Mike

Raf, You wrote: “I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have.” I can believe you didn’t start out with that intention, but I can’t believe it’s not part of you now. Sorry, what you say here is just not credible. *** You wrote: “My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of ‘God-breathed.’” Well first you have to “find out” that it doesn’t live up to its own definition of “God-breathed” before you can “show” it, and you skipped that part. For instance, you didn’t first do an exhaustive study of all the items that showed up in the Blue Book, searching them all out in all of Dr’s other writings before making your pronouncements in your published BTMS study. What you did was a limited analysis at items you felt comfortable with shooting from the hip at, and praising some sections, giving your work an appearance of objectivity. *** You wrote: “You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact.” You forget to mention that I spent 27 years with that critical thinking turned ON, and more than most grads around me. It got me into trouble with them at times and with God at times, me not applying what He wanted me to do as taught to me from PFAL. I’m not proud of turning off THAT ONE ELEMENT of my critical thinking, just relieved that I finished that course and now can FINALLY commit the rest of my life to something. I often envied the commitment that I saw others have toward PFAL and Dr, but now in hindsight I can see their commitment some of it was not well rooted and grounded and they got blown away in the frenzy that followed Dr’s death. Mine is rooted and grounded. *** You wrote: “But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented...” No, the product of your investigation, with your methods in place, had said that there are errors in PFAL. You can’t equate your investigation as thorough, though, because you have not utilized the research methods Dr taught us within PFAL. He taught us them so that we could eventually use them on the PFAL texts. *** You wrote: “What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.” Not to YOUR satisfaction have I done that, but your methods are not my methods. I tried it BOTH your way and my way, while you have only tried it your way. I have seen the subject with a larger number of eyes than you. ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* WordWolf, I had written: “Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.” You wrote in response: “Mike, you're the only one who wants that. Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that. If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.” Oh, like they DON’T show up here when I make a post or start a thread? *** I had written: “At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.” You wrote: “Well, you DO want to control the microphone. You can do that when you control the forum.” No, you DO want to think evil of me and you succeed. The main reason I suggest an entire PFAL forum here is in the quote of mine above this one where I say: “...in order to ... compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters.” You see, your intent to besmirch me blinded you to my stated reason(s) for discussing such a forum, presumably to get the thought refined before approaching Pawtucket with the suggestion. I sincerely think Pawtucket is NOT going to be tricked into giving me any control here, AND I don’t even want such a heavy responsibility, not for a second! One of the sub-topics that can emerge needing compartmental organization, like a thread of their own, is the many “thus saith” statements I’ve been waiting for three solid years for someone to challenge me to produce, like you finally did in this area of this thread. I think you challenge is several items down in my itinerary here, in your next post awaiting my commentary. I discussed this wait of mine last year in a PT thread with several people, and I have written up 22 such statements so far. I refrain from posting them right now in this fray, because in addition to the 22 items getting lost in the shuffle, it seems that many here have a lot on their mind that’s unrelated to my 22 (and growing) items. A separate thread for them would be ideal organizationally, but it would give me absolutely no power, unless I simply wanted, by the existence of such a forum, to irk some here, which I don’t. *** WW, I am in my business lull months now, so that’s why I am now addressing your long winded posts more. A slap on my wrist by Modaustin also got me out of a year long habit pattern of rarely responding to your posts, even to the point of avoiding reading them in their entirety sometimes. If I had the time all year round I’d be taking you on point by point like this with no problem at all. I like using posts from people like you to launch my ideas with greater gusto and greater reception than if I were posting them relatively alone in an unvisited thread. Your attacks arouse greater energy from me, and the fray draws in more readers. Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority) I do see that the principle of “Don’t feed the trolls” has some applicability here, but is lost on you with your ego in place. For years I kept this a secret, but in the last six months I’ve decided it’s no longer necessary to do so. In other words, I thank you for being such a useful antagonist, but I can’t at all guarantee there are any eternal rewards for you in it.

Mark, I step aside from your level and type of objectivity, but I appreciate your open honesty and wish Raf were this open with his deep intents in his “AE in PFAL” thread. You wrote: “I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart.” It’s transparent to all that, like you, Raf (and many others with him) totally intend to “rip it apart” instead of resolving the apparent errors in written PFAL.

WW and oldiesman, It may be that TWI is too timid to bring such a case to court and risk have it exposed in court that many portions of the same paragraphs they are fighting for control of appeared in other publications long before Dr copyrighted them. When seen in this light, this could be one of the reasons God told Dr to re-publish such paragraphs in his books. This strategy could be seen as God’s way of liberating the books from the later corrupted TWI’s control. In the earlier days, when TWI-1 was behaving better than Craig’s TWI-2, the written doctrines accurate according to God, and distributing the paragraphs far wider than Bullinger, Styles, etc. could ever have broadcast them, God utilized the services of TWI to pull it all off. After TWI had served it’s distribution purposes, but fell internally due to it’s own lack of focus on the same paragraphs, God pulled the plug on supporting it and the ministry melted down. Given the huge legal controversy, the entire sad tale of TWI in recent decades, it could conceivably be seen as legally ok to discuss the full texts here. I don’t know. It’s also the case that TWI just can’t afford the additional bad press of prosecuting anyone for something that they appear to be in violation of themselves, and risking the spotlight of an overly eager national press descending on the whole story on any slow news days. If they spent thousands on one positive NBC commercial I’m sure they don’t want the equivalent of millions worth of negative exposure in all the media.

