Mike

The bigger time soaker is reading through all the stuff that was NOT worth passing on to us. I completely reject your whole assessment of the work he did or did not do. It is pure speculation, and wrong speculation.

What could possibly qualify as such a proof? Really? A string of ASCII text? Could that ever be a proof?

If I missed any important posts in the past day or so, please let me know.

It is sad that this did happen, and a lot. This is one of reasons I started this thread. We were severely hampered in our growth in this area by several factors. I continue to push myself to understand this better.

Please excuse this interruption of the derailment in progress, but on another thread I noticed something. The thread is https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25490-the-integrity-of-your-word/ I skim read the post and the responses is but I didn’t see explanation that I have offered a few times here. I could scour the archives and find large texts I’ve written on this, but I won’t. Just to be brief, the whole plagiarism perspective here at GSC and the rest of the world is one that embraces both (1) the market for intellectual property like books, and (2) the academic publication system. This Plagiarism Perspective is centered on the notion of giving credit, money, or glory to individuals who earn it. This perspective is centered on the notion of man’s ownership of things. The way I look at it is very different. I see lots of authors going back a couple hundred years in the Body of Christ have been sharing their work as ministers to God’s people. God inspires and guides them as they minister to His people. The notion of ownership in this perspective recognizes God as the owner of the inspiration that is in their work. Things in this perspective are done not for individual glory, but for the glory of God. I am so happy God inspired VPW with this model of His ownership. In the 1970s that resulted in a spectacularly wide distribution of the good material VPW had collected, and I am happy I received the end product. It was to God’s glory in my life, for sure. None of the authors represented in PFAL could have done the distribution job VPW did. I am glad the collaterals were not cluttered with lots of footnotes. I was a seeker of God in PFAL, not a University student seeking matriculation. I am glad there were no distractions in the collaterals of lots of names of other authors. For me to chase down such authors early in my development would have been a harmful distraction. I am glad VPW sheltered me from their errors. I remember distinctly being told, before I took the class, that I had to “be careful of Bullinger” because of how he handled the administrations at the end of Acts. Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” was being sold in the bookstore. I am so glad he was the only other author I had to “be careful” of for a few years. Later on I was able to handle them. Those early years were precious to me in their simplicity… no Corps… just me and my collaterals and my Cambridge Wide Margin absorbing the collaterals’ contents with my Bic fine point 4 color pen. I am glad there are thousands of blessed PFAL grads passing on the videos, and tapes, and books of PFAL to their progeny. These items will bless a lot of people in the future like they blessed me in the Seventies.

In between the same-olds are a few items you might find interesting. I posted only half of the scriptures (the double doors half), and the other half (budget) is coming soon. I think we formed some new perspectives on the law of believing, also.

It would be good to keep in mind that this kind of situation only came up for a very small number of verses. These were just little loose ends. I wonder if anyone even knows this?

I hope to see an unvarnished history of TWI written outside TWI-4, but well read within TWI-4. For it to be well read will mean cleansing it from exaggerations. I think some GSC people can help with such a document, if they are able to change their writing styles to more civil and loving ways.

Yes, they have told me about their new CF&S class, but I am repeatedly letting them know that both the old policies and the new policies need to be written in one document like an ECN to properly change a corporate policy. I understand the tort fears. They will subside in coming decades. In the meantime roundabout methods are being explored.

Do you REALLY think I am believing that we should not master 2/3 of the manifestations? That would be kinda crazy, wouldn’t it? Were you more HOPING that I believed that, so you’d have an easy target to pounce on? */*/* My belief is the AC is missing from VPW’s final instructions for a couple of much better reasons. One it that since we had failed to adequately master the foundational and intermediate classes, we ought to focus FIRST on the first 3 manifestations. But really, we were told to not only master those manifestations but the entire classes and the written collaterals also. I don’t know why you zeroed your question down to just the manifestations. */*/* Another reason I see for the AC being missing from the master list is because VPW’s understanding and teaching were not refined to that point. In hindsight, I see the 1942 promise ending up in the collaterals, and not so much as the classes. The classes were introductions to the collaterals. */*/*/* As for the “By the Way” articles in the local newspapers, and the “Our Times” articles in the magazine, I am not sure how to handle all of them. Some are obvious gems, and others seem less so. There are things I am still working on, and the exact boundaries on what should be regarded as worth special attention are still a bit of an unknown to me. */*/* Worth mentioning again is the process may college professors use to write their books, with most of the dog work going to grad students. This process is not well known, but I think it is justifiable. I know that within this framework, some authors are unfair to their workers in not crediting them, but that is the university system.

