Mike

Catcup, You accept correction just like LCM.

Tom Strange, You didn't have to tell me that when you read my posts that you can't help hearing silly songs in your head. I strongly suspect others do the same, judging from how they get so much of what I say wrong. When I see WW's long posts, like the one above, I can't help but see that old SNL skit where Dan Ackroid plays "The Anal Retentive Chef." I get the giggles when he posts that way and wonder how many readers skip over his posts with a yawn. It was a very funny SNL skit. . . . PS - I swapped this post with my previous one to greater emphasioze my "Amen" to Allan. That's why rascal's post seems to presage this one. She saw my original configuration, before I swapped. So, rascal, are you ready to take an exam on your comprehension of WW's previous post?? ;)-->

Amen, Allan!

Catcup, You wrote: "...I reject the "law of believing" as a LAW. There is a difference between a law and a principle. One is NOT the other" Oh, so you have installed yourself as the official discerner of the fine differences between words? I don't care if the President of the USA along with the UN installed you as the world's official Dictionary Dictator; it would make any difference to this discussion. When we want to know what Dr meant in his writings, is is HIS vocabulary that the inspired Word of God is expressed in, and not your world's definitions. What we were taught will make sense when you take the time to properly understand it. Believing is a law, and we need to find out what that means, not reject it. *** You wrote: "In my many years in The Way International, during the many classes I attended, and while literally sitting at the feet of this man, I NEVER heard Victor Paul Wierwille claim that believing was a 'crude approximation of a law.' However, Wierwille did claim 'mathematical exactness and scientific precision,' in the same breath as 'the law of believing.'" Catcup, you have given away two of your weakness in one paragraph here. The first is your past focus on the spoken teaching of Dr, when he repeatedly tried to get top leadership to see the written form. Your use of phrases like "classes" and "sitting at the feet" and "heard" is indicative of the malaise that totally infected top leadership who rested on the spoken forms, and drifted farther and farther from the much more powerful and accurate written forms of same. Dr's final instructions were a final plea, after a ten year string of similar pleas, to get leadership serious about mastering the written forms. Some reasons why so many top leaders had no idea what to do when the ministry meltdown occurred in 1986-89 was because they had no solid roots in the written teachings, and the spoken forms had by then degenerated into many differing TVTs of powerless sloganeering. I have posted countless times here about this crucial distinction between the written and spoken forms of Dr's teachings and how leadership missed this distinction. You help prove my point in this telling paragraph of yours. *** The next weakness you exposed is the depth of learning you achieved. You may have gotten the wording right when called upon to reissue doctrines we were taught, but the depth of understanding wasn't and still isn't there. I'm talking about Dr telling us that "Believing Equals Receiving" was a "crude approximation of a law." I'm going to show you TWO places where he put it in writing. Again, I point out that if you had really gone to the books as Dr urged us repeatedly, and mastered them as he also urged us, THEN you would have recognized the truth of my use of the phrase of "crude approximation." *** But first, I want to include others in this indictment. WordWolf is a leading writer here of how well he "mastered" the books. He has stated on numerous occasions how hard he studied and how well he did on the AC test. Yet he, you, and many others who may have done well in such settings are far from a deep understanding of what is written. I loved the AC test. I was surprised at how easy was, and how refreshing it was. In those days I spent an enormous amount of time in the books. I commuted by train to my job then and had AT LEAST three hours of study time per day, plus my job was wide open to reading time being available. It was years later that I drifted from these habits, and drifted (like everyone else) from the accuracy of IT IS WRITTEN. But when I took the AC test it was not only a breeze, it was like a teaching, a reminder of many items I loved. I was Roman Catholic, so I was set free of many deep prisons that religion had shackled me in. I paid deep attention to the contents of the books, especially in the areas where I was set free. I paid deep attention to areas that looked too good to be true, like "heaven bound." I paid deep attention to areas that were scarey to me, like "Jesus Christ is not God." I did not merely memorize sentences so that I could parrot out answers like I now see people like you and WW must have done. Two years ago I challenged posters here for MONTHS to find the chapter, the ENTIRE CHAPTER, where Dr taught about "time travel." I dangled this challenge and teased posters for months to find this chapter, yet no one could. Like your assertion that Dr never taught "crude approximation," they all insisted I was crazy and there was no such chapter. The reason no one could find in the corroded recesses of their minds that chapter was because I slightly altered the terminology. If I had used the words "caught away in time" then I'm sure many of the shallow parrot "masters" of the material would have remembered that chapter in WWAY. Because