Mike

TheEvan, There were also dire consequences in the wake of David's sin. He was severely limited in several areas. Moses' sin carried dire consequences too. But the consequences that did NOT occur to neither David nor Solomon nor Moses was the negation of the valid revelations they did put into written form. *** And this talk about David repenting and Dr not... who here has any handle on the repenting or non-repenting of any other human being in the world besides themselves? I'd like to know how they can peer into the heart of another human, ESPECIALLY 20 years after the death of the subject. There's a lot of money in it for applications in the polygraph/security field, not to mention show business and a lot of other fields. *** God knew of David's sin before he committed it, yet He entrusted His Word to him anyway. Anyone want to tell God He made a mistake there? *** That's all I have time for. I see WW can't let go of his diatribe on me. I think I will let it go.

oldiesman, The questions you ask are often asked of me. The first one is pretty easy: start by opening the books and reading them a lot and only them. That's the first step to mastering anything, right? I've also just mentioned word studies. In the past I've included many tips, and that mastering PFAL is just like what we did as we worked our KJVs. We can memorize the chapters and section titles, along with key passages. The HOW of mastering is not difficult, once the books are opened and being read. If yo or anyone wants to START mastering, saddle up alongside with any other grads who are dong the same thing. I'll gladly start a thread on mastering techniques or PM with anyone on it, once their books are opened and focused reading is taking place. You second question, how to know when we're finished is odd. Why do you even want to know that? I look at it as a lifetime thing. It's more the attitude of mastering than the accomplished tasks that are important. Each person has differing abilities. When we are highly focused on doing our best to master the writings then God can fill in any gaps we need filling. *** doojable, Thank you again, for you willingness to dismiss me as the topic and focusing on what we came here for. I realize Dr's "re-work" remarks to Chris were late in the game, but so was his last teaching where he clearly and publicly put on tape TWICE that we all needed to master the written materials that come with the class. I know that when I came back to the collaterals I had a lot of re-working to do in my head. You'll see the same thing if you take a close peek. It takes repetition to make a new idea fit in when contradictory ideas were in place for may years prior. If you think it through how many times Dr told us to master the collaterals, right up to the end, then why would Dr also say to junk those collaterals? It doesn't make sense. It DOES make sense if the many urgings of Dr's are not held in mind. Most grads are totally unaware of them. Many posters here have claimed that Dr never told us to have the attitude toward the collaterals I hold forth, yet it's in the record that Dr said on microphone and wrote to that effect often. The attitude I take regarding the collaterals being new revelation given in modern English regarding THIS time is one I received FROM the collaterals themselves. It takes study to see that they say this. When you are fully aware of all that Dr said on this subject, then the "re-work" comments can only mean re-worked in our minds, and not on paper, junking the old printed materials. I will leave a little wiggle room for the possibility that Dr erred on the day he told Chris to re-work believing/faith, thinking that he had blown it in his printed texts. Dr was human, and could have had a bad day and was discouraged, thinking that we had to start all over. But then we see him bouncing back in that last teaching, but it was ignored by Geer and everyone else. *** You seem to think that we have an official Bible to fall back on. We don't. All we have is a collection of men's opinions as to what the ancient scriptures might have said. It's not authoritative nor inerrant. If PFAL is not God-breathed then we have no God-breathed documents from which to study at all, and expecially in English. Approximates, yes, but exact and authoritative, no. Can you point to a single book, version, or manuscript in your library that's inerrant? I mean a book that you dare not change one word from and that you can bet your life on every passage as it is printed? No, you have to intervene often in every book you have with your own authority and/or the authority of any scholars you select to trust, to fix the errors. The contradictions you think are in PFAL will evaporate just like apparent Bible contradictions evaporate when the correct attitudes are brought to bear on them. It takes work. I used to think PFAL had error until I saw that my attitudes and techniques for working it were inadequate. When I re-work PFAL the contradictions disappear. I trust PFAL to be God-breathed, and I have abundant documentation (and can supply it) of Dr saying this is what we are supposed to think about them. If he's wrong I'm going down with that ship. If PFAL is not God-breathed, there are no other ships. God will verify these things, but we must first get around to start mastering what He already has given us. God will give us the second drop after we have received the first.

