Mike

Hi Belle, We "met" and had a tiny dialog on John B's website a few weeks ago, and now we are finally doing a little here. I have some things to say keying on this post of yours, Belle, but I want you to know that what I'm about to say is NOT addressed directly to you. It may apply, but I don't know, seeing that we've hardly talked about anything. I've seen many of your posts, but there just isn't enough time to read AND remember everything that everyone here says. My comments below are much more addressed to other posters which whom I have had a lot of dialog, and I know their positions on issues much better than yours. You wrote (quoting Jim): "quote: Minds are like parachutes - they work better when they are open. __ Now, see, Jim. This is where I get confused.... First craig went on a long diatribe about people saying "have an open mind" and how that was stupid and basically telling someone to be ready, willing and able to be under devil spirit influence or get possessed. __ THEN, I read somewhere on TWIts website, this other website, a way rag or somewhere in TWIt words about "having an open mind". Which is it? Does anyone know???? __ And if they are admonishing "their people" to have an open mind, then what's so wrong with some intellectual dialog? Jesus, Peter, Paul....all of them did it. Maybe TWIt's "people" aren't as "prevailing" as they think they are." I sometimes see that many people think in cliches, rather than with concepts. It's often the way words sound and fit together that people latch onto, rather than the concepts behind the words. The phrases "open mind" and "free speech" are curiously related to each other, and to the main topic and subtopics of this thread. In academia the phrase "open mind" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good; and in politics the phrase "free speech" and the concepts behind it are ALMOST always good. However, in both academia and politics there are exceptions to these rules, such as the more virulent forms of hate speech, conspiracy, or falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In areas other than academia and politics the exceptions to these rules are even more common. But for people who latch on to cliche modes of thinking, the two phrases we are looking at here are ALWAYS good, and their converses always bad. *** Now for this thread, we've been talking about free speech on an open forum such as John B's. When I first went there I saw prominently displayed the phrase "Open Forum" and that conveyed to me "free speech." I saw "Visitors Forum" (or something like that) and went there posting freely. Then came John B's "reconstruction" and it's suddenly not an open fourm with free speech. Is this bad???? Should we criticize John B, or his obvious bosses at TWI, for pulling the plug on free speech there? Oddly enough this exact same issue has come up here, and not too long ago. I looked for it all over GSC, but it seems to have disappeared. It may have been "pruned" as the Open forum announcement and discussions indicate this is a possibility. OR it may have been simply moved, and the Search Function can't find it yet. Luckily I have a saved copy of it. I reproduced some of it below, and HIGHLY EDITED it for brevity. I even removed entire posts to keep it brief. I used [square brackets] to add any small items for readability. If any participants object to my editing I will send them a complete transcript so they can bring out what they feel may be unjustly excised, AND/OR fix it to please them. This thread used to be in the Open forum, and the title of the thread was "For any who may be interested" and it was started by searcher on July 27, 2004. The overall context of the thread is searcher complaining about how Rafael ran his website. ############################################################## POSTED BY searcher For a short time I posted on a Christian site, trying to get a "handle' on Christian thinking. I was set up rather nicely by someone asking me what I believed, to which I replied, a reminder of a rule against "bible bashing' immediately followed this. Ah well, I was stupid to fall for the set up so have only myself to blame for that, it does however, re-enforce what has happened many times in my dealings with Christians, "believe exactly as we do, or else". To prevent any discomfort of people on that site, I deleted myself, and removed the site from "favourites". ############################################################## POSTED BY dmiller Hey, How are ya, Searcher?? Unfotunately, I have got to agree with this assessment. What's that bumper sticker I saw the other day?? ahhhh -- "Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open." Have run into a few of these boards myself, and have reconciled myself to the fact that only a few topics can "honestly" be discussed by myself and the other members, since what I really want to say, is not allowed. I do what I can, despite the restrictions. I've found that e-mail, and private topic messaging manages to circumvent the "rules and regs" of the various boards! ############################################################## POSTED BY searcher Dmiller, Hi I am quite happy to leave people to get on with their own lives/beliefs, it just saddens me that some (read many) take the attitude they do. I guess I expected better, (tolerance to honest questions, and love) I suppose it depends on which god a person believes in, NT god (god of love) or OT god (love me or I will kill you etc). ############################################################## POSTED BY Raf Searcher, No one asked you to delete your post. You did that on your own. I'll repeat here what I said there: "We hear challenges to the Bible everywhere we go. We deal with skepticism everywhere we go. All we ask for is this one little corner of the Internet where we can affirm each other's faith rather than sow seeds of doubt. Please respect that." The forum rules page on my site not only specifically asks atheists and agnostics to give us our space: it also points them here, with a link to make it easy, for an easily accessible alternative with many of the same posters. David, If you guys want to call that censorship, I guess that's okay. But to say we "deny the existence" of one side of the coin is just not fair. We don't deny anything. We asked for our space. Are you guys telling us that we can't have it? ############################################################## POSTED BY OnionEater Raf has the right to set the conditions of his site and should be respected for it. Wayfers were taught motivational techniques to control the outcome of