they had only a shallow comprehension of the material, their biological search mechanisms couldn't find it. I strongly suspect that there are now AI computer programs that can "read" all of Dr's books and then answer my "time travel" question correctly. Yet no one here could. You're correct, Catcup, Dr never did use the exact phrase "crude approximation" when speaking of the deficiencies of the sentence "Believing Equals Receiving." He used different wording, but with the same deep meaning. I have posted several times here on one such spot, and then the other day I saw a second. "Believing Equals Receiving" was a mnemonic slogan to help the memory with a simple, short rhyme, but it in no way was the full teaching Dr gave us on the subject. It was only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect, and Dr said so... that is he WROTE so. If you had done what Dr told you to do in his final instructions you would have spent time in BTMS and eventually seen page 29. But by that time you had you own agenda, like we all did, and missed seeing what Dr WROTE on this subject. It's not on a tape or in a class. It's not even in a chapter. It's in the Introduction to Part II of the Blue Book. Many people did use the collaterals for teachings, especially in the earlier years. But only those serious about MASTERING the books ever saw the introductions or prefaces after their initial exposures to the books. Page 29 of BTMS reads "The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." (((BTW, I wonder if it EQUALLY applies to all three realms. This is what I was thinking out loud about in yesterday's post. My suspicion is that it's only in the spiritual that it ALWAYS works with no interference. This is the frontier of my learning here, so far.))) To say that "what we believe for or expect, we get" is to only SIMPLY state the law. If I were to say that the law of gravity says "everything falls" then I'd only be stating a very simple, abbreviated form of that law. If I wanted to avoid this "crude approximation" I'd say that "gravity exerts a force that is reciprocally proportional to the distance squared of the product of the mass and the Earth's mass multiplied by a scaling factor of such-and-such a well known magnitude. If we say that "Believing Equals Receiving" is the law of believing, then it MUST be kept in mind that this is only a SIMPLE stating of the law. It's approximate. If it were bandied about in a TVT long enough, without the other factors, though, then it's a CRUDE approximation. You seem to be unaware (or not forthcoming) of one such crucial factor when you wrote in the same post: "I don't care what you believe with all your heart, just because you believe it does not make it so." Well, OF COURSE just believing doesn't make it so, it's only believing a promise of God that makes it so. "Believing a promise of God equals receiving" is a much more accurate formulation, but is loses the rhyme and the brevity that "Believing Equals Receiving" supplies, so it can't be used as a positive slogan for a quick reminder of the overall law. I remember when JAL was on the rampage in the late 80's an early 90's and he accused Dr of failing to teach this important factor of including the "promise of God" in our understanding of of the law of believing. I pointed out to him ten places in the class where Dr absolutely DID include and emphasize that crucial factor. It was HE (and many others) who were guilty of committing the ommission. He brushed off my correction of his criticism, just like I suspect you will here of my correcting you. You all answer to God, though. *** The other place where Dr wrote that "Believing Equals Receiving" cannot be taken as a full understanding of the law (and hence is a crude approximation for those who think it is the fullness) is in GMWD page 79. There we see: "The great things of this world are available to men and women who know how to operate one of God’s laws, namely the law of 'believing equals receiving.' And this law includes 'believing equals action.' Great accomplishments are not necessarily just for people with great intellectual ability; they are attainable by men and women who believe to receive. It doesn’t hurt to have a few brains, but it doesn’t help unless one operates this universal law of believing. Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God’s Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. But for those who haven’t been operating and therefore benefiting from the law of positive believing, a knowledge of it from God’s Word can open the door to change course and set sail on the new, better way." But instead, many want to say stuck in the old not-so-better way. Not me. I seek a deep understanding of all the is written. That's where the treasure is. It's in getting a deeper than parrot like understanding of the words. God will help us restore all that was lost and more as we seek this new better way to be found in mastering the written forms of PFAL. .

Just like true, pure believing has a close (but no cigar) second, so does fear. Worry won't bring on the focus of the worry, but allowing worry to LODGE, take up residence in the mind, will eventually lead to the kind of REAL fear that enables the adversary. You people who talk about having exercised fear or believing, actually only engaged in mental assent or worry. The natural state of man is to DIS-believe everything of God, so we all start out lacking proper believing. In this world, with all it's infuences, true believing is a feat. If it were easy then why was Abraham lauded as the father of believing. Believing is rare. Fear is less rare.