I never felt discouraged from reading the Gospels. I felt a liberation in knowing they were for my learning, and that the direct applications for me were in the Epistles.

I am a little confused by this. It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together. Could you please cite your source for: wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please". I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class. If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript. */*/*/* This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please" quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared. */*/*/* As far as VPW interpreting the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment I absolutely LOVED that interpretation the instant I heard it. As a child Catholic, I spent a young lifetime trying desperately to keep track of the many grades of sin, to my endless confusion. That one line in the class gave me my money's worth. I have seen other Catholics react similarly to this one line in the class. It really is SHEER logic. Count VPW's interpretation correct.

I have posted several times on 3 different SNT tapes I heard VPW say things like that. It took me years to understand them. I posted on this fairly recently also.

I agree that reading what is written, and even in an easier version like NIV, is a good thing to do. After I finished my 20 year review of the collaterals (1998-2018) I turned to my KJV and started reading for pleasure again. I also started, for clean smooth reading sessions, my own private digital version of the Bible that is largely KJV with corrections. It is only in a few knotty verses here and there that I fall back on VPW’s teachings these days. Most of my Bible reading is with most of the collaterals way in the background. I noticed in the 1970s that many of my contemporaries were not doing a lot of reading in the Gospels. I had lots of questions as I was an avid reader back then, and I was very concerned about the trinity and things like that. I was always checking up on PFAL as I read Jesus’ words. It took some time for me to shift to what Jesus taught Paul in the next administration. */*/* As for the 1 John verse you quoted, I remember what we were taught about that, and it is easy to see in the context. We don’t need any teaching to hold on to our new birth is the clear context of that one verse. Why? Because it is seed; a done deal. */*/* Meanwhile, that one verse appears in a larger text that is teaching us on a VERY NEEDED topic: staying in fellowship and guarding against idols. This major teaching of the whole Epistle has nothing to do with teaching us how to hold onto pneuma hagion, but it does teach us how to hold on to our renewed mind and fellowship.

Yeah. It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice. One saying relates to the Word being issued, and the other relates to the Word being absorbed. The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message. The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden. */*/*/* It is a settled issue to me. In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it. IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident. The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation. Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice.

What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did. What is obviously lacking in your knowledge of the Schoenheit Paper are the 14 punches after the simple doctrine. It is those 14 appendixes that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as hey tried to suppress it all. Those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations were PICK-UP LINES that oodles of ministry leaders and non-leaders, male and female used to get laid in the 1970s and 80s. It was the appendixes that were needed to squelch the TVTs that were running rampant through the ministry. Yeah, the doctrine part is pretty simple.

It that is the only logical alternative, then you implied it. So, I ask again in a different way, do you advocate doing the opposite of what VPW taught in PFAL on avoiding one's own private interpretation?

No. In VPW's last teaching the AC is conspicuously missing from the list he tells us to master. This list is in that teaching twice, and twice the AC is missing. By "collaterals" I mean the printed books and printed magazine articles of VPW. He called them the written materials that come with the class.

What's the alternative? We should read the scriptures willy nilly ?

I have also told the story here several times how Schoenheit TWICE implied to me on the phone that no such bad influence made it into the collaterals.

I've told the story here so many times that I abbreviated it here this time. I was a twig leader and the people NEEDED to get the subject looked into. I did not feel qualified, and would never have wanted to research it on my own. I had to do it for them.

It would help if you remembered WHICH tapes. I have heard similar things, but I can't remember where. The collaterals do not have any of these kinds of comments, though. The reason I ask for your sources is because I like to check the context on things like that. Someday we will have searchable transcripts for the SNT tapes, but that is a long process. I have friends working on it.

Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake. The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either. It's almost a tautology. It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?