doojable, I don’t know if you saw this or anyone else, but I woke up this morning with the scenery of “A prophet is not without honor” in my head. I could see that in the machinations of the logic in my post to you that I neglected to note an exception. The process by which that verse comes to pass in most cases was well described by me, where a prophet sins and the adversary seizes on the opportunity to besmirch the Word that prophet speaks. Well, obviously that doesn’t work for Jesus, who spoke that verse. (He may have been quoting an OT verse: I don’t know) That didn’t thwart the adversary, though. He simply used Jesus’ family to besmirch by proxy. (I’m still groggy, with little sleep accomplished, so I don’t even know if I used “proxy” right.) Anyway, I just woke up knowing I needed to note that. Now, if I don’t decide to go back to sleep, I’ll read the responses here and see if anyone caught my oversight.

WordWolf, You wrote: “...vpw said "Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers." that's from "The Joy of Serving", the supposed Last Commercial of VPW. Mike said "IN EFFECT there are no answers out there" and "There are lots of answers out there, but they're not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in." ____ As usual, what Mike said vpw said, and what vpw said, are 2 different things. Mike added a word of vpw, and changed a word of vpw. When you do that, you no longer have the word of vpw.” You are assuming that my usage of “answers” matches Dr’s usage of “answers” in those passages. I don’t think that’s the case here. It’s because I include other things that Dr says about this that I can say what he did. Couple this with what Dr said in The Way Living in Love” and there’s no contradiction. “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” What was it that Dr claimed he “put together” if the raw unrefined answers are not out there? IN EFFECT the answers were not out there for the taking because they were mixed with many errors. *** I had written: “The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.” You responded with: “A commercial is an ADVERTISEMENT. The meaning of the word has NO requirement like Mike is imposing on it. This was a taped advertisement: a commercial.” The reason I objected to commercial is because the ministry was not a mere brute marketplace where COMMERCE took place. It was the way of a Father with His children overseen by a man appointed by God. You deliberately use these two words to reduce the ministry to a worldly entity when at that time it wasn’t. It was a MINISTRY, if ministered great help to thousands of people who are STILL thankful for it. If you didn’t get ministered to it was because of you ego. You were not meek to obey by the time Dr died. Neither was I. I had an ego too. *** I had written regarding Dr’s last teaching: “I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.” You responded with: “As usual, Mike is saying vpw said one thing, and vpw said another.” Then you quoted Dr from that teaching: “‘Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.’ _____ Mike: ‘this message is for OLGs.’ _____ vpw: ‘this is for every born-again believer, especially coordinators.’” Let’s look at Dr’s quote again: “Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.” I bold fonted the OLGs. From Dr’s words it “should be applicable to every born-again believer.” That would mean it applicable to every OLG too. But it was more that merely applicable for the OLGs. Dr didn’t specifically state it here, but all other indications are that in addition to being applicable to OLGs it was ALSO something that the same leaders (and many other OLGs too) had heard before from Dr, but were asleep. At the AC’79 segment 5 Dr told them: “I have set for our people, and it’s set in the book on ‘Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,’ and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven’t, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it’s utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I’ve discovered as I’ve worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.” Notice how Dr uses the word “all.” All the OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were AC grads. The OLGs Dr was addressing were asleep prior to 1979 and Dr tried to wake them (including me) up with the above statement. It didn’t work. He tried again and again. His last grand attempt was his last teaching. The OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were ALL asleep and he was trying to wake them up. It was That’s not necessarily the case for all born again believers, but the message was still applicable. *** I’m tired. to be continued.

Raf, You wrote: “Those who point out the imperfections of PFAL are easily dismissed by this standard, because they are not part of Mike's elite intended audience and, thus, not worth listening to. They are dismissed with casual comments intended to be insults, such as ‘you weren't around when Wierwille was, so you couldn't understand’” That was never intended to be an insult. I say that if you weren't around when Wierwille was then it’s extremely unlikely that you will be motivated to come back to master PFAL in the face of all the drama and soap operas playing. Please get this right, especially since I first said it to you, it was NOT an insult. *** You misrepresented me again. You wrote (with my bold fonts) that this is my position: “...anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an ‘unfit researcher.’” I say that to see it for what it is requires a lot more work than you do. You assume it’s not God-breathed and then you pronounce what it is. You ignore the totality of what it says it is. You are unfit to work with me using my method because you violate my method. I refuse to use your method and assumptions. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** doojable, You wrote: “Ok I just can't seem to figure out what an "OLG" is __ please explain” It stands for Older Leadership-like Grads. By older I mean those who were around to see that PFAL and the ministry DID work well at one time. By leadership-like I mean any grad who led at anything, or went WOW, or took the AC, or made coffee for twig. Basically it means any grad with a minimum of motivation, love, and brains. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** *************************************************************** johniam, I liked your superstore analogy.