Hi James, You wrote: "Mike...here's a question for you...since Jesus didn't WANT to go thru the crucifixion (no more than you or I would WANT to)///does that mean that he feared? (or had fear) Since he is/was a man..and a sinless man at that..did he fear?? Afterall..he did say" not my will but thy will be done" Right? IF he had fear..would that then be "sin"? I know I have fears & most of what I fear & feared in my life has never ever "come into fruition"...just curious what you "think" on this q.....JJ" We were taught that a man is not responsible for the thoughts that come to his mind, but only if he allows them to LODGE there (like the unfortunate mother discussed in the class who allowed her fears to live and flourish in her) is it sin. We were taught that Jesus was tempted in all ways, yet without sin. Does that answer your question?

I'm sorry folks, but I just don't have the time to spend on every single detail that comes up against me, not even close. But the important things I make time for. Belle, you wrote: "Every single time I let go of something it falls to the earth. Why? Gravity - it's a law." That's not accurate. Try letting go of a helium balloon, and will NOT fall to earth. Ultimately it will, but not immediately. Remember the word "ultimately" that I boldfaced in that quote from Dr several posts previous? Why doesn't the balloon fall? Because OTHER principles are at work, and they build an illusion that gravity is not working on the balloon. Similarly with an airplane. To say that the LAW of gravity states that "everything falls when I let go of it" is a crude approximation. It works for MANY things, though, and CAN AT TIMES be a useful expression of the law of gravity. I've pointed out here OFTEN that Dr was very careful to mention in several places that "Believing equals receiving" is a crude approximation of the law of believing. Many here have NOT been so careful to note the fine tuning Dr gave us in expressing this law. I also boldfaced the phrase "contributing factors" to show that, like with falling objects, there may be other factors to consider when looking into specific and particular applications or mis-applications of the law of believing. ******* Another angle to consider is the difference between the natural realm and the spiritual. The adversary was given great control over the senses realm and his interference can give the illusion that the law of believing can look like it's being violated, much like a rising balloon makes it look like gravity is not working. I'm still learning about this latest angle, but so far it looks like what we were taught in the FOUNDATIONAL class was just the beginning of what needs to be learned about believing. The adversary does not have any power in the spiritual realm, and from that perspective (God's) the law never even appears to be violated. There are so many details that have to be looked into here, but the complaints I always hear about how we were taught this law always come from people who have never or seldom grappled with the more advanced aspects of this law, only the foundational expressions of it in the Foundational Class. I yearn to discuss these things with thinkers, not emotional complainers. There is much yet to learn about these things. For those who want to think a little deeper on this I'm repeating my post of last night, the one to which I referred to boldfaced words here. ***************** "Do you know what killed that little boy? You just quit yakking about anything else. You know what killed him. God didn't kill that boy. You know what killed that boy? The fear in the heart in the life of that mother--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened. "Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive. She was afraid of her boy, she was afraid he was going to get killed. She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that. God didn't do it! She did it with her own negative believing. Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible the death of that little boy." We've been over this umpteen times, but for the new people: God did not do it. Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "contributing factors" mentioned here? Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "ultimately made possible" mentioned here? The woman focused on fear, when she had good advice to do the opposite. What we select in our focus is important. If we see ourselves developing great fear, it's wise to put on the brakes, learn how to control our minds, and find the protective promises of God to believe. What we should NOT do is condemn ourselves. If we see others falling into the fear trap, we should not condemn them, but help the out with kind words. It is in THIS point (not Dr's teaching) that our TVT (Twi Verbal Tradition) went awry, and our experiences soured. .

Not worry, but fear, extreme fear.

I learned how to not be in the grip of the fears you describe. My reasons for continuing with PFAL are positive. I see treasure there. I don't believe Dr promoted such fears, but I know many in leadership did. I see just the opposite in Dr's books.

continuously? I think not.

