Mike

CM, I'm here to discuss PFAL and it's contents. I know you are not up to that task.

CM, Haven't you figured it out that your philosophy is not going to make even the slightest dent in my armor? If you expect IN ANY WAY to convince me to leave PFAL you are dead wrong. If you are on this thread to change my mind you are in the wrong place and wasting your time. But I think you’re on this thread for your own ego. You come where the traffic is to play mystic. Your ego can’t stand the loneliness of starting your own thread to spout your poetry so you come here. It’s cheap. You have earned zero respect from me. The revelations God gave to Dr and he put into PFAL took 27 years to earn my total respect, and there was much good fruit that did spring from span of time. Come back in 27 years and show me the great blessings you have generated for thousands of people with your philosophy and you might be able to get my attention and a modicum of respect. I have no use for your mere spouting. You're playing a role that's common. I've spent a lot of time with mystics and pontificators just like you, and that kind of counterfeit is too easy for me to spot to even make it interesting. Figuratively, there's one of you on every street corner. There is only one PFAL class; there's nothing like it in the world. It's from the True God and you words are not.

CM, You wrote: “it is not a law, it is your living breathing heart doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth not some set in stone unmoveable piece of truth...” I agree with this. The “law” part I see is addressed not to us but to the angels and devils, to the inanimate objects of the universe, to the creation. The “law” part of the law of believing is binding on God’s universe, lining up with us as we believe His Word. In our living breathing heart we apply the elements, the doctrines, the law to each and every unique situation with heartfelt comapassion. It was the corrupted handing of the doctrines that made them set in stone and unbendable, inflexible to adapt to new situations. It was a gross oversimplification. I like this line: “doctrines are for getting a good idea of the truth” The proper mix of which doctrines apply to each situation and how strongly is a heart thing, lining our hearts up with God’s. In order for us to hear God’s advice in these matters, the doctrines need to be in there, in our hearts. We need to be ALREADY familiar with them when the time for application comes. When the time for application comes it’s too late for learning the doctrines. They already have to be in there. That’s why we were told to master PFAL. Now is the time for learning the elements of that law. First we put them inot our heart, and then God directs our hearts to uniquely apply them properly to each unique situation.

Tom Strange, I had written regarding dmiller’s AC: “Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them.” You wrote; “Mike... Shirley you're not serious...” Whatsamatta, you own stock in Dymo Inc. or something? But seriously, we were taught in Orientalisms (did you ever take it?) that when we see the word “name” in the Bible it meant a whole lot more in that Eastern Bible lands culture than the same word means to us today. But that aside, didn’t you see the context that my passage on Adam naming the animals sits in? I can point to four spots in that context that should have answered your question. Context is a big deal. Want me to point out those four spots? *** You wrote: “You're welcome to disagree... but PFAL was not the author of the signs, miracles and wonders. Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?” I still disagree. It was PFAL that wound us up. It was previous grads of PFAL who supported us in learning to think that way, that God is good and that He empowers us. You ask “Why are you insistent on giving PFAL the glory over God?” but you omit that I accredit PFAL to God. God inspired PFAL, PFAL helped us to believe, God gets the credit. If I thought that PFAL was NOT of God, and that PFAL produced the signs, miracles and wonders, THEN I’d be robbing god of the glory. But I thank God that He brought forth PFAL and that it helped us greatly. *** You wrote: “I have no use for ‘a lot of essay information’ nor did I ask you to write any. All I'm asking you to type is one word for each statement listed: OPINION or TRUTH. Heck, if you want just type ‘O’ or ‘T’.” I’m not surprised that you have no use for the an essay’s worth of information. Your eschewing of the context for your pet quotes testifies to this, and your skipping the context of my post on Adam and the animals testifies to this. Your eagerness now for my labels leads me again to suspect that you are not in the least interested in the details of WHY each item of pet quotes would get each label, which is what an essay would convey. I have no use for your contextless, detailless curiosity being satisfied. If you want to discuss things and examine ideas, I do like that. I suggest you take that course. *** I wrote almost the same thing before and you quoted me thusly: “Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction.” You responded with: “Because there's a credibility issue with you Mike. IF you claim these statements are "God's Truth" there's really no more need for discussion. If you claim they're your OPINION, well then maybe there's room for discussion.” This saddens me, Tom. Why would there be no discussion if a label were to be “God's Truth?” I know that it’s not because you will then meekly accept it. What’s the matter with someone speaking God's Truth? Are you of the opinion that no one can do that? Do you believe in the 9 manifestations? Do you believe in God? just where are YOU coming from, Tom. If you are going to warn readers about me, shouldn’t you be open and honest about your beliefs? What do you believe? Who is your God? *** You wrote: “Mike, what happened to your attempt to be polite?” Being polite doesn’t mean being submissive. You must earn my respect, and you’re not starting from scratch, but from in the hole. Relax your program of discrediting me, focus on the discussion at hand, and you have a chance of earning my respect. It will take time. You have a lot of impolite posts to make up for. *** You wrote to doojable: Dooj, IF they're his OPINIONS, then it doesn't matter... And I guess it really doesn't matter either if he thinks they're "God's Truth"... but it would be nice: 1) to know where he's coming from and 2) if Mike would quit treating us like dirt because we don't believe the way he does.” Tom, you started it. You and many others treated me like dirt EVEN BEFORE I started posting. Want me to dig up the posts and prove it? I was the subject of ridicule here MONTHS before I ever made one post. I don’t remember if you participated in that round, but you do. I do remember in my early months of posting that you were right there with a mob of posters trying to wear me down and insult me with all sorts of junk. I can find those posts if you deny this. I have wonderful times here discussing things with people who disagree with me. I do it in PMs and e-mails too. Most people disagree with me, but only some treat me with contempt and disrespect. It will take time for you to re-make yourself in my eyes. Discussing the topic at hand (and not me) is the only way you can do this. *** You wrote: “He wants to share his message here. I have no problem with that, I just want people to be sure they know where he's coming from. He's not always real clear about that.” I suggest you wear the appropriate mask and cape if you are going to rescue readers from my wily clutches. I also suggest you focus on discussing things with me to properly find out where I’m coming from, because you’ve consistently gotten me wrong for years. And Tom, you too should tell us where YOU are coming from. I asked you some questions above that you can be clear and forthcoming about, you can do what you falsely accuse me of. I am quite clear on where I am coming from. I don’t know why you think I’m hiding anything. I post what I post.