their conversation therefore "setting you up". I know because I was taught that and I am very much against it. But it is Raf's site. JWO is the only site I have seen so far that allows a truely open mind. ############################################################## POSTED BY Steve! OE, please! This site is only censored in terms of HOW things are said. Freedom of Speech does NOT mean "freedom to talk" or "freedom to spout whatever comes into your head". It is "freedom to express your own beliefs". At this site, any poster is free to post whatever he or she wants, as long as you are mindful of a few guidelines. One of those guidelines is: don't post attacks against other posters. Another is: except in certain situations, don't post names - you don't have to totally obliterate names, just obscure them a bit with a single asterisk - e.g., J*hn Sm*th, not J*** S****. If you wanted to post that your idea of God is a 12-headed dragon that eats people and poops red flowers, you are free to do so. ############################################################## POSTED BY Raf For the record, I don't think Searcher was "set up." He expressed some views that did not appear to conform to Christianity (on a Christian message board) and was asked (on a Christian message board) what was the Biblical basis of his view. That's not a set up. It's a natural question. Like I said, [searcher] your presence was a challenge. You're not the only non-Christian registered. And on top of that, I'm still trying to figure out how to handle the one Mormon who's registered. (advice, please, if you're reading this). If it interests you, I find myself in exactly your situation on another site (run by Trinitarians). Trying to figure out how to work it out. ############################################################## POSTED BY searcher Why was it a challenge? I was there to learn, if and when I posted something that did not agree with christian belief, it was in the form of a question, and the answers I recieved to those questions gave me something to think seriously about. I did not, to my knowledge, question christianity itself at any time, I was there to learn, not oppose, as I stated. Are you real sure that the 'problem' was me? ############################################################## POSTED BY Raf It was a challenge because I had not made room for the fact that some non-Christians will be interested in the form of dialogue you appear to be seeking. I believe I have addressed that now, but you tell me. In the meantime: I used the word "anonymous" in my post above not to disparage posters or excuse their actions, but to suggest to you that Internet posters as a rule are a poor substitute for flesh and blood human beings who can talk to you face to face and answer your questions, or fail to do so, in a timely manner. ############################################################## POSTED BY Mike searcher, I see value in Free Speech forums like GSC here AND in Focused Speech forums. They both have their benefits. It's out of respect for Rafael's stated desire for a Focused Speech forum that I have not even tried to post there and disrupt that focus. I think I've only gone there once or twice to read small amounts of material because I do not want to develop that particular focus. A Free Speech forum often posts its rules of decorum. Likewise, a Focused Speech forum should have its rules posted. Because we live in a free speech oriented society, a Focused Speech forum should open up with a disclaimer right up front that it is NOT a Free Speech forum, but a focused one. The rules of that focus can be laid out in as much detail as the owner desires. As unanticipated detail challenges arise, the rules can be augmented. Free speech is a wonderful thing at times, but so is focus. Raf, as much as I feel kindly towards most of the Mormons I've ever met and respect many things about them, I think you should throw them out on their ear if they disrupt the focus there. ############################################################## POSTED BY Raf Thank you, Mike. There, I said it. And my keyboard didn't even erupt into flames. Seriously, One of the things I don't want to happen is that I hear so many things that sound like good ideas, I make the changes, and I end up with a board where the rules are no different than GSCafe. GSCafe isn't broke! I ain't trying to fix it! I also ain't trying to duplicate it. Even the political forums on LES are more concerned with what's Biblical and unBiblical, rather than which party is right and which is wrong. I heard that someone called LES "The first GSCafe offshoot." I think that's funny. I opened a new room on the site called "Ready to Answer." I hope it addresses the deficiency outlined on this thread. ############################################################## POSTED BY searcher Raf, Truely, I harbour no ill will toward you or anyone on your site, I honestly hope that it becomes all that you hope it will. For some reason, I seem to make (many) christians uncomfortable. That is all, and everything, I can live with it, but I dont expect others to. My best wishes to you and your site. ############################################################## POSTED BY Tom Strange Searcher... why not give Raf's site another chance? He's a pretty good guy (which I think you know). He's even set up that other forum for folks like you. If you really did/were enjoy most of your time there and found some answers... why not? I haven't read the thread over there where all of this happened, I'm just basing in on what I've read here on this one. If you want to "give it another chance" he's made space available to you. Good luck in your search. ############################################################## POSTED BY Mike searcher, I agree from what you've said that you seem to have had a polite approach. The notion of a privately held Focused Speech forum is not very well known in our society, and I can understand you entering Raf's place not knowing exactly how he wanted to run it. It seems you have the civility to allow him such a privilege as you became aware of it. I've seen many instances where the constitutional right to free speech in public places is confused with what kind of speech is allowed on privately owned premises. It comes up often in the poetry meetings I attend. And thank you Raf, for accepting my suggestion. This sure is one happy family thread here isn't it! We're all getting along pretty well. Why don't we all kiss and close it, before we're at each other's throats again? ##############################################################