Ok, but let's rightly divide it in this repetition, shall we? Do you know what killed that little boy? You just quit yakking about anything else. You know what killed him. God didn't kill that boy. You know what killed that boy? The fear in the heart in the life of that mother--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened. Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive. She was afraid of her boy, she was afraid he was going to get killed. She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that. God didn't do it! She did it with her own negative believing. Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible the death of that little boy. We've been over this umpteen times, but for the new people: God did not do it. Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "contributing factors" mentioned here? Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "ultimately made possible" mentioned here? The woman focused on fear, when she had good advice to do the opposite. What we select in our focus is important. If we see ourselves developing great fear, it's wise to put on the brakes, learn how to control our minds, and find the protective promises of God to believe. What we should NOT do is condemn ourselves. If we see others falling into the fear trap, we should not condemn them, but help the out with kind words. It is in THIS point (not Dr's teaching) that our TVT (Twi Verbal Tradition) went awry, and our experiences soured. .

I'm persistent because I hurt for you all. I see you getting farther and farther from the good we were given, and closer and closer to very self-destructive attitudes and habits. The good sits there in the books waiting to be re-discovered.

God judges righteously. I make judgements as to what I am to focus on.

People, I'm now sure that some here LOVE to have their stomach turned! Out of all the things that Dr presented to us, look at what you're gravitating towards and focusing on! Dr did not FOCUS on things like this. He pointed out things and moved on. Of course, you righteous people have a good reason for isolating and dwelling on such items. --> Of course Dr did NOT have a good reason for even briefly bringing it up. Go ahead and focus away, showing the world just what you are made of, and becoming.

How open is this board... better yet Dan, how open are YOU... to the idea of dropping endless, futile judgment of men, and focusing on what God hath wrought?

dmiller, Thanks :)-->

Belle, What is the oddlist?

Belle, Your comments in between lines of Dr's quote reflect the TVT teaching, not Dr's. I could quote hundreds of passages where he taught different from what your comments depict. If your comments reflect what OTHERS taught you in TWI, then I can commiserate with you, but I know Dr did not teach that way.

Hi def, Thanks for the welcome. I'm sure some others will disagree, though. I'm not sure how much time I have to be back, but I do try to keep up by at least reading the thread titles and some contents of a few. Yes, TWI and the TVT did take us away from the Biblical Jesus, but Dr himself urged us to seek and learn about him.

Hi Cool Waters, It's interesting that you should post that Chapter 17 from John. That was one of my MOST favorite chapters way back when. It's also interesting how many of us had differing experiences while listening to VPW's teaching. I was too scared of believing Dr's teaching that Jesus Christ was not God, so I COMBED the gospels for everything Jesus himself said he was. John 17 was a highlight of my gospel searching. I also figured that to get the most out of Dr's teaching to me, I OUGHT to spend some time in the gospels because they were written for out learning. I wanted to learn, so I read them. GOSH! I figured that the whole KJV ought to be read if we wanted to learn all that God wanted us to learn. *** The "absent Christ" is another subject altogether. Surely we can all see that in Acts Chapter 1 there was SOME way in which Jesus went from being personally present or physically present, to being spiritually present. He went from physically present to NOT physically present. A cloud hid him from their sight, it says. Earlier in the gospels (I think it was John too) Jesus says to his disciples that he was going to "go away" or to leave. He says that he was IN SOME WAY going to be absent so that he could send us the Comforter. Do you remember these lines? He says to them (paraphrasing) that it would be good for them that he goes away, or becomes absent. It's just plain logic that when Christ "comes again" that there is SOME KIND of absence that his "coming" will terminate. It's just plain logic that no one here can see him right now, or come up with his phone number, so IN SOME WAY he is absent. Yes, spiritually, he is not absent. In the gospels he is WITH people physically. Afterward he is IN people spiritually. *** Yes, in the TWI verbal traditions (TVT) that drifted more and more from Dr's teachings, we were taught to ignore the gospels, and that Jesus was totally off limits. This was Way Corps teaching, NOT Dr's teaching. I didn't like it when this happened. Neither did Dr. VPW saw that we were drifting away from Christ and the pure Word so he taught things like this: "Ladies and gentlemen, whatever you have to do to know the Lord Jesus Christ, do it. Wherever you have to go to learn about him, do it. The one great driving force of your soul should be to know Jesus Christ. Who is he? The only way you’ll ever know who Jesus Christ is is to come to God’s Word. The Word makes known Jesus Christ. The Word tells you who he is. It is that Word which brings you to a knowledge of salvation." If anyone missed this plea of Dr's it can be heard on SNS tape #1014 from April 20, 1980. By that time a lot of drifting and forgetting had occurred and Dr tried to help us correct our error in shoving Jesus aside. This same tape also assures us, just a few minutes earlier, that IN SOME WAY (the best way) Jesus was quite present, IN SPITE OF his apparent absence. A year later Dr repeated this same plea in a Way Magazine article in the May/June '81 issue. It was repeated again, a THIRD time in 1985, in his last book, "Order My Steps In Thy Word" on page 222. How many other things, like this plea, have been forgotten, or had slipped past us unnoticed? The only way to find out is to stop trusting our faulty memories and the false TVT base they rest on and come back to the original teachings.