WordWolf, You wrote: “See, Mike lacked the closeness with vpw that the corps had. If he HAD, he'd have been in a better position to see him as he WAS, and not as he's built vpw up in his mind. __ Ever see people in love with a celebrity-from afar? Then when they get to actually meet the real person without the press releases, they're completely crushed, since the reality failed to meet the fantasy?” Please see how I handled this in my response to doojable above. *** You wrote: “...he's completely wrong with the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the ‘written pfal’ is supposedly superior to the ‘taped pfal’...” Anyone who worked with Dr know that he put much more time and effort, as well as employing the additional efforts of staff, into the written product compared to the taped and videoed product. Plus, there’s more material in the books than in the film class. The “time-travel” of Paul to the third heaven in the film is on the order of a few sentences, while it is an entire chapter in WWAY. Plus, the human brain has much more real estate devoted to processing visual material compared to auditory. Plus, when reading is involved, most (if not all) people sub-vocalize the words and therefore also involve the auditory portions of their brain. Result, more is understood and remembered when reading is involved. *** You wrote: “Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA. That's a completely different person than the one you've met. Mike loves the persona he's constructed.” Actually, I’ve testified here that I had some difficulties liking the man when he was alive. Why have you forgotten that? Deliberate or just sloppy? Why have you forgotten that I compared him to Mickey Mantle and other residents of the “better” tail of some bell curves? Does my complete explanation of him shaking the earth not fit in with your smear campaign, and THAT’S why you deliberately omit my explanitory comments on this subject? You are swamped in dishonesty. You are blind to your own personal attacks on me? All you want to do is smear, not represent my position accurately and fully. *** You wrote: “pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.” Wrong and right. We didn’t fully work PFAL, and then TWI failed as a result. *** You wrote: “He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said it also.) Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless- a pox on you and your ancestors! And your mother dresses you funny. And you killed vpw. And so on.” You mix fact with error. VPW had faults and he suffered consequences because of them. So did we. The grand scale fall of the ministry is because we had no spiritual power developed yet, being only casual students of the class on power. POP was a lot more accurate than Geer wanted it to be. Dr rode circles around Geer and had him indict himself along with all the other top leaders. Search out all Dr’s usages of the word “fact” in that document, put them all together using a prior mastery of Dr written teachings on facts being 5-senses and not spiritual, and you will see that Geer unwittingly indicted himself as fact bound and not spiritual able to handle truths.

WordWolf, Regarding my Barth analogy you wrote: “Since we only have vpw's word on this incident, I can't trust it any more than any other incident- and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is too long for me to trust it.” VPW’s word on this incident is only incidental to the point I was making, which was that we need a theological makeover. You either missed that point or occluded it. *** vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to plagiarize...” STOP! Hold it right there! Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to UTILIZE... Big difference. God was the REAL owner of the intellectual property and God wanted Dr to utilize said material. And you forgot how Dr had to OMIT lots of material too... by revelation, And you forgot how Dr had to omit lots of other teachers from the process too... by revelation. And let’s strike me being comfortable with “...an outright lie and a deception, OK? ! If I thought it was an outright lie and a deception I’d reject it. So, stop mis-representing me. *** You wrote: “God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc. Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal- or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program) or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)” Yes. It was right and proper for Dr to have absolute power over everything that was done in HIS ministry. And since PFAL was of God it was right and proper to promote it. *** You wrote: “Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of everybody in twi except vpw.” Not so. I think it was in my post above to doojable that I mentioned the inefficiencies that hurt when a prophet sins. As to the meltdown in 1986-89, that was all of our (especially the clergy and then the Corps) doing. There was no reason for the whole thing to fall. If leadership had done what “Followers of Us” urged as I posted above, then it would have straightened out. And I never said Dr was never the cause of any problems. You again misrepresent me. *** You wrote: “So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually. And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient experience and are too moronic to comprehend what Mike's talking about without such experience- which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.” Another lying misrepresentation. I never said meetig Dr was crucial. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing through the BS you are so prolific with. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing that the PFAL is more important than focusing on endless soap operas. And just in case you want to misrepresent on this, I said “crucial,” not “sufficient.” It is necessary for most grads to see this, but there are other factors that must be in place too. *** You wrote: “vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal. And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master" pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of the books without having read them for DECADES.” That should read “some of us can recite SOME VERY LIMITED sections of the books while remaining totally ignorant of many more others.” *** You wrote: “Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own.” First of all it was not so much the work of other people as it the work of God, working in them. Second, Dr did not represent “other people's work as his own.” I remind you of this: (With my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the following quotes) First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Then oldiesman wrote: dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.

Raf and socks, I too thought it was pretty practical. Before I came back to PFAL I was thinking much the same way about that topic and others.