HCW, As a preparation for our discussion, could I ask you to think through the setting in which Dr's comments occurred? I'm not only interested in the EXACT words he said that you paraphrased, but also anything he said just prior and just following your reported words. I also want to know exactly what you said in that conversation. I even would find it helpful to know a few of the other topics that were discussed that day, as well as any similar topics that came up in previous days. In other words, I'm seeking exact wording he used AND the EXTREMELY exact context in which the whole conversation occurred. I'm mentioning this up-front to give you time to think it through now, instead of surprising you with such a challenge deep into a debate. You mentioned that you had a photographic memory, and I am hoping that the auditory components of your memory may be of similar sharpness. I know that this may possibly not be the case, since the human brain has far more space devoted to visual information than to auditory, but whatever you can remember an then bring to the table would be extremely helpful in a thorough discussion.

Galen, You wrote: "Dont worry, they lurk here too, and 'know' what is said." I sure HOPE they lurk here! They are often in my mind as an eavesdropping audience when I post. It was to bring things to TWI leadership's attention that I wanted to post there on John B's website in the first place. I too had some behind the scenes e-mails with John B. He does strike me as a lot less rabid than LCM, but his attitude of elitism is apparent as an undertone in his communications. He ended up banning me from his website (and e-mailing him) because we disagreed on theology... basically just one KJV verse. He cut and ran without even a minor discussion of that verse, whether it was translated well, or whether he was rightly dividing it. YET... I still think his website is forward movement for an organization that's been moving backwards for over a decade. At least he had the balls to communicate SOME with me and a few others. Maybe others in TWI will take the big step of shedding their total insularity from his example. Maybe John B's bold three steps forward (in spite of the probably forced two "reconstruction" steps back) represent an undercurrent of new thought already underway within TWI. I still applaud TWI as having stuck with Dr's books, even though they still fail to take the word "master" seriously. Of all the splinter groups, the stump looks to hold the most promise of recovery to me.