Tom, Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected them in my post above, but I don't know how long I've been doing that. My error stems back years ago when me and Raf were hashing these things out on his thread. It was in our discussions back then that the nomenclature of Apparent Error (AE) and Apparent Contradiction (AC) evolved, as well as Actual Error (again AE) and Actual Contradictions (again AC). I guess I sometimes confuse them. *** I am trying to be polite to you, but not totally accommodating. I’m not ignoring your posts above, but they do take me considerable more time than some of the others. Your focus on me and my posting makes the discussion more convoluted, in that you and I discuss what was discussed about what we discussed long ago, AND because you hit me with multiple points so often. With the other people our discussion is more limited to fewer points and more focused on the PFAL material instead of me. Plus, they don’t have a history of attacking me the way you came on years ago. Back than there were many on the attack and I had to develop a thick skin and a cautious manner. It will take you some time to distance yourself from that history. *** As for my labeling “my opinion” or “my revelation” the list of pet items you relentlessly bring up, have you really thought it through what you would do with such labels? I do. I must consider the possibility of you dropping your polite mode and using my labels as further fuel for your fires. But even if not, after my labeling wouldn’t you then have the curiosity as to whether my label on each item was an opinion or a revelation? Couldn’t you then engage me in even more convolutions focused on me and my labeling? I wonder what other posters would think of you if you did the same thing with them on every point they made, if you demanded opinion/revelation labels. I think you’d be in some trouble with many others here and quickly if you did that to others. In polite conversation people usually assume that everything someone says is an opinion and not as an absolute truth as in revelation, unless explicitly stated as absolute truth. In such conversation, to overtly label someone else’s statements as opinions carries the quiet implication that the statements are MERELY opinions and WRONG ones at that. In such situations a labeler of another gets to quietly (instead of overtly) state that the wrongness of the labeled opinion is absolute. When I see these kinds of labelers use this ploy it looks cheap to me. Anyone can do it and not have any absolute truth to back them up. For you to ask me to do my own labeling as opinion seems to me to be an escalation of that kind of cheapness. If you are really intellectually curious, and not merely looking to have me help you in the next round of smears, then I’d suggest you limit the number of points you make inquiries of and you back off from the opinion/revelation demands altogether.

dmiller, You wrote: “Shucks. I may be *sloppy* by not citing pages from PFAL, but the fact that you also (bullinger) remember this, shows (to me that even you thought) it was there. I don't really want to haul all the pfal books out of storage, but I will if I have to.” I wish you would do that hauling. It could change your life... unless you’re totally happy with being able to proficiently operate only 3 out of 9 manifestations. But, maybe you didn’t get what I said. I said that your lack of citing references is a shaky (not sloppy) start, if it’s limited to just what you remember and not anchored to the texts. There are always details in the texts that our memory has either distorted or dumped. Most starts are shaky and can only be such, but what I encourage is bringing in the solid texts as soon as possible after such a start starts to shake. What I labeled as “sloppy” was your characterization of the mystery. That was really butchered. *** So, what did you think of the string of possible ways I suggested to resolve the Apparent Contradiction (AC)? I thought of another one. There’s an entire drama of the First Heavens and Earth to consider, even though we have very little data on it. The idea of spiritual seed could have come from there, maybe? As long as you’ve been harboring this AC, have you thought of ANY possible solutions like I suggested (my Method), or were you happy to see the AC (Raf’s Method) and just let it fester for years? *** You wrote: “Docvic taught two different entities concerning this subject, and only one of them could be right. Not both.” As far as I can see, the two entities are in an ill defined stage, and not at all ready for being declared even as an APPARENT contradiction. Maybe a WC, Wannabe Contradiction, but it’s not at all apparent to me that there's any contradiction.

topoftheworld, You wrote: “I have no desire to look at anything else.” How about looking at the response I gave you some time back? Did you do that? Not that I want to imitate TS’s hammering nag style, but I asked you a couple of times if my response to you about the TVTs made any sense. Most grads never suspected that the verbal traditions ever differed from what was in the record. I never knew it until 1988 when I went back to the film class soundtrack and saw that it had Element #3 (limiting our believing to the promises of God) sprinkled all through it, while most of our late 80’s TVTs had it quite missing. *********************************** I was away for a while and now see a bunch of posts above to respond to. Maybe soon.

doojable, You wrote: “I'm sure you are thoroughly convinced that you have proved your point - but if that were the case you would not be getting the flack that you are getting.” Not so. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. I know posters minds are not being changed today, but there’s tomorrow and there’s also silent readers today who may be ready to hear these things. *** You wrote: “The way you write, Dr is greater than Jesus Christ himself. I say that because you are willing to take as revelation many, many, many, many,* more words of his in writing alone (not to mention some of his spoken words) than were ever recorded by the Saviour himself.” Jesus Christ never spoke his own words, but only the words his Father taught him. Also, you may be discounting (people usually do) the words Christ Jesus spoke in his greater ministry, not his ministry as recorded in the Gospels, but in his ministry seated at the right hand of God. These things he taught to Paul and Paul put them into written form. You also seem to have forgotten that at the end of John’s gospel it says there was a lot more that Jesus spoke that was not recorded. Your also discounting the possibility that Dr got his revelation from Jesus Christ. Dr did claim in the Intro to JCNG that Jesus Christ appointed him as a spokesman. I’ve carefully kept my respect for Dr in the proper place, and my respect is much higher for the revelations God taught him and he put into written form for us, because it is the Word of God. *** You wrote: “I read most of the posts you referred to. The were not set up logically in the way I am asking you to do. I do remember that you said that the only way to get this logic is to act anyway and get back into the class. I'm not sure about anyone else - but I for one do not have very many books left - and I'm not about to buy any more.” See what I said to Ex10 about this, especially the part about PMing around for that free CD. *** You wrote: “You know, when I said that this "believing thing was getting too complicated" - well it wasn't because I no longer remembered all those elements. Things became complicated in the way it was presented - like a big ball of rubberbands that was growing intead of getting smaller.” That was merely a theatrical device to hold attention. I wanted most to show that those who criticize the law of believing haven’t even begun to see the whole presentation ot this law in PFAL. *** You wrote: “You know in the class when Dr conveys why we should study the Word - he doesn't say because it says its God's word. He SHOWS its perfection. He points out how reliable the Word is. And strangely enough even with this Bible that you call incomplete and "not God's word" Dr managed to get people born again and speaking in tongues. He spent years studying that Bible - not his own work.” The KJV is an excellent tool for beginners. Dr had to start where we all were at. There was a modicum of cultural respect for the KJV back then (now who knows?) and Dr started with what we could handle. If Dr did not have the guidance of God on those years he would not have been so successful. God wants to take us MUCH farther than the first three manifestations, though. The area for learning revelation and impartation is written PFAL. That’s why Dr so strongly urged the AC students to master the material many years before his death. It was our refusal to master the material that caused our growth in the other six manifestations to be so paltry. Leadership had to fake receiving revelation in the later years, but even that they couldn’t do when the ministry meltdown occurred. They were exposed for the natural man minds they are. *** You wrote: “So why don't you start there. Show the perfection of something you are promoting.” I’d like to, but I’m so often being hampered with distractions. I’d like to bring out my many page references from my ALRI file, the Arena for Learning Revelation and Impartation that I mentioned above. Soon maybe. My goal is to get into a lot of PFAL passages, and end this incessant talk about me and my posting.