CW, I could just dye upon hearing that! ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** What The Hey, You quoted me thusly: “...we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.” Then you wrote: “On this point I can concur with you Mike. A single detail can make all the difference between truth and error - between the genuine and the counterfeit.” And to which I say: “Thank you!” *** You then went on with a discourse on the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that I have printed out for study. Thank you again. In that discourse you wrote: “Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.” I agree. And we also need to know ALL the places where the same topic comes up in PFAL if we want to know what was actually written. This takes a lot of time. But if someone’s main motivation is to steer others away from PFAL the one or two conveniently selected passages and a cursory knowledge of the topic is all that is necessary tap into the adversary’s resources and deter others from looking for themselves more carefully.

doojable, You wrote: “Mike, I always cringe when anyone makes sweeping generalizations. Your comments about the Corps concern me deeply.” But isn’t THAT a sweeping generalization, “I always cringe,” that you just used? I know you don’t ALWAYS cringe, but I also know what you MEANT there. Isn’t there a name for a legitimate figure of speech that characterizes sweeping generalizations that aren’t too sweeping? I forget the name. I’m pretty careful to have either many observations behind my sweeping generalizations, OR doctrine behind them, OR both, OR it’s a close approximation with few significant exceptions, OR combionations of all the above. Here’s an example of a doctrinal one: all men are liars. Here no amount of exceptions can change the rule. We all have SOME common characteristics, and I try my best to work within them. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Look at the early Romans chapters and there a bunch. *** You wrote: “Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.” I’m thankful for all the exceptions to the rule I saw develop over time. I’m thankful for the Corps and all the good work they did prior to 1985. I benefited from those who were walking, but these benefits subsided as we progress into the mid 80’s. *** You wrote: “Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other.” I’m very happy for that bond, but not where I saw it as a division in the Body. The Corps camaraderie was supposed to be to help them get through training and then any hard times that hit the field. Instead I saw exclusive cliques develop, rudely excluding non-Corps far more than was called for and damaging the work they were trying to do. Many saw their membership as a license to be rude and elite; Craig was not the only one by far. The point of the whole thing was to serve, and many turned it into an opportunity to BE served. I SALUTE ANY AND ALL CORPS WHO RESISTED THIS, but many succumbed. By the mid 80’s I couldn’t see a shred of “in depth spiritual awareness.” *** You wrote: “There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends.” Let’s look at the same kinds of experiences from my perspective. Remember that a prophet is not without honor EXCEPT in his own country and with his own kin. Now, of course, most posters are now gagging and protesting my labeling Dr as a prophet. Ok, those who can’t listen and control their emotions can leave the room. I insist on this as a fundamental postulate from which to build on: Dr was God’s spokesman to teach us. At least I HAVE a fundamental postulate; many just think wherever their feelings of the moment lead them. Working from within my postulate, have you ever wondered WHY a prophet lacks honor from those who are close to him? It’s because the adversary first builds false expectations in us that a prophet can only be a goodie-goodie. Sometimes he uses actual preachers who lead what looks (on the surface) like a spotless life to prop up this illusion. Then, with a real prophet, he watches and waits and tempts extra hard to get him to slip up, or better yet, throw in the towel temporarily and deliberately blow it. When he spots his chance he throws a spotlight on said prophet’s sin, making sure that as many people CLOSE TO HIM see it. He then, EVER SO SUBTLY, and sometimes over the course of many years, works on those who saw said sin. He exaggerates it as much as possible and even adds in complete fabrications to spice it up. He has the witnesses spread it ever so efficiently. (I know many think I’m speaking specifically about people here, but I’m not. I’ve long known that this a completely general process, repeated over and over throughout the centuries.) He makes SURE no one forgets what they saw. He has the witnesses build each other up to keep the stories alive. He attacks the integrity of the Word that the prophet accurately brings forth for God and for seekers of God. The more good Word the prophet brings forth, the more the adversary intensifies the kind of campaign outlined here. How could the adversary NOT try to do such things? Didn’t any of you Corps people here (not just singling out you dooj) know this was BOUND to happen well before you signed up? Hadn’t you ever read Romans 7 or I John 1 and seen that all have sinned, even the greatest of prophets, with ONLY one exception? Hadn’t you Corps people been taught that the adversary’s top priority was to attack the Word as it sits in believers’ minds, and that would also mean attacking the integrity of the man who teaches it to us? Have you even ONCE flashed on this inevitable scenario over the decades? Evidently not, at least not for a large majority here. I think a lot of the splinter group leaders who lean positively in Dr’s direction know this. Why don’t people here? Maybe all the Corps meant to some people was the social club and camaraderie. There