #310, 312, and 317 here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=300 Statements #8 through #11 are in Posts #321, 322, and 337 here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=320 Statements #12 through #16 are in Posts #349, 354, 355, and 356 here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=340 Statements #17 through #20 are in Posts #362, 363, 373, and 377 here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=360 Statements #21 through #22 are in Posts #381, and 382 here: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...pic=9131&st=380 There are more such “thus saith” statements, but these are all I have written up so far. And let’s not forget the #23 dmiller offered not many posts ago here.

There were mistakes and some rough spots in the film class. This is the reason Dr often urged us to get the books open more. If we had done that these misimpressions would have cleared up. They did for me and I was not all that persistent nor sharp. But even in the film class there was enough information to lead us to the right impressions on this issue if we were thorough and listened carefully. In segment 16 of the film class he says: : No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation! I have found out from many interviews of grads in recent years that very few did listen very carefully to this section. I think many felt this segment was boring and dry. It didn’t have anything about answered prayers, the power, or abundance and I think many tuned it out. I even had a bizarre discussion with a Region Leader in 1988 who seemed to be totally ignorant of this segment. That he hadn’t listened carefully to this area of the class was the farthest thing from my mind as we talked, so I though he was trying to teach me something new or weird the way he talked. Only many years later, after I discovered that hardly anyone listened carefully to this segment 16, did that 1988 conversation finally make sense. Just a few minutes after the above quote in that segment 16, after urging us to listen carefully, Dr says all this: You see, we have no originals. Each translation, each translation is no better and at best it is no better than the interpretation given to the translation by the translator. in extant today as far as anybody knows. The oldest manuscripts that are available (and these are not originals), these date perhaps to 400 to 430 A.D. And perhaps some of the old Aramaic materials in possession of our friend Dr. George M. Lamsa may be a little older than this. But the oldest in extant for the most part that students or scholars refer to as originals are really not originals. They date to 400, 430 or 500, 600, 700 A.D. But these oldest manuscripts, and this by the way here is the abbreviation for the plural manuscripts--mss. Whenever you see this (mss) in a Bible or in writings it refers to the different manuscripts if it's in the singular the last "s" is deleted then it refers to manuscript. Now of all the manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts that we have available, many of them we as Biblical research men and women at The Way Biblical Research Center have had an opportunity to study in microfilm form and other forms. These manuscripts which the scholars refer to as the originals which are not original because the original is entirely different. Because the original is that which God gave when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit. But of the oldest that we have in extant, the oldest are called uncils, the word u-n-c-i-l-s, referred to as uncil manuscripts. The word "uncil" means simply all caps. They are beautifully done. They are delicately, wonderfully presented. It's just a marvel to see some of these old uncils, how much patience and time men spent with them. The uncils are written in all caps like if it were in English which they are not, but if they were in English it would be all caps. And the words are all put together one right after the other. There are no periods, no semicolons, no paragraphs, no verses, nothing. FORGODSOLOVED, just all tied together. The next oldest in manuscript form are referred to as cursive, c-u-r-s-i-v-e. The word "cursive" means nothing but running hand, that's what the word "cursive" means--running hand. And here it is running hand (write: forgodsolovedtheworld) just one after the other, forgodsolovedtheworld. These are the manuscripts. Now, the scholars know that the uncils are older than the cursive. But we have discovered in our Biblical research work that at times the records in the cursives are more accurate than those we have found in the uncils. You know what this tells us? This tells us that that particular cursive was taken from a uncil which is older and predates the oldest uncil manuscripts which are now in extant. So, you see we have no originals. At best we have copies, that's all. And it was of the originals that we learn from II Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture was God-breathed." And all scripture which is God-breathed is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for [which is] instruction in righteousness:" "That the man of God" in verse 17, "may be perfect, throughly furnished [through and throughly perfected] unto all good works."

I agree that would be ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. Dr did his best to present the material, but we did NOT do our best to receive it all. We got distracted. This is good news in that there is a lot more treasure still to receive by opening the PFAL books and studying them again.