Doojable, I’m just hashing out some ideas on this. The adversary's copy jobs are never exact. The idea of having a son, with that bond, and the infusion of DNA, and the similar characteristics was there, with Adam, and even with the animals reproduction. Here’s a good possibility: Adam trained the animals with his personality stamped into them. Naming the animals meant far more than getting out a Dymo label maker and putting “Leo” on the lion’s collar. Adam trained them to behave the way he wanted them to behave. Adam put his mark in them. Plus, (and I think this is the best so far): Genesis 3:16 with the idea of the seed of the woman was out there in the open for the adversary to leach off of. ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ Ex10, I had written: "The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God." Then you responded with: “Speak for yourself, please. I knew tons of "researchers and teachers" when I was in TWI, and am surrounded by ex-ways since leaving. I don't know anyone who thought that PFAL was error free, or contradiction free. Then or now. __ There were always "problems." Doctrinal as well as practical. Anybody I know/knew who was a thinking human was aware of this fact. Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class. But that is different that what you are saying.” I think you missed the logic of what I was saying there. What I was saying in that line was along the same lines of when you said with: “Sure, many, myself included believed that PFAL, for the most part, was a pretty good bible class.” Tom had asked me why anyone would want to come back to master PFAL, and I said that it “was a pretty good bible class” and the teacher told us to come back and master it. I was trying to say that it’s NOT necessary to believe that it is error free to heed the advice of our teacher and come back to look at the written part closer. I also mentioned that if someone insists on making the soap operas, and sin gossip, and rumor mills their center of focus for years and years, then they will UNDERSTANDABLY have a difficult time seeing any motivation to come back. *** You wrote; “Now I'm alot older and wiser, as are most others in my little corner of the world. Going backwards, and embracing a class that for all practical purposes is not "available" any more, is not a route that I want to pursue in my efforts to be a follower of Jesus Christ.” In order to follow Jesus Christ you need to follow the Word of God. That’s what he did; he BECAME the Word he followed it so close. If you want to accurately follow the real Christ, and not a theological construct of your own making, then you need to get a hold of the accurate Word that God taught Dr and Dr taught us in writing. There are practical difficulties in mastering written PFAL if you’ve gotten rid of your books. However, there are ways to get them, including a free CD that’s floating around out there that has all the books typed out on it. It has some accuracy problems, but it’s pretty good, and I’m sure you can find it by PMing around a little. The books are easily xeroxed, too, as well as findable on eBay. Plus I’ve found several in big-city used bookstores and antique shops, though the supply is dwindling. The Way bookstore is now open to us all, so some can be ordered, even though there are problems with them changing some things. *** You wrote: “If you want to go there, fine. I'm sure you've got plenty of company. But obviously most of us who have posted here, are not interested in "mastering PFAL." Been there, done that, found it lacking, as have most of us here, especially us who were corps bees.” No! You’ve only partially been there, only partially done that. You found the TVTs you absorbed lacking, not the complete texts. ************************************************************ ************************************************************ ************************************************************ ************************************************************ Tom Strange You wrote: “I mean, one post you say they're conclusions you've reached, one post you say they're truths you've proven, other posts you say they're opinions based on truths that only you see because only you have mastered PFAL to the degree it takes to "see" these truths.” You’re lumping together apples with oranges and then you say I’m not consistent. Point out some specifics. There are many things I’ve seen in there that anyone can see with one fresh reading. There are other things that need a little time to see. *** You wrote; “All I have done Mike is take a few simple statements that you have made, that stand on their own and express the context they were taken from, and ask you whether or not they are TRUTH or OPINION. There's no need to muddy the argument with "can't they be both", no one disputes that indeed they can, by TRUTH or OPINION I am asking you to differentiate between TRUTH = God's Word and OPINION = Mike's word.” Instead of cataloging the ideas in my posts this way, why don’t you focus on what I’m pointing at? *** You wrote: “And I contend that the only way you have come up with these "truths" and conclusions is because you have immersed yourself in PFAL and ignored REALITY. Why did God give you five senses if he didn't want you to be aware of what happened around you? You cannot ignore the character of the man who is delivering the message.” I spent may years looking at the 5-senses sin “reality” you seem to think is light. I have posted here that I jumped into the sex scandal doctrines that floated around nearly ten years earlier then most posters here. Here’s something I wrote in a PM just this morning to someone who was not around here when I first started posting. You may have not seen my early posts, but I happened to have dealt with the ministry sex problems about 10 years before anyone else did. In 1978 I was a twig leader and noticed that there were some problems arising involving that problem. I confronted the people and we sat down for weeks working the Word on the subject. I had seen these problems for years and finally decided to do something about it. In those weeks we covered 11 different heresies promoting casual sex that were floating around. Nearly ten years later I saw the John Sheonheit paper on sex, and the 14 Appendices where he too dealt with the same heresies I had worked on. He had three more than me. I have seen in my own life that concentrating on this subject is a mental drainer. It does no one good and everyone bad. It is darkness, so I’ve learned to turn away. When there was something I could do about it, in 1978, I did it, but I see no value in focusing on sin when the job we were given is to master the light, the revelations God gave Dr. Tom, you and many others here have ignored the REALITY of the revelations God gave to Dr and Dr put into writing for us, and you have immersed yourself in baloney. *** You wrote: “For us to believe all of the things you want us to believe, we have to believe that all of the things that veepee said were true. And that's just something I'm not going to do nor do I think will others.” I wrote that those who chose to focus on sin have little motivation to come back to PFAL. I wrote that those who want to do the opposite of LCM, GEER, and JAL and all other top leaders need only do what Dr told us to do and master PFAL. I wrote that those who saw the PFAL worked once in their lives can simply heed the teacher’s advice to master the written material with NO BELIEF in the God-breathedness of the material. *** You wrote: “Just like ex10 and so many others have pointed out. PFAL was a nice little Bible class. Many signs, miracles and wonders occurred because of the love of God operating in people's hearts, not because of PFAL.” I disagree. The reason the “love of God was operating in people's hearts” back then was BECAUSE OF PFAL and the ministry support of previous grads. *** You wrote: “Finally, Mike, please, just so we all know where you're coming from, which of these statements are your OPINION and which are GOD'S TRUTH? If it's God's Truth and also happens to be your opinion, please categorize it as God's Truth.” No. I’m not going to waste my time mentally cranking up for a lot of essay writing just to satisfy your desire to have this information. What possible use can you have for such information? Why don’t you just follow the discussion and focus on the proper target, PFAL text, and not so much on me and my text? I don’t consider your request to be a useful one. It’s a distraction. You should have asked me that when I made those statements. Be sharper in the future and you may have your curiosity satisfied.