doojable, Thank you (and oldiesman) for steering your thread back on topic and away from me. I often think of the quandary the relatives of Uriah were in, and for many generations afterward. The revelations God gave to David were untainted by his sin, yet the reception of David's Psalms were certainly a challenge to Uriah's family. Some of them rose to the level of seeing through David's still stinging sin and embrace the authority God gave to David in spite of that sin. *** The "re-working" of PFAL that Dr called for, if viewed in light of the many other things he said about the same subject, had to be a re-working in the mind of the student, not a re-working of the WRITTEN material, junking it and printing changed material. *** A point of confusion that often arises when talking about PFAL is whether it's the film class or the collateral books that are being talked about. I've seen confusion here at GSC often stem from this slight ambiguity. The "re-working" of the film class was something that was in the works in 1977, but then Dr pulled the plug on it. Many people had relatively mastered the film class sound track, and "re-working" the exact wording of THAT material could mean either switching focus to the books and re-working the film class perception of a subject to attain the written view, or it could mean re-working the film class into a new video that more tracks with the written record. *** For "re-working" to mean junking the written material and changing the content of the collaterals would mean a HUGE contradiction on Dr's part. This is still possible, him being human, but if that were the case I'd go with the consistently held forth written position Dr described and I'd toss the spoken. Why would Dr tell Geer to change (re-work) the written collaterals and then turn right around and tell him(with all others) to master the collaterals? Why hasn't anyone seen this is a contradiction? *** I disagree with your limiting of PFAL to being a means to only one end. It was that, but it is more now. Because I came back to written PFAL it is the case that I enjoy a fresh view of it. I see it as foretelling prophecy that may have had some great benefits decades ago, but that it's application NOW is much, much greater. It fortells and deals with the situation we are in right now. Before it was a means to see how the ancient scriptures worked. Now it is a means to see the new administration where God is revealing His Son, first to us grads and later to the rest of the world. The ONLY people who can see this are the very few who literally obey the frequent urgings of Dr to master the written aspect of the class. So far, all leadership has done everything but this. The levels of mastery we accomplished decades ago was wonderful then. It helped us see what we were supposed to see, but it was not then available to see Christ. Now it is. We must come back and re-work our perception of what is in those books to see what is available now. Back then our strong focus was on the KJV. Now we need to focus on PFAL. Back then we did KJV word studies. Now we need to do PFAL word studies, tracking words as they are used in the PFAL texts like we used to do in the KJV with our Young's Concordances. We don't have concordances for PFAL... yet. But we can do our best with what we have. Little to none of our collateral study has included the idea that they are God-breathed. When we adopt that attitude we will see much more than before. Far from being exhausted of their value, the PFAL writings are an absolute treasure, and they attract all of the adversary's forces of influence to blow us all away from our calling with great ferocity. It takes great determination to obey Dr's instructions to master PFAL in it's written form, but God will help those who want to rise above tradition. So far only a very small number have dared re-open, re-work the writings we were given by God.

I do deny now, and did then deny then, that what is perecived to be the sin and crime of plagiarism was committed by Dr in producing the PFAL books. There's no change in my policy. What you folks perceive as plagiarism I deny IS plagiarism. This has been my stand all along. Maybe someday I'll take the time to locate all my posts to prove this to anyone who wants, but I doubt it. It's not that important a subject to me. WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena with a denial of the phenomena. There's no denial that many passages in PFAL are very close to passages in other writings. I never denied this phenomenon years ago, and I do not deny it now. What I deny now (as always) is that the phenomenon constitutes the sin or even the crime of plagiarism. THIS denial I have posted on in spades, and I stand by it now. I have covered this denial of guilt on Dr's part from many angles, and it is THESE angles that you refuse to deal with. Instead you focus on me. The record you are leaving is one of refusal to consider God's perspective. Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong and your perception of my waffling is wrong. Let me again state my consistent position: Dr did not commit plagiarism in producing the PFAL books. I don't care what any of you posters think about it, nor what any pointy headed lawyer nor any human court says on this, because I know Who the real owner is and what His court says about the matter. Next subject.

dmiller, The waffling you perceive is in your wishful thinking, just like WW's false charge of my turnabout on plagiarism. He STILL hasn't proved his conjecture true. You folks just can't stand my message and can't deal with it directly so you all go after me. I'm tired of talking about me. My message speaks for itself and to those who want to know. Those who only want to justify their rebellion against God, their rejection of PFAL, will have to answer to Him. Get off me and onto the topic.