are definite “disadvantages” of being close to a prophet. Those who aren’t especially prepared to withstand this buffeting won’t last long. As I look back on my life, my respect for Dr went down considerably as I worked at HQ. How could anything significant come out of New Knoxville is the kind of thinking that plagued residents of Jesus’ home town, and THAT’S where the “prophet not without honor” verse comes from. When I returned to the field, and my major exposure to Dr returned to mostly tapes and videos, with a light sprinkling of magazine articles, and a much lighter sprinkling of collateral reading, my respect rose about to it’s previous levels before my HQ years... until the late 80’s meltdown and then all hell broke loose. *** You wrote: “If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr portrayed.” Spiritually, anyone born again is above rebuke and has lots of things that need to be carefully nurtured to bring out to the open. Some prophets were more successful at this, and as a result, they were able to defeat the adversary’s counter measures better. Some were not so good at this, and their students had a more difficult time tracking with the good Word such a prophet brings forth. If a prophet comes close to the man he knows to be, then more gets done and God’s Word is promoted freer and farther. If he doesn’t then everybody has a more difficult time, but the Word that prophet brings forth is just as pure as God is pure. Examples: David, Solomon, Balaam. *** You wrote: “If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic.” Dr did plenty of this, if you care to remember it in the face of the huge soap operas many choose to focus on. He also told us this in GMWD Chapter titled “Followers of Us” on pages 112, 113 (with my bold fonts, but Dr’s italics): “As people get into the truth of God’s Word, it takes time for them to jell its greatness to the point that they walk on it. They need time to mature in God’s household and in the knowledge of His Word. In doing this they are to imitate the examples set by the men and women of God who are responsible to lead them. This does not mean that we take on our leaders’ idiosyncrasies and faults. It means that as we learn principles in God’s Word, we imitate those men and women as we see them practice the truth. It is a family learning situation, a growing experience. We learn from those who have been practicing the principles of God’s Word longer than we have. In doing this we become more and more perfected in His Word. We become more and more like the Lord Jesus Christ. In turn, as God’s children, we become more and more like our Heavenly Father, for we are learning to walk in the perfection to which He has called us. That is the pattern. We imitate the lives of those whom God has set in His household as leaders and overseers. They then imitate the Lord Jesus Christ by walking faithfully on God’s Word. As all of us do this, we are imitating the source of that Word, God. Paul sets this pattern of imitation very clearly in the first letter to the Corinthians.” The italics that I bold fonted and the preceding words indicate that there is some work to do in sorting out our examples’ “practicing of the truth” from their “idiosyncrasies and faults.” This work can sometimes be hard work, but those called to leadership positions (as ALL Corps were supposed to have been called) should have been accustomed to that. In the early days there was an ample supply of older leaders who had plenty of both, plenty of truth practices and plenty of idiosyncrasies and faults. Evidently many Corps members didn’t take this chapter to heart or didn’t even read it. The book GMWD came out in ’77, but the tapes and magazine articles it was developed from were from years earlier. Why wasn’t this chapter properly followed? See why Dr told us to master PFAL? *** You wrote: “Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.” No, I felt called to NOT go into the Corps. I felt that the ministry needed people outside it for balance. I did resent the fact that the Corps fell short of their advertised reputation. I was hurt by Corps people instead of helped by them. The sting still hurts me, just like many people here still hurt, but I try my best to forget it, not magnify it. I can forgive, but I wont whitewash it if the wound is still festering (to mix a few metaphors). I mentioned some of this to “A simple guy” so I won’t go into this any more here. *** You wrote: “As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.” Dr pointed to the Word God taught him to write and gave the credit to Him and the men He worked with prior to Dr. Dr did OFTEN say that his ministry was totally by grace, that he was not a goodie-goodie but a downer and outer. He admitted he was weak and had flaws and that he fell short of the man he knew to be. *** You wrote: “I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm.” No, I explained in my lengthy post to you, and just yesterday on this thread, that the reason I point out all the self references in the class materials is to prove that we didn’t master it. The same references are very useful in pointing out that the attitude of maximum reception for PFAL is to recognize that it’s NOT Dr who is the real author but God is. This helps us to shape our attitudes in reading differently than if we are reading the word of man. *** You wrote: “PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former” PFAL accomplished this for me very well. IF we don’t get well pointed to the written Word then how can we know how and where to focus with the Father and Son in our sights. This is like another point you brought up on your thread about love versus study. If we don’t study the accurate Word then all our loving and focus on God and Jesus Christ will be defined by the world, by tradition, by churchianity, and by Hollywood. I decline that quality of definition.