dmiller, Your setup looks a little shaky and it has no page references. Relying on memory is not the way to handle these things. For instance, you wrote: “Docvic taught that being born again was the mystery.” This is very sloppy if not downright wrong. More accurately, the mystery was that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs and of the same Body, and the riches of the mystery is that it’s Christ in you, the hope of glory. Jesus taught on the new birth before Pentecost, so that was no secret. Genesis 3:16 talks about the seed of the woman; no secret. *** You then wrote: “Docvic taught that the adversary can only COPY what God does.” I’d like to see that in writing and see the context. Of course, I remember something like it, but I don’t know where it is in writing. If this is important to you we can find at least one such place, but still it would be better to find them all, like with the law of believing. But I’ll proceed with some preliminary data. Luke 3:23-38 reads thusly: And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Now all of times the word “son” appears here it’s in italics in the KJV, EXCEPT for the first one in verse 23. The translators properly supplied the implied word "son" for the other verses, even though it looks to be the figure of speech ellipsis to me, for emphasis. In verse 38 we see that Adam was the son of God. The adversary copied the idea with Cain.

dmiller, The known entity is that PFAL once worked well for us and we saw that it was from God. Not knowing that will pretty much prevent a grad from following my argument and from opening up the books a lot. I can’t reach any grads here who either did not experience PFAL being good and from God or who have forgotten it and are determined to keep it forgotten. You're still looking for some proof from me that PFAL is God-breathed. The proof comes from God when people immerse themselves in PFAL. All I can argue is that we missed a lot of what’s in there. I can point out and quote some of what is missing from grads memory and perception of what is in PFAL.

Tom Strange, You quoted me thusly: “Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them.” You responded with: “Mike, why on earth would anyone want to invest the time and energy to 'master PFAL' if they didn't think that?” My answer to your question here is immediately after the line you just quoted. Here it is again, the quoted line and the answer to your question: Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that. Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it. I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me. *** I suggested to you: “Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? ‘Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.’” You responded with: “Because that's a lot different than "PFAL is God's Word reissued". Nowhere in that statement does it say that PFAL replaces the Bible and is God's Word reissued. That statement is a simple deal that God allegedly made with veepee.” Yes, but it DOES express the IDEA of Dr claiming to have an authority that’s 2000 years unique. You just claimed to not be so interested in the mere words “reissued” and “replaced” but now you are interested in them. Had you seen my distancing myself from the bald use of the word “replaced” last year with ChattyKathy? Did you see the many qualifications I put on it? I wish you had. If you DID see those qualifications, why are they so absent now from your quoting me? I have qualifications and reservations for the word “reissued” too, but I never see that included in your synopsis of my position. Your abbreviation of my position by focusing on those words distorts my position, and fail to summarize it. *** You wrote: “How can I "smear" you if all I'm doing is quoting your words? Asking you to explain them? How is that a "smear". No, it is simply a "where/how did you come up with that?" type of thing.” Are you unfamiliar with the distorting power of lifting quoted words out of their context? You claim that “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” That is not the whole story. You’re lifting words that I carefully placed in a context to arouse attention, stripping them of their context, and alone those words can look pretty wild. You are hiding the essence what you are doing by saying “all I'm doing is quoting your words.” You’re doing much more than that. you’re distorting my words by the way you selectively truncate my quotes. *** You wrote: “These things (the few that I keep asking you about) are things you have presented as "truth that I [Mike] have verified myself." That's why I keep asking you about them. If they're just your opinions how hard is it to just answer "that's just my opinion"?” Because I don’t think they are MERELY my opinion. The reason I adopted them as my opinion is because I see their truth. It should be obvious to you that many things are my opinion simply because I state them. I shouldn’t have to constantly state “that’s my opinion” when I want to strongly state something. It waters down the statement if I always include that. Maybe that’s what you want, to see me uncertain, or to see my statements as wimpy opinions. I am certain that these things are true and that’s WHY I adopt them as my opinion. *** I wrote: “The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements. __ Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix. __ Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements. __ Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements. You asked: “And these are your OPINIONS right?” Why do you insist I water them down with “there are only my mere opinions” ? I think these particular statements are almost self evident. They SHOULD be your opinions too! *** You wrote: “Mike, what you have 'proved' is that you have come to different conclusions/opinions than the rest of us here.” Not merely that, but I’ve also proved that there are many things in written PFAL that you all have either forgotten or that slipped past you unawares. I post quotes that were forgotten or that never were absorbed often here. *** I had written: "What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true." You wrote in response: "Yet you accept that as a fact, the truth, and expect us to as well.” No! NOT TRUE! I don't expect you to accept that as truth. Over and over I’ve pointed out, even more than once on this page, that I cannot prove “that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true.” Yes, I do accept this as fact. But I do NOT expect you to accept it as well. Not on my word, anyway. It's ONLY by opening up the books a lot and meekly mastering the material that you can accept such a thing. I painted the word “only” in red in my post to doojable above. I’ll repeat it here: How can the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved? By opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved. I cannot prove it, and I don’t try to prove it. *** I wrote: “Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan.” You responded with: “It is very apparent that you believe the former while I am convinced of the latter.” Yes, this is apparent. It’s also apparent that there is a lot more information that needs to go into this decision, and that information can ONLY come by opening up the books a lot. If you are convinced of the latter, it’s because you have immersed yourself in the soap operas, the gossip, the rumors. Immerse yourself in the books and you’ll see a different picture emerge. *** You wrote: “Mike, but you have claimed many times before that it was, in fact 'correct' and the truth. You have often presented the "thus saith the Lord" statements as the 'backup' for one of your stances.” I have tried over and over again to point out that Dr claiming such does not make it true. I have tried over and over again to point out that most people forgot that he claimed such. I have tried over and over again to point out that the proof of his claims can only come from a great familiarity with the written record. *** You wrote: “Of course, that's just your OPINION, even though it was stated as FACT.” You act as if both can’t be true. If something is fact and you happen to believe it, then you opinion is also fact. Do you think that opinions are always wrong, or can never in principle, be proved to also be fact? There are those who think this way, that there is no absolute truths and all is mere opinion. Is this your stand, that no one can get their opinions lined up with absolute truth because there IS NO absolute truth? *** Dooj said: “I believe that this is what Tom S is asking for. You keep wanting to start with a premise that only you see as fact. Can we all back up and get to proving that premise?” You commented: “That's the crux of the biscuit.” Proving that premise takes immersing yourself in written PFAL. It ain’t coming from me. I proved it for myself by immersing myself in written PFAL. Come on in! The water’s fine!