No, Garth. If I got the ratio backwards you wouldn't have understood that line or any of the others. *** It's a common figure of speech to use "canon" instead of "body of collected work." Google it. I found first off: canon - a rule or especially body of rules or principles generally established as valid and fundamental in a field or art or philosophy; "the neoclassical canon"; "canons of polite society" I've used canon for things from Shakespeare to Sherlock Holmes. Nice try... NOT!

WW, You conveniently limit your definition of "context" to to an individual post. When I say context I mean the whole thread, or at least that vicinity of pages if it's a long thread. Context can be far reaching also, it the exact same topic is discussed on other threads. The ease you describe in finding things in my record here is exaggerated. I tried to look up the quotes here and was frustrated by no ability to make big jumps in the page numbers. Because I have dial-up, that can take a long time. I gave up. It would take me a while to search my saved copies too, because they fill many CDs, and CD players on computers, or at least mine, take forever and a day to re-read the directory of a newly inserted disk. I repeat: It's not easy to see the context of my quotes the way you present them. Only the most determined and the more wealthy in leasure time can do it. When I say something quirky, it could be a figure of speech. You don't care to see the intent of my tiny number of quirky comments. You only want to hang me with them. You have no intent of seeing how they fit into the canon of my other posts. The quirky to lucid ratio in my overall posting is surely .00001 or something like that. You focus only on what you can use to destroy my credibility to new people. Such focus demands you not allow or discourage the quirky to stand in the field of lucidity they sit.

WW, Context, comtext context. Everything has a context. Why don't you want readers to see the context of my remarks? Some of the quotes you attribute to me are unfindable, gone from this board. The largest thread in GSC history was "Masters of the Word..." and it's gone. Didn't you save the context of those quotes of mine you saved? Or did you find them on this present board with the search function? If so, then why withhold the URL or the thread name? Because you don't want anyone to see the context? You don't provide the context because you want it out of sight. If you didn't save it along with the quotes it's because you didn't regard the context as important. You could ask around if there are backup copies made of the pruned threads if you thought the context was important enough to retrieve, right? For instance, you could ask me for it, in a PM. *** Back to THIS thread. You diverted attention from my post on THIS thread. Does that mean I get to use a significant fraction of a terra byte to re-post my protest? You STILL can't produce me doing a turnabout on plagiarism as you charged on THIS thread, right? Maybe you confused me with someone else? *** You wrote: "Mike 2/3/04, 5:22am 'Jesus Christ appointed Dr his spokesman. Jesus Christ is VERY interested in PFAL. He told me so.'" Yes. This is correct. It only needs a tiny bit of context. He told me so on page 9 of JCNG, at the end of its Introduction, in the italic print. This is the best I can remember it, without taking the time to look it up. I only have so much time to put into these wild goose chases of yours. For those who are separated from their books here is the whole passage (WITH CONTEXT) where Dr says he was appointed a spokesman by Jesus Christ. JCNG p. 8,9 "I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. It is he who sought me out from darkness. It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator. It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin. It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory. It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins. It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit. It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies. It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love. It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling. It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him. It is he who is God’s only begotten Son." . . . .