A simple guy, You wrote: “You know all about drama don't you Mike? __ Sorry you've got such a hang up about the Way Corps, which I dropped out of, btw. I can't change my past. __ Keep accusing and fighting... your identity depends on it.” As for the Corps, I am extremely disappointed with them, and have been starting slowly in 1978 with personal observations, then accelerating in their handling of the ministry meltdown, climbing much higher in 1998 when I first found out about their fumbling of Dr’s final instructions, and now peaking as I see their persistence in ignoring these final instructions. I now know why Dr was so often angry with them. I can’t think of an institution that has failed more spectacularly. Keep in mind that I have not counted myself as superior. I had been counting on the Corps to help me with my deficiencies. I committed all the errors I am now complaining about, but I knew I didn’t have it together. It was a bitter disappointment for me to find out that they had not grown nearly as much as they projected to us peons. ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** Raf, I think it was you who wrote: “The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.” In your method an assumption must be made first that an actual error is POSSIBLE for that sentence to make sense. In my method, the first assumption is that all PFAL errors are only apparent. Someone must know ENOUGH of PFAL to see how an apparent error resolved. In your method, finding a seemingly solid error is the end of the process, followed only by uncorking the Champagne. In my method a different kind of celebration takes place, knowing that the eventual resolution will be quite enlightening. When the adversary spins his web to bring forth an apparent error, it often means he’s trying to hide something good. While you are pouring the Champagne and your method winds down, my method is just getting started. My method for working PFAL’s apparent errors, when it comes to these points, is pretty much identical to your method for working your KJV’s apparent errors. You know the method, you just don’t want to use it on PFAL. Knowing PFAL inside and out, to the best of one’s ability, seems be necessary to do all the things that Jesus did. You wrote: “First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed." I give you credit for objectivity here. This was discussed a little by me and dmiller, the tatterations of PFAL being extremely minor compared to the ancient scripture difficulties. *** You wrote: “By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.” Thank you, again. *** In a later post you wrote, countering WTH’s discourse on the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God: “You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.” Each Gospel emphasizes different hats that Jesus wore. For those in his presence at the time he could have easily said the two different sentences separately, and referred to similar but different characteristics for both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Then each Gospel only reports one of the sentences, the one that best fits with that Gospel’s orientation with respect to Jesus’ differing roles. This is ONE way I’d research those scriptures. Another would be to see if time and place line up, because each Gospel MAY be referring to different but similar events. In other words it may only LOOK like he used them interchangeably. ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** ********************************************************** dmiller, You wrote: “Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books. No need for citing sources amongst *family* members? Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).” Thank you, Gosh, first doojable, then Raf, now you. I’m hojnored. In some ways and for some time it WAS a family. I too am rankled by what it became. *** You wrote: “What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.” Some scraps fall from the master’s table to the dogs below. In some cases those “dogs” later became Sons of God as a result of those falling scraps. PFAL was not produced to gain the approval of any worldly people nor institutions, so it shouldn’t be expected to conform to their rules.

I can accept that. I was being rhetorical.

Raf, You're reading too much into my posts. Paraphrasing me you wrote: "Now people who look at PFAL objectively have a PHOBIA." Not all, just some people here. There are SOME posters and readers here who have bad associations with PFAL nonenclature. That's all I was referring to when I wrote "phobias." I also added the word "understandable" to that mix. I don't think you have a PFAL phobia, maybe just a Mike phobia.

Garth, Yo wrote: "So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh. __ So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?" Dr's exhibited attitude in the early 70’s does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed. I have never argued that it does. *** Dr’s attitude of “thus saith” coincides with the many “thus saith the lord” statements that are scattered all through PFAL, just like they were in the “air’ in the early 70’s. BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed. *** I’m often accused of claiming that PFAL is greater than Dr claimed it to be, and that Dr never claimed it to be God-breathed, but my accusers are not in command of all the facts on this issue. Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements (along with the “atmosphere” in the early 70’s), however DO INDICATE, or lightly prove, that those OLGs who THINK Dr never claimed to be producing anything more than a Bible aid, that the class and collaterals were MERELY some Bible research keys, have not sufficiently heard all of Dr’s message on this issue. (WordWolf, the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. Like I did with "A simple guy," I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.) Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL. *** Again, there is STILL no proof here in this post, nor even a weak indication, that any or all of this leads directly to PFAL being God-breathed, just that the internal claim within PFAL that it is the Word of God was missed by most later grads and forgotten by most early ones. Still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here. *** If it’s the case, and I think I have shown that it is, that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED? It’s in absorbing these OTHER MISSED THINGS that the proof of PFAL being God-breathed will be shown to each meek mastering student by the real author behind PFAL and all of it’s collected elements, God Himself. *** For those who want more detail, all of this I posted at length in my lengthy post # 268 on doojable’s “Ok once and for all” thread, near the top of page 14 for those who kept the default setting of number of posts per page.

Oakspear, Sorry if I misunderstood your position. I think I accurately hit on the detachment part, though, didn't I? This came up before in how you and Abigail were the only ones who could understand what I was reporting on that Dr’s “only rule for faith and practice” being the abstract, originals, and not pined down to the existing manuscripts. Do you agree with my assessment of the attitude of “Thus saith the lord” was in the air all about Dr in the early 70’s? *** markomalley, I think you got it right on the purpose of this thread. This was something I discussed with Paw when I met him at pamsandiego’s house last summer, and then with Modaustin a few days ago. Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion. At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well. Now you, Mark, have reminded us all that the way Modaustin started it has the necessary wisdom to contain things, and also makes it easier for management to deal with things. I am very grateful to GSC management for not only allowing me to post, but also for the response work they are saddled with when people complain about my proPFAL message. Hopefully that workload will diminish. I think in the past I have politely avoided invading MOST threads at GSC with my message, and I will continue to be respectful like this of grads hurting from past TWI abuses and reminded of such by my repetition of related catch phrases. It would be nice to see some reciprocity from antiPFAL grads here and a little more tolerance for my message and less intent to snuff it out by various means.