Tom Strange, I was writing the following to dmiller and just noticed your post. I'll get back to your post later. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** dmiller, Did you read my post to doojable above? You echoed her comment of: “Those 22 points aren't it because they still call for a willing supension of disbelief.” Do you now see that the 22 points do NOT call for any suspension of disbelief WHEN it’s known that they are only supposed to show that we forgot how strongly Dr claimed to have authority from God. Now as to the VALIDITY of the claims, sure that’s a HUGE bite to swallow. That the claims were made I can prove, but the validity of the claims I cannot prove, not on a computer screen. I can prove it to myself, by immersing myself in the books and meekly mastering the material. You can too. *** Now, here’s another point to keep clear. It should not require a prior belief in the PFAL writings being God-breathed to come back to them and meekly master them. That would be a vicious cycle if I stood for that. Coming back to PFAL and meekly mastering the material only requires a few things like a remembrance of seeing long ago that PFAL was SOMEWHAT of God. With that kind of memory, AND seeing from my posts that there is a lot of material within written PFAL that was forgotten or that had slipped by unawares decades ago. It would also be important for such a returning grad to NOT have their head cluttered with a huge number of soap operas of how things went wrong. That kind of focus on gossip and rumors could disqualify many posters here from being able to come back to PFAL and meekly mastering it. I’ve tossed out one other motivation to meekly master PFAL here before: that since ALL the top leaders totally ignored Dr’s final instructions to master written PFAL and failed to even tell most other grads about that last teaching, and had been operating this refusal to follow Dr’s advice for almost ten years prior to 1985, then it might be interesting to do the opposite of what Craig, Geer, JAL, and all the others did. They all refused to master written PFAL, so what will happen when someone DOES master it? This could conceivably motivate some grads to open the books. It did me.