WordWolf, There's no way I have the time to refute all the silly and inaccurate things you say about my position, but when it enters the total lie category I think I should sometimes speak up. You wrote: "When the plagiarism first showed up, Mike denied it outright. When it was proved he was wrong, he wasted no time switching..." This is a downright lie. First of all, you seem to think the universe revolves around you and your post ministry expositions here at GSC and prior, both in time and in space. What the heck do you even MEAN by "first showed up" ??? That's dumb. You assume I wasn't aware of it until GSC "first" exposed it. When these supposed "plagiarism" charges first showed up in MY universe was 1972, and it shook me a tiny bit, until I thought it through. It was when I first bought and thumbed through "How to Enjoy the Bible" that I bought in the Way Bookstore. I dealt with it privately and slowly saw through my apprehensions. Some more came up a few years later in how a "tripped out" friend brought that book up and then Kenyon. I dealt with it again, and much the same way I do now. Then the next time it came up was 1988, when Ralph D came to town with his whistle blowing. I was startled that no one at that meeting had dealt with it before, and that everyone was all in a tizzy. Other things brought up there at that meeting bothered me, but not the plagiarism thing. It bothered me that no one thought it through very deeply, though. It looked like they were disparately grabbing at straws, looking of something more to get worked up about. My reaction to it being brought up at GSC was almost identical, with the added consternation that people had so many more years to ponder it THOROUGHLY, yet they remained insular and ignorant of many other ways to look at it. Willingly ignoring information is not a good sign of a healthy mind, except when someone has arrived at the absolute total God approved truth on a matter. WW, you got your facts wrong, again. Not only that, but your severe abbreviation of my position on this and many other topics is a another huge lie in another category. I have posted MUCH more on this than you indicate. I wish I did have the time to go through all your rubbish as you pretend to dissect my posts with surgical precision. You're a quack doctor with an agenda and very sloppy with the facts. I challenge you to even produce the posting of mine from which you drew your false conclusion on this plagiarism matter and my switching positions as if new information was presented to me. If I wrote it ambiguously I'll admit it and correct it. This post should go a long way in that anyway. Many of my posts are missing from this board due to pruning that had to be done in the old software situation. If you, or anyone else wants a full canon of my posting, I can make it available. This may be a good time to bring up the idea of possibly restoring the pruned threads someday.

Oakspear, I admit, the winds that blow us all away from PFAL are strong. It's only those grads who daily yearn for, and daily seek the spiritual guidance from the Father of the BOSS Jesus Christ who can muster the motivation to come back to PFAL and check again, leaving no stone unturned. Only the truly spiritually minded, spiritual as I just defined it, are able to see through the "evidence" that God was incapable of getting His revelations through to a sinful man. Only the truly spiritually minded can see that the charges against Dr hold for all of us, IN THE LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR (not the specific details) that we all have committed the greatest sin FREQUENTLY of not loving this God first. Only the truly spiritually minded can see that the "court" here is kangaroo. Only those who received genuine and strong and abundant spiritual help from PFAL are able to withstand the winds.

diazbro, I'm going to say "maybe" here cause I don't know, and on two points. Maybe oldiesman didn't respond much (as you charge) to the silly plagiarism charges because I have posted so many reams refuting them in the past three years. Gads! I could write a book on just that. Maybe I will, just by culling out all my posts on it. I don't see you dealing with the many points I made. You just do as you accuse and remain silent like many others. I'll repeat one major point. God is the real owner of truths regarding His advice and plans. The highest court on copyrights is His court AND He is the REAL owner. He owns Bullinger's right-on stuff, and Styles', and Kenyon's, and on, and on. We don't even own OURSELVES because we were "bought with a price." I think you're desperate to justify your abandoning God's truths. Many are.

Tom, Might be funny to you, but not as funny as it is to me that Raf can't see with his "ignore" shields set to "Mike" that I addressed his concern already near the end of my last post with: "Plus, Dr did invite many of those writers not in the bookstore (and many more) to speak at HQ. I saw several speakers there who were off the wall on some things, and Dr cautioned us on it before and after. So he wasn't totally insular (like things became much later), but he did much to protect young students from footnote distraction and error derailing." PLUS, when I talk of clutter I know what I'm talking about. There's NO WAY Dr could have given credit to ALL his sources. When I worked at the bookstore at HQ every few months or so Mrs. Allen's desk would be piled two feet high with stacks of freshly ordered books just for Dr's use. Dr went through quantities of books like no other man I ever knew. (Those "ignore" settings are insidiously beguiling. I think it should be public knowledge just who is ignoring whom so we all know more exactly what kind of information circuits are flowing and which ones are dammed up. If someone is going to stop their ears it should be seen by all. ...Just my opinion...)