WordWolf, Only the most simple and/or noteworthy items will I be able to comment on this morning because I have very little time (...and I’m trying be a good example for you). Oh... for the time I wish I had to respond to all that's here! *** “What the Hey” was correct, it was his duel with Raf over trivialities that I was commenting on and it didn’t involve you at all. *** In post #99 you wrote: “D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.” I agree that there are lots of answers out there, but they’re not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in. So, if we want to enjoy and utilize those answers, they are not accessible. As he himself admitted, but it was and still is ignored, Dr didn’t do all that much original work, but he did put it together sans the crippling error. So, I concur with Dr that IN EFFECT there are no answers out there, outside of PFAL, except relatively irretrievable elements of truth and fact. (Doojable, this also goes for the research tools that are out there, as I discussed this with you. They are out there, but who can find and refine them without God’s great guidance. God already did provide that great guidance to us grads and most of us have spurned it as not religious enough for the worldly tastes that dominate the masses.) *** You wrote: “According to Mike, if we don't see The Last Great Commercial of VPW as anything less than the great spiritual wakeup call of the 20th century, we're spiritually inept.” I’d refine it thusly: The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit. I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS. It’s crucial that you see the focus on OLGs if you want to represent my message. You set up a straw man when you omit this aspect of my message. Lastly, I’d soften the “spiritually inept” part. The natural state of man is spiritually inept. What I see is that we OLGs, when facing what we allowed to slip through our fingers, must accept the fact that the understanding of spiritual matters we presently have is NOT the paragon of spiritual strength we thought it was. We OLGs must accept the fact that we still have oodles of spiritual blind spots that guarantee eventual failure in ministering situations, even though we can enjoy limited successes in the short run due to what truths we DID master and get right from PFAL ...and even elsewhere. We OLGs must accept the fact that we didn't absorb PFAL nearly as well as we thought we did, and ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, there is a wealth of information and instruction awaiting our re-discovery within written PFAL.

A simple guy, I don’t know what you meant by drama. I do know it’s not what I want, though. I guess what kind of grads I’m looking for to discuss these things deeply are the Karl Barth types. Karl Barth was the European theologian that Dr mentions in the class that he went to visit to talk about holy spirit. When Dr got Barth to focus on the manifestations being manifestations of the gift, and not a gift in themselves, Barth sat back and said that if Dr was right it would mean a complete re-thinking of the entire holy spirit field. We have a similar situation. Dr teaches us wonderful things, but like rebellious teenagers with a modicum of knowledge, we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him. So for ten years we ignore these pleas of his, and then the year of his death he issues two urgings in one magazine to us that we need to do a Barth Makeover of our whole theology, and stating twice in the same issue that it’s an emergency situation with dark clouds hanging over us. Then a few weeks later, the last time a tape recorder is catching his very few last words to us, he twice tells us to master the collaterals. So what do we do? Nothing. All of his last words to us fall to the ground. We keep on doing our own thing, building our own broken cisterns, researching our own projects. So, now 20 years later, the indisputable documentation of this grad scandal comes out. Like Barth, we grads should be shaken to the core by what we missed 20 years ago. Any Corps member who hasn’t gotten talked into completely doubting the genuine ministry God gave Dr, but yet cannot see that this is an emergency situation calling for nothing but a complete suspension of all ministering activity, and a starting over where we missed so much 20 years ago, then I have no alternative but to never expect that grad to get anything spiritually right. A simple guy, you’ve seen Dr’s last teaching here, I’m assuming. If not PM me and I will e-mail you a copy. It’s posted in several locations here at GSC too. I know that you have now seen those two magazine urgings to do a theological makeover. Let’s see how obedient you are to the teacher I think you still respect. And the same goes for other Corps people here, but most of them are so jaded by now to this information they can’t hear it. We have a drama here, that’s for sure.

Hey guys, One of the things I wish WordWolf would do is chose his battles more wisely instead of going after each and every diddly point. I think the point you two are debating has reached the diddly stage.