Tom Strange, I said: “No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either.” You responded with: “...then why did you make the offer?” Simple: I offered to commit a SMALL block of time.” *** I had written: “I see ‘Give God the glory’ as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law.” You responded with: “...I thought your whole premise in this little excercise of yours was that these elements needed to be 'in play' for the 'law of believing' to work.” As I wrote to doojable above, some situations call for heavy use of some elements , some light. For instance, if I set out to operate the law in an area where I have lots of practice, success, and have built up a lot of 5-senses skills, then for that situation I may need to beef up my awareness of “Give God the glory” as I act on my believing so that I don’t overly rely on my own abilities to get me through. In another situation I may completely lack any skills or experience, so giving God the glory as things progress is easy as pie, and I need not beef up my awareness of that element of the law of believing. *** You wrote: “...you're assuming that "PFAL is written revelation"... is that what you would like for me to use instead of "PFAL is God's Word reissued"? Of course, this too is your opinion since we've had 'testimony' from folks on these boards that that was in fact not the case.” I can only remember one such folk, and he backed off from discussing it with me. I’ve explained in some detail why I am able to discount their testimony, and if they show their face(s) I will bring out a lot more of those details. Instead of you jumping up and down as to what my position is, why not use the terminology of Dr’s to advertise it? “Mike believes that God audibly said to Dr in 1942 that He’d teach him His Word like it had not been known since the first century if he’d teach it to others.” I can guess why you don’t want to use a sentence like that. It has less shock value to your intended audience. Am I right. I suspect that you want to smear me, not understand me. The drive you’ve exhibited to me for years (somewhat excepted now) is one of a smear artist, not a searching student. I will not be at all surprised it after this round of interrogation you revert right back to a simple minded paste-up smear campaign. I’d love to see you prove this expectation wrong. *** I had written: “I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention.” You responded with: “...FINALLY... they are your OPINIONS then... I don't really know about all of the others on these boards but, if you had stated things that way in the beginning instead of presenting them as "The Truth" I don't think they would have had as many problems with you as they have... I know that's what's always baffled me... that you've presented these OPINIONS (or if you want to call them IDEAS) of yours as "The Truth".” No, not finally... If you watched all my posts (which is a huge job even I have difficulty with) you’d have seen that this is not the first time at all that I have admitted that some of what I post is opinion, and some is truth I have verified myself. I try to prove some things, and merely point to other things, but I’ve been open about the differences. I think you may have either missed these admissions or they sailed right past you as you looked mostly for smear material. *** You wrote: “...yes, I agree, politeness is much preferred. Thank you for being polite.” I will try to change my attitude toward you. I’d also ask you to soften your approach a little, and lessen you demand list. Working on one thing at a time is often much better than hitting me with a large list. *** You wrote: “Now... reading your two posts immediately precding this one I'm confused (again)... wasn't the whole pretext of this little excercise of yours to show what elements must be present to 'operate the law of believing'... it seems that now you're saying that, at times, any or all of these elements could be involved... which is a lot different than the path I thought we started down when you referred to them at different times as "elements of/to/for the law of believing"...” As I said above to you and further above to doojable, each situation demands strongly on some elements, not so strong on others. *** You wrote: “Further, you said you were "seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me [Mike] collect the elements that make up the law of believing"....” That was when I was going through my mock discovery process. It was a ploy to keep attention and to introduce each element one at a time, instead of flashing all then at once. I was calling for those grad posters here who claimed to have done a lot of PFAL study in the past to participate in the “discovery” process. I wanted them to scratch their heads and see if they could come up with any elements themselves. *** I had written: “The Law of Believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law.” You responded with: “That's why I'm a little confused. If you're now saying that saying some elements are present... or all elements must be present... which is it?” Here I’m talking about the PROPER EXPRESSION of the law, not the proper application of it. The proper expression of the law would include all elements. We need to study all of the elements in our PFAL mastery, but a particular situation may only call for our heavy attention on one or two elements. Likewise, before anyone could expect to properly criticize Dr’s teaching of the law, ALL the elements must be brought into that mix. Study and criticizing PFAL require all elements. Everyday situations may only call for some of the elements. Make sense?

Doojable, A lot of the logic I use was spelled out in that lengthy post I put on your “Ok once and for all” thread. Did you ever get to read that lengthy post of mine? I know it was terribly long. It was 6 weeks in the making as I was writing in my head during the holidays, when I had no time to post. Then I repeated the logic again before I did the 22 “thus saith” statements. Did you see that there? It looks like you missed it, and I think Tom Strange missed that too. I may go back and look for it. *** Just a quick repeat of that logic: The 22 “thus saith the lord” statements do NOT prove that Dr was speaking for the lord, just that he DID INDEED claim it. You don’t have to by my premise to see that Dr DID CLAIM to have authority for God that was VERY special, 2000 years special, an authority that has not been around since the first century. I was only trying to prove that Dr DID claim it, not that the claim was correct. *** Many posters assert that I am misreading and distorting what Dr says in PFAL, and that he did NOT claim to have special authority. My 22 “thus saith” statements prove that it is THEY who have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding these claims. Likewise, my list of 10 Elements of the law of believing prove that my posting critics have not properly absorbed PFAL’s message regarding the DETAILS in the way PFAL presents the law of believing. In general, I often point out other things regarding many, many topics in PFAL that they either forgot or that slipped past them unawares decades ago. I have proved in many ways here that there are many things in PFAL that grads have missed and that’s why Dr told us to master it. I have proved that PFAL cannot be blamed for failing us when it is us who have failed to properly absorb all that is in PFAL. What I have NOT proved is that Dr’s claims to this VERY special authority are true. Still, however, I have shown that Dr went way out on a limb in making these claims, so there is no gray area he can occupy. Either Dr is that man God selected to bring teach His Word like it had not been known since the first century OR he was a very dangerous charlatan. *** So, how do the claims of PFAL being God-breathed be verified or proved? NOT by reading and dissecting my posts, but by opening up the PFAL books again and immersing yourself in the material, meekly mastering it. That’s the only way that can be proved. Do you remember any of these logic pieces from that lengthy post now? *** Tom Strange, Does this post help you with any of the answers you want? I just haven’t had time to work on your recent post above yet. *** Doojable, when we see the 10 Elements to the law of believing it only LOOKS complicated at first. If we had truly mastered PFAL long ago, each entry on that list would look like an old friend as the list grew. If we had previously mastered all those elements then the law’s 10 elements listed would not look like a difficult thing to flow with. It’s because that list of 10 elements is so NEW to so many grads here that it looks complicated. Spending much time with all these elements will give us a flow and a familiarity that makes applying them, in the right mix for each different situation in life, an art, and an art that we can always look to God for inspiration as we blend the mix of elements that particular situation calls for.

Mike, You wrote just immediately above: "All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in." I agree and would add: All of the seemingly valid criticisms of Dr's teaching on this law of believing were due to simplistic understanding of this law by both the critics and the hearers. Critics are constantly forgetting (or were never aware of) Elements crucial to the whole picture of this law.

doojable, You wrote: “The class tried to break down the mechanics of believing so that it could be understood. It was never supposed to be a recipe and a rote thing to do.” No, that again was the TVTs that made things “a recipe and a rote thing to do.” I’m trying to show from the texts that it was FAR from a recipe. Trust me. I’m showing that the law of believing is a huge deal with many Elements. Our TVTs only scratched the surface of the many, many Elements of that law in PFAL. I was play acting about the mounting complexities. I knew along they would accrue. The law of believing is far from a formula and more like a forest of many varied trees. Lots of variety. Picking the right blend of Elements for any given situation cannot be done by formula because there are too many different situations, and the formula would be far to complex to use. It’s a spiritual art, working with these many elements, like pigments. My collection of Elements could never lead to a useable formula. The number of elements is still rising, it’s a chaotic situation if we try to nail it down to a formula. God has his part in the artistic expression of our handling of these Elements in each and every differing situation. *** Our responsibility is to simply have a deep familiarity with as many elements of this law of believing as possible. This gives us something God can work with when it’s time to operate the law of believing. All of our misadventures with believing and the abusive TVT doctrines that grew up were due to simplistic handling of this law. People were constantly forgetting or being unaware of Elements crucial to some situation they found themselves in.