oldiesman, Today we concur. Some of Dr's sources had tolerable error and some did not. The bookstore had only the tolerable. I think there were PROBABLY more intolerable errors in Leonard and Styles, so reference to them was slightly more hidden so as to be only found by more advanced PFAL students. I know Leonard was rabid on the manifestations being called gifts and very convincingly forceful about it. I liken it to the false respect that trinitarians strut by putting Jesus on a pedestal that's too high. The word "gift" SEEMS to give God more credit than a "manifestation" if it's not already well cemented in mind that God gave the gift that the manifestation is a manifestation OF! Most young students never have even heard the word "manifestation" in spiritual circles, so it sounds yucky compared to gift. Emotional plays by trinitarians and over-pedestalizers have a strong tug on less mature and less informed minds. Anyone know if Styles was a rabid trinitarian? How about talking to the dead? There's another emotion roller coaster. I remember hearing when I was a young PFAL student that Bullinger was great on some things, but that he missed SIT due to his wrong dividing of the administrations. Though this may also look like an intolerable error, it's not laced with emotion like an immediate life after death and the trinity are. Bullinger's good outweighed the bad by far. Same with Kenyon and others who made it into the bookstore. Plus, Dr did invite many of those writers not in the bookstore (and many more) to speak at HQ. I saw several speakers there who were off the wall on some things, and Dr cautioned us on it before and after. So he wasn't totally insular (like things became much later), but he did much to protect young students from footnote distraction and error derailing. ****** Allan, Thanks. Hey, I've been trying to e-mail you for months but can't get through. Please PM me, ok?

Since I was just invited: Hi doojabble, Dr did reference many of his human sources and in many ways, just not the usual academic ways. I'm glad he didn't clutter up the main PFAL books with footnotes. When I needed a big rescue 35 years ago, I wasn't looking for pointy headed scholasticism to do it. I wasn't interested in following up on any of his references except for the KJV verses. The main collaterals were meant to be healing to the readers, and Dr wasn't building a University to someday become accredited when the collaterals were written. Some of those academic citation methods were used in some later books, though. We don't use academic citation methods here at GSC. Why not? The fact that "How to Enjoy the Bible" and many other source materials Dr drew from were sold in the Way Bookstore was a form of referencing. That wouldn't cut it at a University, but it was sufficient for me. Dr often mentioned many of his sources on tapes, and nearly every book's "About the Author" mentions many of the men he drew from. I say leave the cluttering academic footnotes for every elemental idea out of both GSC and the collaterals. Once in a while footnotes can be instructive, but the CYA use of them shouldn't be needed in a family situation, which is what we were supposedly working towards. Yes, I can see the training benefits of insisting on extensive footnotes for the Corps, but not for the family at large. *** You wrote: "Gee, what would have happened if people actually read someone else's work instead of his? - no royalties!" They made very little to nothing on the sale of books. This has been discussed here much. What actually WOULD have happened had we checked the source of every paragraph Dr wrote from "proper" footnotes would have been an interrupted reading and learning environment, AND confusion for new inquisitive students swallowing whole many errors which contaminated the writings that Dr used. There's a whole lot more thinking through on this subject that needs to be done here. I hope I helped stimulate some new thinking.

My3Cents, I agree with your assessment of the clergy. One by one, as I approached them over a ten year span, I was startled by their lack of any thinking ability and courage. Their lack of knowledge of the collaterals and even the KJV showed up in nearly every conversation I had with them. Previously I had a huge image of their power and might, but one by one they were exposed by simple conversations that went outside their well practiced canned raps. Regarding Geer and any thoughts of confronting or opposing him, one clergyman, in an unusual outburst of candor to my probing as to why he didn't press Geer for details and specifics (regarding Sunesis' post a few pages back) told me "Heck no! I'm AFRAID of him." This same clergyman, who I was close to for many years, had never uttered such a fear confession about ANYTHING in all the time I knew him. It blew me away how much fear he must have had to actually admit it. ****** johniam, Thank you for your report. I've heard much the same, that Geer and his top people threw that puny-foreknowledge idea out for discussion, but it was taken by many underlings as some new sensational doctrine sure to propel them to the top. It gave me a buzz on top of my goosebumps, but I shook it off. I had stumbled into the same "Youngs Concordance" level of "evidence" that seemed to indicate this idea in the 70's, but kept quiet about it. It took years to see beyond it, but when i heard it again from the Geer people it still shook me. Was this suggestive form (as opposed to declarative) of presenting this idea recent, or about 8 years ago? I'm just wondering how they treat it NOW.