Thanks. I appreciate it when we can laugh a little at these things. */*/* With the “Schoenheit Paper on Adultery” I have somehow received (against my will) a long-suit in tracking the history of that document. But I have no stomach for tracking the sexual sins or bad character of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ. The former tracking is an official policy matter, how leadership in TWI-2 tried to suppress that paper, AND how leadership did not see a need for that paper years before it appeared in 1986. The latter tracking is just real serious, un-funny, acting-out what the SNL Church Lady is a parody of. */*/* I was raised in a religious cult that was seriously anti-sex. It was a rural Roman Catholic parish with a large school for grades 1-8. From the first grade on we were taught to confess our sins every Saturday. This was well before puberty. We were introduced to Mary the anti-sex goddess right away. We had no idea what “purity” really meant, but it gradually became obvious as the years went by. This was in the mid 1950s, but because it was rural, it was more like the mid 1940s. Dana Carvey got that Church Lady character just right to make her super funny, but in real life it was not funny at all. It was a daily grind to be super aware of all my sins of commission, omission, and mental intent, PLUS all the other kids’ sins, some of which looked super fun. Seeing posters here seriously caught in the Church Lady trap is a grind for me. I deal with it the way parents of new babies learn to handle the stink of changing diapers. What you perceive as a “shell,” to me is perceived as a gas mask. */*/* But the “Schoenheit Paper on Adultery” is different. Here we are not incompetently trying to sort out the details in a person’s private hidden life, but sorting out the official actions of a corporate board that affects many others’ lives for years following. Properly handling and correcting the mistakes of TWI-2 on the Schoenheit Paper is in the Top Ten items I currently discuss with TWI-4 leaders. I am insisting on TWI-4 issuing some kind of official written statement on this someday. Until they do, and make written apologies to all who were fired over it, the Schoenheit Paper will be a wedge between HQ and me. I hope they mature to the point of see the need for this correction. The other failing of TWI-2 in their behavior in 1986 was not seeing, in the years prior to 1986, a great need for someone to do research into “adultery” like Schoenheit did. That paper was needed many years prior to that date. This may possibly be related to VPW asking Vince and Ralph to research it in the early 1980s. I saw the need for that paper in 1980, when I was a twig leader. It was a raging problem in my twig, so for 2 weeks we worked Young’s concordance, and eventually came to some conclusions very similar to what Schoenheit came to 6 years later when he wrote his research up. We also wrote down all the rationalizations we could remember from the TVTs, and worked on about 10 of them. In Schoenheit’s later paper he called these rationalizations “reasons” and he worked 14 of them. So there was a need in the ministry to work that paper WAY before 1986, and even before 1980, and that has not changed. */*/* Neglecting the need in the mid-1980s for clarifications on sex was one evil that came from TWI-2 (and probably TWI-1 also), and then suppressing the paper when it finally came out in 1986 was an additional evil on top of the first. Those are the two points I am GENTLY pressing TWI-4 leaders on.

Here is Schoenheit's account of Sept 1986. Background of the paper (by Schoenheit date unknown but probably late 90s or early 2000s): */*/* My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions. In the midst of interviewing the women I suspected might have had sexual relations with leadership, I had three different women tell me I would be killed if I tried to stop it. The first time I thought it was a totally stupid thing, but by the third one I really stopped and thought about it. David had Uriah killed for the same reason. To protect my work I sent it to about 7 people I knew and trusted (I do not remember the exact number or all the people now) sealed in an envelope inside an envelope with instructions to "go public" if I ended up dead. I told them that the paper was going to be sent up proper channels, and not to share the work with others. As you know, The Way had strict guidelines for handling research, and at that time I had been in the Research Dept. for six years, loved my job and believed in the system even though I was beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the leadership. I handed the paper in to Walter Cummins in late September. It just sat on his desk. One of the people I had given a copy to had been hurt by the sex stuff and really wanted it to "make an impact." She went to Ralph, who, of course, knew nothing of the paper (like I said, I had not gone public). Ralph talked with somebody (who?) and the next thing I knew there were all kinds of meetings about the paper and all kinds of untrue things being said about me. On October 23d I was "released" from The Way by order of Chris Geer. It was a Friday. I had a lot of friends at HQ still. On Monday at noon Walter got up in front of the staff and told some made-up lie about me violating department procedures and thus being let go. A friend snuck out of lunch and called me to let me know what was said (I did not ask for that but he did it anyway). I got right on the phone with Walter and told him what he did was wrong and that he should not lie about a brother to all those other Christians. I asked to meet with him face to face but he refused. After that there was a huge witch-hunt and more lies were told about me than you can possibly imagine. Even really weird stuff like I believed in the Trinity and the dead being alive. Because I still had friends around the country, I got some requests for my paper. Since I was no longer on staff, and since my "belief in the system" had really taken a blow, I mailed it to anyone who asked. By that time the Trustees and Corps Coordinators were starting a rumor that the paper personally attacked Dr. Wierwille and taught all kinds of false doctrine. Corps going home for "ho-ho relo" were told if they read my paper not to come back in residence. It was also stated that the paper had devil spirits and anyone who read it became possessed. Well, that all backfired because as people read it they could tell that what was said about it was lies. And so there was an escalation of people challenging the leadership and leaving The Way. In time I hooked up with Ralph Dubofsky, Tom Reheard, John Lynn, Mark Graeser, Robert Belt, and some others and CES was born. It took a while for the smoke to clear, but when it did all that was left of us was John Lynn, Mark Graeser and myself, and we have been together ever since. The Lord has been leading us, and now I think we are turning out some really first-class stuff.