Tom, You wrote: “As to the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... again, YOU are the one that offered to put your explanation here in one place. If you're backing out on that's... OK... just be honest about it.” No, not backing out, but not committing to a huge block of time either. I got a question for you. What bugs you so about the word re-issue? Is it the word “re-issue” itself, or the idea behind it that God would have some VERY special books brought into existence, much like the process He used 2000 years ago. Instead of pressing me on the word “re-issue” why not press me on the grander idea behind it? *** You wrote: “If it works for the sinner, I don't think that "Give God the glory" is a requirement.” I don’t think of it as an absolute requirement, but as a factor. And I think you read the wrong messages into what Dr means when he uses that phrase. As I said before Dr also taught that the sinner is hampered in their efficiency operating the law. I see "Give God the glory" as a guard on the efficiency of operating the law. It’s an element to keep in mind (as much as possible) when operating the law. *** Back to the “re-issue” issue. I will say this. Twice doojable brought up the idea of there being a difference between the written ancient scriptures and a modern operation of the revelation manifestations that involved writing the revelation down. Did you see those two comments by doojable, and then my responses? Those two sections would be key to see. I think I can retrieve them, but I want to know if you were paying attention to my posting then. See, Tom, the written revelation of PFAL never uses the word “re-issued” or anything like it. It’s a word of my own coinage, meant to communicate an idea. The idea is that God supervised the printing of PFAL to bless us grads very big. *** You wrote: “I consider your statements of truth that I've quoted to be radical and frankly unbelievable (at the current time)...” That’s understandable. I too consider them radical. I never thought I’d ever be thinking what I do now. I too found them unbelievable, until I started seeing things line up as I returned to written PFAL. It was only after some heavy exposure to the material that I could believe these things. I can’t prove any of these things, I can only point to some of the things in the books that got my attention. If these same things get your attention to the point that you too return to the books and immerse your self in them, THEN, and ONLY THEN will you find them believable. To some degree your 5-sense exposure to the books will give you great confirmation and validation, and to another degree God working with you as you do these things will give you great confirmation and validation. I think if we engage in polite discourse, a lot of ground can be covered, but a genuine return to the books is absolutely necessary to see the whole picture and to see it big.

dmiller, You wrote: “The more *elements* you find, prove (to me) that you are seeking validation to your pre-conceived ideas.” Well, I have a confession to make. It may be apparent to some, but I still must confess to something. I haven’t been finding these Elements at all; I’ve been aware of them for years. I’ve been going through a mock discovery process of this list of 10 Elements to focus more interest on each item, and spreading out the display of the list over days maximized the number of times people thought about it. If I had just splashed the list of 10 Elements complete, then each item would only get minimal attention. I wanted to show in great detail that Dr’s teaching of the law of believing is spread out all over the whole set of books. None of us EVER mastered it. It’s much more rich than we knew before. Oh, yeah! That reminds me of another confession. I was completely play acting, thespianating, about the growing richness of the law too. I wanted to emphasize that too. We can never get a big ego over operating the law of believing. For each and every situation in life God has to show us the proper mix of the elements to have that law work. God has to be intimately involved in the process. Our part is to maximally familiarize our 5-senses brains with the printed paper PFAL writings. That means just making friends with all the ideas in there, like the 10 Elements of the law of believing we all “discovered” here these past couple of days. There are many more ideas in there that are full of God's light. .

Tom,, You wrote: “Regarding this "combative" issue... all I've ever done is ask...” That’s not been my perception. You’re a little more lucid with me now, but in the past you usually come on like gang busters with demands and jeers, and I have no trouble seeing what you are up to. As a general rule of thumb it is good for you to remember to be polite. I learned almost two decades ago to stand up to demands and jeers and all sorts of intimidation tactics many of the Corps leadership had resorted to. When you come on like some stereotypical Young Turk and try to interrupt, jeer, intimidate, bully, you should expect a dose of your own medicine right back in your face. I learned to stand up to bullying corpse leaders who were a lot tougher than you, so I’d suggest a slower, more integrated approach, because that's all I'll tolerate. *** You wrote: “Regarding the "PFAL is God's Word reissued"... ummm why should I do that? __ YOU are the one that offered to explain it... are you backing out on that now?” What difference is it to you if I type a fresh explanation or if I refer you to a large bank of posts doing the same thing? It takes effort for me to type it out fresh, it takes effort for you to look them up. I already exerted effort typing them out many times in the past, so it’s YOUR TURN to put forth the effort. *** You wrote: “ Regarding your current "teaching" on believing... Isn't God's word supposed to be simple? You got me there!!! I didn’t expect this thread to find so many elements. It has gotten a little out of hand. WHY DO YO ASK? You didn’t find another Element to further complicate it, HAVE YOU? I hope not... *** You wrote: “I don't recall veepee (or anyone else) coming out with all of these "elements" that must be in place or operated to enjoy a "promise of God"...” Yes, I know you don’t recall all that; a LOT of people don’t recall all that. That’s the whole point here, to REMIND you that vpw DID teach us all that! We’ve got documentation posted for most of the Elements, and the others will get theirs too. Besides, I’m not talking about the simple situation of simply enjoying a promise of God. I’m trying to get the whole law written down in an abbreviated, list form. Complicated situations might call for a complicated mix of Elements employed. Simple situations, like you mentioned, might call for a very simple mix of Elements employed. *** You wrote: “...what happened to ‘works for saint and sinner alike’?” Good point. To a degree, I think a large part of the teaching behind that phrase was to help explain how the ungodly prosper. It’s my impression Dr ALSO taught that phrase help encourage us to try believing even when we’re out of fellowship. I(t was like an encouragement to help overcome self-condemnation, and an encouragement to get back in fellowship. We’ll have to check the texts to see how this gets taught. I know he teaches that the law would work better when we stay in fellowship with Father, and when we know the Word. I know he teaches that it should work much better for God’s people. *** Tom, I’d be against placing that phrase ‘works for saint and sinner alike’ on our Elements list in the sense I think some might get the WRONG impression that we can go out and sin a lot and expect it to not degrade our operation of the law of believing. THAT would be an abuse of this teaching, and I’m against it. I do recognize that some in the past may have gone off this very cliff of error regarding the law of believing. The Elements list is supposed to help us operate this law, so we should see something like a “Fellowship is the Secret.” How’s that sound? That’s like the positive side of that phrase about saint and sinner. I still give you credit for coming up with this one. The Elements of the law of believing 1) Believing equals receiving. 2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. 3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God 4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s. 5) Believing equals action. 6) Consider community believing. 7) Need not greed. 8) Manifestation faith/believing. 9) Give God the glory. 10) Fellowship is the Secret