Groucho, Not so. Dr claimed that the writings were NOT his own, but of God. I have tape documentation of Dr crediting some of the material as revelation given to other people. The notion that Dr "tried to pass it off as his own" is a fiction generated by grads who were not diligent to check the facts. ****** Ok, now back to the topic. Does anyone know anything about Geer's more recent position on God lacking specific, detailed, and total foreknowledge? He taught this, like CES does, about 8 years ago. However, unlike CES I have heard rumors that Geer only taught it on tape and never committed it to writing. I've also heard faint rumors that he may have even retracted it. I know of at least one clergy well connected with the Geer group who, as recent as two years ago, regarded this "no real foreknowledge" doctrine as a big mistake. Has anyone any recent information on this situation?

Garth, Garth, I hear you, I agree with the legitimacy of your demand. I fully admit to have normal leaky human memory. That's why I refresh that memory with the IMPORTANT things, like doctrine. When it comes to this less important topic of ministry history, I'm willing to risk things a little bit and not take the time to check some things out to the most minute accuracy, well beyond my memory's accuracy capabilities. You wrote: "Keep that brief, but glaring, bit of honesty in mind when you are recalling the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write..." Yes, I do keep my memory's limitations in mind when I cite things VPW said or wrote. If memory serves me correctly, I almost always cite my source for such things and give exact quotes from the text, not memory. I cite page references and SNS numbers and dates most of the time. Sometimes I don't because I have already done so more than once for a particular passage. I've admitted this memory deficiency at least four times. It's totally normal, and I've even cited modern brain science's successes in explaining how some types of forgetting works. Brain science has no idea how learning occurs, but most forgetting of long past learning is pretty well explainable. I once posted a short essay on this kind of memory deficiency we all have, and that is actually designed by God to be a good part of the brain's functioning. I also admit to being a sucker for those extremely strong forces that have blinded all grads from Dr's final instructions and literal obedience to them. I also admit to having been a casual student when it came to applying PFAL principles in my life in my first 27 years in the ministry, from 1971 to 1998. I was a slacker in the practical areas. So, here's three admissions of my limitations and deficiencies. My credibility is limited with many people who knew me during those years, but I've done a lot to change since then. What's unquestionable are the items you brought up: "...the Truth that you believe you heard VPW say or write...." There I do NOT rely on memory, but I find the passage, tape or print and provide the locations so that my statements do not rest on me, my memory, or my personality, but on the record. . . . So, Garth, I'll say it again: I hear you, I agree with the legitimacy of your demand, and I endeavor to comply. . . .