Long Gone, I posted on topic here. When my position was misrepresented I corrected it. If people would have simply let my posts stand as is, then I'd have reserved my later comments for the Doctrinal forum.

Steve, Again: it's the printed record that I point to, not me.

Sunesis, You wrote: "I can't imagine a single person who would "need to see" a doggie porno film." I'm sure you are not claiming to have a comprehensive, all inclusive imagination. Your imagination can grow. There are lots of bizarre situations that humans get seduced into, and help to get out may LOOK bizarre to those not so hurt. Let's not forget that Dr was teaching in that AC that bestiality was WRONG! There may have been some innocents in the class who couldn't believe anyone could ever descend to that level, and needed a shocking wake up call like I'm sure that film could have provided. Twenty years ago I could have never imagined the bitterness and forgetfullness exhibited by many grads here.

WordWolf, As far as Jesus Christ appointing Dr as one of his spokesmen, you got it wrong in what I have reported. I have not claimed to have heard Jesus say that. I have been told here that my message differs from what Dr said and wrote. I have been told often that Dr never claimed to be writing God-breathed doctrine to us. I say that the lack of diligence in our studying the written record Dr left us is where things went wrong for us. You and others say you were diligent students. I say you were not (and I include my own guilty soul here too), but that many crucial things slipped passed you, me, and others, or were forgotten. Many crucial things slipped passed us all. These things would have given us a wonderful time, but instead we wasted a lot of time. One of the crucial things that was forgotten or that slipped passed us was that Dr MANY times claimed that he was speaking for God, and with greater authority than all the academic attempts to re-construct and translate the original scriptures. This item of Jesus Christ appointing Dr as a spokesman is one such item that you either forgot, or that slipped passed you unnoticed. It was Dr who claimed Jesus Christ appointed him as a spokesman, and it is in print near the end of the Introduction to JCNG, in the middle of page 9 in the 2nd edition, in italic type. Many, many places where Dr claimed "Thus saith the Lord" were missed or forgotten by us all. Many, many places in the written formns PFAL where God taught us the spiritually abundant life were missed or forgotten by us all. It's no too late to abandon the bitterness and all the soap operas and all the rumors, and to come back to the written record we were given to see the greatness of God.

WordWolf, I'm constantly pointing with all my might to the written record, along with a weaker pointing to some taped teachings. As far as the AC goes, my pointing is largely mixed with documenting what is NOT in there. In Dr's last teaching, the AC is conspicuously absent TWICE from the list of items we were told to master. In spite of my insistence that the real action is in that written (and tape augmented) record, you and many here want to point to everything BUT that. There were many things that Dr did that were wrong, because he was a human being. All of God's servants did wrong, except Jesus Christ, and yet God still allowed them to do His work when and where they were capable of it. God's rewards will be fair and based on what good and bad a man does. But what work God allowed Dr to do is based NOT on whether Dr was worthy of praise, but on whether he would get the job done. We are promised that all the bad ever done will be someday be forgotten. I think it's good to practice that graceful forgetfulness now, whenever possible. Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. No one gets away with cheating God. David paid a heavy price for his drifting from God. Yet his work, the Psalms, still stands. I know nothing of the dog incident. My '75 AC did not include that, and as far as I know, it was only in the very early 70's that was included. Dr did different things at different AC's. For all I know, those AC's where that film was shown may have had students who needed to see that. I know that the times in which that film was shown had a lot of bizarre trends going on in our culture. If it was profitable, Dr gets rewarded for it. If that film was shown for the wrong reasons: no reward. But this is NOT in the area where I point. I'm not interested in vpw the man, but in his work, the good part of his work, where God inspired him, along with his editorial team. I don't idolize the man at all. I wish he were the man he knew to be. We'd all have an easier time of it had he been. But that's true for thousands of men who went before us. I am thankful that when he was in fellowship Dr was faithful in carrying out the work he was given. That he didn't conform to what you, me, or others wanted is not worth spending a lot of time on. I point to the positives which are plenteous.