dmiller, Regarding Dr’s statements about the originals you wrote: “It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*.” From the last part of this quote, might I infer that you have just come up with a rough form of “Thus saith the lord” Statement Number 23? ;) But more seriously, sometimes he was referring to the critical Greek texts which ARE in existence. Most people think that the critical Greek texts are the same as the originals, but they are not. It sounds like they are the most important, the most critically important texts, and therefore the originals. But no. There is a HUGE difference between the original texts and the critical texts. The critical Greek texts were written over 1500 years after the originals. They were done by relatively modern scholars who criticized the various DIFFERING ancient manuscripts (fragments usually) and rated them according to which ones should be accepted and which rejected. Just because a manuscript is ancient doesn’t make it accurate. They CAN’T all be accurate because they differ from each other in many, many places. Dr was very clear in his teaching that there were no originals in our physical possession to be physically seen. However, many of us missed many details he presented. When he did refer to the originals (in his book and magazine form) it was always in the light of what indirect but compelling physical evidence was available and/or any revelation God gave him on it. Anyone who came away from studying PFAL who thought Dr had physical access to any originals didn’t study hard enough. Many fresh out of the film class did think this way, and I was one of them for a while. But as I learned more detail I saw this was a misimpression that Dr did clear up for those sharp enough or persistent enough to catch it. *** Here’s another way to think about it: even if some archeologist or text scholar announces on the front page of the NY Times that the originals were just discovered in a cave somewhere, how could we know they really are the originals? In addition to the originals being lost, all means of verifying what was original and what was not have been lost too.

dmiller, You paraphrased John Schoenheit thusly: “The doctrine I hold, should be the engine that drives me to loving others unconditionally, yet so often, it is that very doctrine that constructs a wall between me and others. Thus, that which should connect me with others in love, is actually a divisive, rather than a connecting belief.” You then wrote: “Why do I mention this?? It suits a lot of us here at GSC to the *T*. You, me, and others also.” Here at GSC we are not bound together by any common doctrine or even any goal to achieve a common doctrine. What binds us here is our common background in a situation that went haywire. In the church of God, which I assume is the context Schoenheit is describing, there is this goal of achieving unity of doctrine. I can see his paraphrased statement applying much better to that setting than to here. STILL, though, it’s a good principle he spoke and it does have some applicability here. I’m all for avoiding the erection of walls, but what if those walls are already erected and firmly in place? Civil discourse, of course. Sometimes unconditional love requires reproof and correction, as the Bible says. Those words don’t fit in well here, though. Jesus was sometimes tough on his apostles, even to the point of threatening expulsion if they didn’t walk with him. We can also read Jesus’ saying something that looks to be the total opposite of what Schoenheit said in Matt 10:34-37: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Unity and peace with false doctrine in place is false unity and false peace. Seeking unity and peace without good doctrine is sure to fail. Still, I am all for civil discourse. *** You wrote: “The rest of the tape showed how to get out of the ~~~~~ *Me, me, me, My doctrine over all* --- and learning to accept other's viewpoints.” I can accept another who holds a differing viewpoint without accepting that viewpoint on one particular item. If I love that person, then I will look for ways to help them. If my viewpoint is right and theirs is wrong, then the loving thing to do is help them see this. If they refuse, then it’s still right to continue loving them, but including them in work that will crucially require that proper viewpoint is foolish. Expulsion from that work is right, otherwise Jesus would not have threatened it when it was an issue. Remember, I’m talking about differences on one particular item. If there are many items, then working with them becomes less and less possible. If the entire viewpoint is different and off the Word, then outside of witnessing, any kind of spiritual fellowshipping with them would be foolish. I’m not talking about secular interactions like work or social functions. It’s not possible, or even always good, to totally separate from unbelievers. Civil discourse is proper. *** You wrote: “Hey --- I'll be the first to admit. I'm guilty of that, but then again so are you. After hearing what was said on that tape, I decided to try a little more humility in my life. I've always admitted that I haven't got all the answers, even though some of my posts have indicated otherwise.” When we do have SOME answers, though, it’s good to hold on tight to them and not let anyone talk us out of them. In our culture of relativism, though, this concept of having ANYTHING correct is excluded. Many people think that there ARE no answers and that the idea of getting anything correct is excluded from all thought. Absolute truth has become a fiction for our culture, and we have lost all footing on which to discuss it in many areas of our culture. When God gives us an absolute answer on something, the humble thing to do is offer that answer to others with the insistence that it is greater than mere opinion. *** You wrote: “How about you?? Willing to make your doctrine an *engine* that gets folks to listen? Or are you content with the alienation process??” Well, like I said above, the alienation is already in place. We’re all as alienated from each other as the workers on the tower of Babel were, all speaking a different language, because we all drifted from the unifying doctrine once held us together. On top of that, I explained how the alienation of me from many GreasSpotters occurred months before my first post, and after posting I was mercilessly attacked en masse. Many here have a chip on their shoulder when they approach me. I don’t think you have ever experienced anything like this, at least not here. I must often make a decision to stand tough with someone who is trying to bully me, or get as tough or tougher in their face as they are with me. I vastly prefer to respond politely, and I’ve demonstrated this. Tom Strange just chided me in my recent response to T-Bone, acting as if my politeness was unusual or new-found. It’s not. I know perfectly well how to be polite, and prefer it. With you (and anyone else willing) I am happy to lay aside the boxing gloves and get into the material printed in PFAL that we all so sorely missed. Please take all this rambling as an acceptance of your peace offering. Agape.