Raf, Have you thought of adding to your argumentation devices of insulting phrases a scowling nasty face for you avatar picture? Maybe you’ll find me at a weak moment and together the insults and the scowl will convince me to embrace your god. *** oldiesman, I've not thoroughly worked this topic of degrees and definitions of abundance, otherwise I’d post what I have. However, I have seen a changing, progressing definition for abundance in Dr’s writings. That slight progression in the PFAL book passages I already posted reflects this. We have seen many such patterns, and we believe they reflect a progression of what God was teaching Dr, and a progression in what abundance was being made available to us. From the AC’s 16 keys to walking in the spirit, when a revelation changes (see this: I’m treating PFAL as revelation and using the same keys to work it as the KJV.) that is an indication that the circumstances have changed. It’s revelation that is given twice and established that cannot change. From the patterns of changing definitions and changing phraseology, we see that some very big changes occurred around 1977 and then again in 1982. Sometimes the changes are in slight wording shifts that occurred when an early book chapters were “re-printed” in the magazine a few years later, or vice versa with early articles later being put into GMWD and OMSW. These kinds of changes hardly anyone ever noticed. I remember socks posting that he notice these changes, but was never given an answer as to why. I think the time had not come for getting into these kinds of details when he asked, though. We are carefully examining all of these changes, one at a time, but we just haven’t gotten to “abundance” yet. Some of these changes in wording reflect God’s heart to have us understand him spiritually, on his terms, instead of on our own human flesh terms. Rising up to meet the lord in the air seems to be the same process.

A simple guy, That's another thing that other Corps poster (and many other Corps people too) would do: try and stage a spiritual confrontation, then a dramatic walkout with the last word if I didn't conform. It reminds me of a old former girlfriend who would call me on the phone just to have the pleasure of hanging up on me if I didn't conform to her wishes. If you wanty to have a deep conversation with me, please leave your Corps tactics playbook behind and come back to PFAL with me and any other few grads who are willing to line up with the revelations God taught Dr and then Dr taught us IN PRINT!

Raf, My bet is on the text of PFAL being the revealed mind of Christ.

A simple guy, Sorry to be so suspicious, but your whole demeanor, your method, and your use of that phrase, are very much like another poster's here. It occurred to me that you said we’ve never “talked.” Well, this particular poster I have in mind and I have also never "talked" in a verbal conversation, just “typed” conversations. So, from your answer, you COULD still be this person I have in mind. *** But I've also seen this phenomenon before, where Corps people will behave very similarly to each other, having learned together certain similar phrases and strategies for dealing with people. Maybe you were in the same Corps with this other poster. He too claims to be a simple guy, uses the relatively unique phrase “glorify Christ,” and tends to over reduce everything to the spiritual like I’ve complained of you. Also, like you he walked right up to me out of the blue, as if he had enough of the answers and enough of an operating hotline with the Father to “minister to the situation,” regardless of the complicating details I had to share with him. Truth is simple, but untangling a huge mess of error can be quite complicated for a time. *** We glorify Christ as we become the same Word he became. This is a 5-senses project in the early stages and then later becomes spiritual. Dr taught us in the AC that “What you can know by your 5-senses God expects you to know.” How can Christ be glorified if we do not do the physical work get our physical minds lined up with the Word? This thread can explore that physical activity of reading and learning what God wants us to know.

doojable, Thank you for standing up for me when you wrote: “Ex and Raf - to Mike's credit - he has never treated me with misogyny.” I have had some very good discussions with women posters here, often behind the scenes. I thank God for women every day. Viva la differance! *** You wrote: “If you're going to used the revelation theory of PFAL you really have to give that credit to GOD and the first men who wrote the information.” Dr did give that credit, both to God and to his teachers, just not in the University approved format. He did this often and in many ways. The quote from “The Way – Living In Love” I’ve been splashing in dmiller’s face is just one such giving of credit. *** You wrote: “Oh and I have heard that DR himself denied your theory. Paul the apostle never denied that he was told to write the gospels.” Where did you hear that? I chase all such clues down. I have a hunch you’re talking about what he said in “The Hope” about how he never placed himself in the shoes of the biblical apostles, or something like that. *** You wrote: “And - there are ways to show on paper that one makes NO money at all - yet gets literally thousands. People do it all the time. so Dr making only $100 a week or month - that's not too impressive - he had much more.” Sure he had access to much more, but did he have the TIME to enjoy it in relaxation, as I posted. He worked more hours than most of us, and for a longer string of years too. I remember driving past the farm and seeing his office lights on late into every evening when he was there. The $100 per week was common knowledge. I lived with the man who assisted Uncle Harry in the Treasurer’s Office and he saw all the checks. Money was not what drove him, because he could have made more, much more.

A simple guy, How does your posting with that question of yours glorify Christ? Again, your wording makes you sound like another poster I’ve discussed these things with. Most people would say “glorify God” but you used an unusual phrase. Are you SURE we haven’t discussed these things before, like in a Private Topic in the old software last year? How do you go about glorifying Christ in your life? I expect to see Christ glorified GREATLY for any posters or readers here who obey Dr’s final instructions and get those books open. *** dmiller, You wrote: “No --- I am not making up rules. __ Go to any university (I assume there is one there in San Diego -- maybe not), and ask any professor how it works.” I had just written to you that the Way was not a University, nor a brute marketplace. Then you tell me to seek out the rules at a University! You ARE making up the rules by insisting that Dr’s citation’s pass the usual University regulations. I say “No!” Dr ministered those books to us grads the way GOD told him to do it, not the way a local University would tell him. I’m glad, too. You are making up rules for Dr to follow (like conforming to university citation regulations) and then complaining he broke them.