Tom, I really think you started it long ago, when I first started posting. In my opinion, YOU came on bullying me, so I returned the exercise, and it’s cycled for three years now. You tell me you perceive me as combative against you. Your perception is accurate. I tell you that I perceive you as combative against me. My perception is accurate. *** Have you tried doing an advanced search on this board to answer your own question? Try using the phrase “reissued” and maybe another spelling of it like “re-issued” and then a change in tense with “reissue” and “re-issue” and tell me what you get. You see, in those instances we have the context to tell us a lot. I think I’ve discussed that one phrase family of “reissue” about a hundred times. Why don’t we start there, in the record? You do the search and come back with the results. ************************************************************** ************************************************************** ************************************************************** ************************************************************** MEANWHILE, I have disturbing news. I have fond STILL ANOTHER Element to complicate this messy law of believing situation. Oddly I found it in doojable’s post of a long past thread-page, many, many posts ago where she posted this: doobjable Post #429 Feb 25, 2006 “My main objection to the "law of believing" way of thinking was that people began to think that God was just some puppet on a string that they could manipulate by getting needs and wants parallel and invoking the name of Jesus Christ. __ As I recall, TWI absolutely hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’” I had promised to respond to this old post of doojables (and Ex10’s too) and that’s when I discovered this new element. Yes, I remember abuses of the law of believing like that one you mention, dooj. They certainly didn’t line up with the teaching we often heard of “giving God the glory.” In fact, they were the opposite of it. You recall a TVT accurately, where “TWI hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’” That TVT is a distortion of the good doctrine taught in PFAL that when it comes to the manifestations, like SIT, we must not wait for God to move our lips, our throats, our tongues. We had our part and god had His part in the SIT matter. Other matters that ratio may vary, either way. But the TVTs got a hold of that good PFAL doctrine that there are some aspects in life where we must act, and other aspects where we should just allow God to act. *** But I digress. I started out saying there is a new Element in here. Here it is: #9 Give God the glory. I didn’t even mention Number 8, did I ? Maybe it’s because I dread the added complication it brings. Oh well, here goes: #8 The manifestation of faith/believing. I don’t know much about the manifestation faith or if it’s called the manifestation of believing. I need to read up on what PFAL has there. I also need to look up where “giving God glory” comes up. This is getting to be quite a job! The list is easy, corralling all the text blocks that back up each Element in the list is a lot of work. This could take weeks! Anyway, here’s the list so far: The Elements of the law of believing 1) Believing equals receiving. 2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. 3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God 4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s. 5) Believing equals action. 6) Consider community believing. 7) Need not greed. 8) Manifestation faith/believing. 9) Give God the glory.

********************************************* ********************************************* ********************************************* ********************************************* Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Does anyone know of any more Elements to add to the list. I'm almost sad to say that I do have another. Sad in that this list of Elements to the law of believing is getting longer, AND some of it's entries are getting more complicated. This is a rather tall order to master, this law of believing. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. Just a little, mind you. I mean, when I add this Eight Element it might jog other people’s memory of other Elements, and this list could get out of hand! Maybe I shouldn’t ask for more suggestions to the list after all. What do you think, Tom?

Tom, you missed it here: "2) I don't believe that it is within the board rules to tell someone to "shut up", at the very least it's not polite 3) Telling me to leave because I don't post the way "you want me to"? Mike, I think you're on thin ice here." Sinced you're the thin ice judge, am I allowed to adjust my GreaseSpot settings to "Ignore" on your posts? Would I be on thin ice if I put you on "Ignore" ?

Tom, If I were to paste in here 3 past posts where I explained "PFAL is God's Word reissued" would you shut up and either follow along the sequence a little or leave? Oh, yeah, BTW, it's also the case that some (I hope many!) of the facts I present in my message mesh nicely with Truths of God. I do my best, and that's all we can do. Instead of MY text being the topic of conversation, I want the PFAL text to be the topic. See the difference? My text. PFAL text. Two very different entities. Got it?

Tom, You wrote: “You cannot present these as God's TRUTH and expect us to buy into it without explaining.” You’re right there. The quotes you have (with bias) latched onto are not God’s truth. God’s truth is presented to us grads in the written forms of PFAL. There’s another quote you can use. What I present here is MY message. It’s what I see, to the best of my ability, we missed in PFAL. What you have latched onto are often mere rhetorical peaks in huge tracts of texts in almost 5000 posts. What I say here are the facts, the 5-senses facts, as I see them. What is written in PFAL are the truths. I frequently have dealt with the quotes you throw at me. You simply failed to see them and save them in your “Bust Mike” file. You failed to save the contexts from which those pet quotes came from, indicating to me that you are a sloppy reporter, and not worth my time. I’ve given you enough time. I will now turn my attention to other reporters here. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** Doojable, I see now that you actually ALSO came up with #7 Element, “need not greed” abbreviating the way you put it. We can add that to the list. *** So, did anyone remember “community believing” from the AC or elsewhere. That’s a bit of a complicated one. That can be bothersome, because truth is supposed to be simple. I hate to see complications arise where I don’t know how to get a handle on something. It’s pretty hard to do anything about community believing if it’s negative. I remember Jesus had a hard time with the community believing of his home town. And also, I think in Acts there was a place where community believing was high, and lots of miracles took place. In one place Jesus put unbelievers out of the room to get some work done. Community believing needs to be taken into consideration, but how do you measure it? This is a tuffy. *** So, the law of believing Element list now reads : 1) Believing equals receiving. 2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. 3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God 4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s. 5) Believing equals action. 6) Consider community believing. 7) Need not greed.