Hi oldiesman! WOW! Finally someone who wants to engage the topic instead of me! I respectfully (and I really mean that) do not concur with you on the thesis you brought forward. There may have been suspicions about Craig in some leadership circles, but on the field he was pretty revered as far as I knew. I was rooting for him and ignoring Dr along with many others then. Like I've posted before, I see the hand of the adversary working 5 to 10 years earlier to build this blindness to Dr's advice BECAUSE Dr was getting that advice from the Father. Attention was systematically distracted and shifted away from Dr's advice and the written doctrine in many, many ways, each tailored for each individual. By the time the POP and all came out we were all programmed in one way or another to turn to all sorts of strategies, anything BUT what Dr was saying. Like someone else posted here before Sunesis' post, I think any other scenario would have still resulted in one type of meltdown or another. Had there been no leadership suspicion of Craig built up by the time he called for a return to PFAL it still would have gone into the toilet because either Craig would have botched the recovery mastery program, or others would have, or no one would have taken it seriously. To this day TWI stands by most of those books and dabbles with them, but there's no serious mastery being accomplished by them. There was one such "return" to PFAL the BOT attempted, I think prior to the release of the POP. If memory serves me (and it often does not) it was in the Spring of 1986 when the BOT were shown the POP privately. For about ONE SINGLE MONTH the SNS tapes were of the BOT members reading from the Blue Book. I now wish I had saved those SNS tapes, but they were so weird and boring back then that I recorded secular music on top of them. The BOT teachers on those tapes were obviously downcast and depressed, injecting no life or inspiration whatsoever into the teachings. They were beyond the Twilight Zone in how they blew it, completely sabotaging the mastery of PFAL. My impression, in hindsight, is that the BOT knew they were screwed up, thought Geer would rescue them, heard the call to return to the collaterals, BUT DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT. Their teachings resembled a teenage boy who hates to make his bed in the morning, but is sternly told that he must make his bed or there's no breakfast for him. So he reluctantly throws the sheets and blankets together haphazardly, deliberately botching the job with wrinkles and crooked alignment of blankets. I remember trying this kind of strategy on my parents, going through the motions of obedience but sabotaging the results in hopes that my parents would give up on the daily insistence that I perform. Oldiesman, I've just seen that the strength of the forces that did what they did to get us all to refuse to get serious about collateral focus and study, were so strong that no alternate scenario would have thwarted their success. They are still at work to this day. These same forces can be seen all through the OT. God would do great things for His people, and in one generation or less they'd walk away from Him. The Golden Calf incident is the epitome of this process, but it's seen everywhere in there. The collapse of the first century church is another spectacular example of how great a grip the adversary has on large groups of people. The ONLY way to thwart these forces is for God to intervene with a huge miracle, which He did in giving us PFAL, and we'll see the results when we finally do start mastering it properly. As our broken cisterns run dry a few of us will sample PFAL again and find it thirst quenching, leading others to follow suit.

Topic, topic topic! Topic: What is Chris Geer doing now? Probably what he's doing now is related to what he did around POP time. Related Sub-topic: Sunesis' post on Geer's POP and followup devoid of specifics. Yes, I remember pulling out my already thin hair back then with this maddening state of vague generalities. Many others remember this too and have bitterly complained of it's injustices. Summary of my posting before the ad homonym attacks: Geer had a blind spot to the specifics, and so did all of us. What we see in the POP is a very detailed and specific recounting of many of Dr's warnings of the dire state of the ministry. Towards the end of the POP we see many details of the few minutes Geer spent with Dr before his last (and soon to be lost) final teaching. Then the blind spot is manifested: not one detail in POP about the contents of these dying last words to us that contained a very specific instruction TWICE in that one very short teaching, which was for even the big-wig leaders to come back to written PFAL and master it. Geer then went on in later years with this surgically precise bind spot in his mind, unable to see the specific remedy Dr gave him and us, totally ignoring the contents of the last teaching. He soon was totally contradicting Dr's SPECIFIC instructions by junking PFAL and producing his own class and materials. All the other splinter groups, in one way or another, have done similarly: total avoidance of the specific instructions. We all had the same surgically placed blind spot as Geer's to the SPECIFIC instructions many of us complained were missing. Years pass and finally someone here in San Diego discovers Dr's last teaching and literally obeys it. A few years later he shows this to me. I turn to the internet and discover that the blind spot has invaded every single grad in the world. The posters who have chimed in ever since sunesis' post and then my response have no comment on this blind spot because they are still afflicted by it. All they want to do is attack me and ignore the topic. Lurking readers who are beginning to see, pray for the grads who are so utterly blinded to the remedy. Open your collaterals and again start receiving strength to help this family rise from the dead. God has given us life and new sight. Praise the Lord!

So am I to understand that no one has anything to say about Geer's total lack of specific instructions, and Dr's totally refused specific instructions? How about the irony? How about any curiosity as to what could have happened if we HAD dropped all the stupid TVTs and gone back to PFAL as Dr specifically instructed? Any curiosity about what might happen if any of us DO return to PFAL minus the TVT baggage? Any at all?

jardinero, In a way I agree with you. However, I do not fit the definition of a troll. Where I agree with you is this: I'd be pretty happy to state my case and leave it at that. However my posts stimulate such guile (those extremely strong spiritual forces again) that someone has got to try and undo what I just posted. It seems that those who are against me are a divided house and not standing. Of course, their "feeding the troll" merely opens a door for me to correct their error and all of a sudden the thread is derailed, but I've gotten more of my message posted than originally planned. I gotta laugh at it all, that is, when I'm not grieving for the closed mindedness towards the good we were given. I'd have been happy to state my case about Chris Geer, and how his direction of the ministry for those two years lacked all specifics like sunesis pointed out, and then my further point that we too were blinded to or deaf to the same specifics plainly spoken by Dr. So, you too, jardinero, even with your post about not feeding the troll have made it available for me to repeat and summarize my latest contribution to this Geer thread. You fed the troll and made him stronger with your sage advice. ****** jkboehme, You wrote: "It seems to me that you be would want to be very familiar with all of veepee's plagiarisms, especially the concepts from secular sources, both proximate & remote." It seems to me that you would want to be very familiar with the OPPOSING points of view to the plagiarism charges, but it's evident you are not. I've posted reams about the supposed plagiarism. I am VERY familiar with all you wish me to be. It's you who are in the dark. If you want to start a thread on it or PM me I may take the time to inform you. Otherwise you can do simple or advanced searches on the topic to see what's been posted by me. You'd not only see these currently unseen points, but you'd also see that I am VERY familiar with it all... so familiar I can refute it effectively for those who want to know more than the very constricted point of view usually expressed here.

Jim, That would be YOUR opinion, that's it's merely my opinion I express. Right? SOMEONE'S got to be able to have a correct opinion that's from God. The question is WHO? Come back to PFAL and find out. ****** Wafer Not!, It's not an attitude, but a notation of fact. Dr's final instructions were thoroughly ignored, and my calling attention to them is totally ignored. I mean to say that I'm ignored in the serious sense, where the ideas I present are carefully considered and explored. It's the content of my posts that is ignored. I realize my posts are noticed by many and focused upon for ridicule, razzing, and remonstrating. The extremely strong forces that hid Dr's Last/Lost Teaching are very much at work. Nearly all grads, in step with nearly all leaders, have done anything and everything BUT focus in a big and exclusive way on the written form of PFAL like Dr told us to do. Even those who work the collaterals a little also mix in many contradictory doctrines, and refuse to rigorously master the material of PFAL. The adversary can cope with, and even work with, ALL the religious activities of grads EXCEPT that activity of us grads where we FINALLY get a handle on the power that's promised in PFAL. If we would only do it God's way and not our own we'd see that promised power.

Garth, When something GREAT is given to us, and we let it slip through our fingers, it's a shame. When you consider the GREAT incompetency at all levels of leadership that resulted from this slippage, it becomes much more than a shame. By far, most of the abuses bemoaned here at GSC stem directly from this great incompetency all us OLGs are guilty of. There are many, many different symptoms that resulted out of our failure to carry out the specific orders we were given, but it all traces back to one common trait we share, how we TOTALLY refused to get the message in our heads as accurate as it was put into print.

Raf, If you only knew how much I identify with and love 45 rpm records, broken or not, you'd try a different strategery. I actually enjoy your latest response mode. I even wrote a poem that includes a line about those lovable antiquities, the 45 record, and I think I posted it here long ago, but it may have been in a thread that was pruned in the last days of the old GSC software. I just hope you still have your settings fixed on the "ignore Mike" mode so that you continue with this perfectly pleasant punctuation of my posts. BTW, there is a good side to the repetition of something over and over. It's called consistency. I intend to not modify my repeated alerting to what we all have forgotten or that had slipped passed us unawares many years ago when we were still being taught by the man God selected to bring His Word back to being available to all who want it.

Raf, I just wrote: "Many readers of this post will do the same and find some way to totally ignore what I'm saying and remain in a state of total disobedience to God." I've told you before that this is an OLG thing, that we Older Leader Grads, are the ones who blew it here and entered into total disobedience to God by ignoring this specific change order. You are not to be blamed for our grievous error. You arrived too late to see the GREAT good that we saw, and I can't blame you for ignoring Dr's specific advice. I doubt if God blames you, either. But we OLGs have got a lot of explaining to do at the bema.