...and speaking of unresponded to posts... . . . . Hi HCW, It looks like you're pretty well done with your LEAD thread, so I thought I'd see if you still wanted to continue with the mini-discussion we had going in this thread. The issue you brought up has come up before here at GreaseSpot, and in many e-mails, so I've put a lot of thought into it. However, you are the first person to report any private conversation with Dr on the spiritual status of the PFAL writings. I am interested in hearing any details you can supply, because this topic is very near and dear to my heart. I don't want to discuss it for the sake of debating in itself, but in the interest of thoroughness I think we could get into some important details.

The honor is mine. :)--> I was merely busy with work, and too tired to write when I got home. This happens with me frequently, and I TRY to keep track of unresponded to posts of others. Many still slip between the cracks. One of my pie-in-the sky projects is to find all of those lost posts and finally respond to them. Someday...

def59, You wrote: "God's ways and understanding are higher than ours, when we see things in the Bible we do not understand, we should by all means study them with all of God-given faculties, but in the end, we may not get all the answers we would like or even how we would like them." This is pretty much the sum total of what I've been saying. God's ways are different from our ways. Our ways of laws and police and courts are the only ways we have to do things regarding property rights. In most cases some justice is served with our ways. But God has superceding laws and ways of meting out justice. Oakspear, a few posts back you opined that I had brought up Israel's land grab as a distraction, but it wasn't intended to be that at all. It was another example of where our ways are different from God's. Our notions of real estate and ownership don't jive at all with what Joshua did. I remember years of difficulties accepting how things went down there. It took some time for me to see that there are occasions when the True God gives real genuine revelation to someone to take action that is beyond the acceptable in man's ways and systems of laws and courts. Joshua's taking of land and Dr's taking of text are two examples of this. Of course it all hinges on whether genuine revelation is given. But recognizably genuine revelation like this happens so infrequently that this superceding of man's ways with God's ways is hardly ever thought through. This is why I had years of difficulty reading Joshua. There are always plenty of examples of people CLAIMING to have God's revelation to go against some laws of man, but in reality their claim is not true. This happens so often that, even with people who believe in God, the thought of a genuine nullification of a law of man becomes suspect. I think What the Hay had it right in labeling all these objections to the manner of citation of sources Dr used for some of his sources as "straining at a gnat." If it's the case that Dr did not have genuine revelation then all these charges have merit. But if, If, IF, IF God gave Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyon and others some genuine revelations, and then God gave Dr revelation to find them and "put them together" with citations sparce, THEN, as I've constantly maintained here, all these plagiarism objections evaporate. I think the best way to validate the PFAL revelations is to read them, study them, and master them.

Oakspear, You wrote: "Oh, it's new and spiffy-looking alright, and they've done a fine job of keeping the riff-raff out." I guess I gotta admit it: I'm kinda thankful they DO let the riff-raff in HERE. :D-->

Ginger and Carol were my WOW sisters. Carol was interim Corps that year, making her 12th (?) Corps. I think she was from Michigan. I never saw or heard from her since completing our WOW year in 83. Ginger was from Columbia MO, and returned to that city after WOW, became an admissions officer at a college there, and married. We kept in touch a tiny bit but lost contact about 15 years ago. I'd love to find both of these great sisters.

Yeah! Are you dat Burke boy? Oakspear, he was my foist twigleada.

Mr Ham, Remember it is a volunteer operation, and I think I remember too that the administrator described himself there as a father, and as having a real job to tend to, as well as taking college courses. I know that when I was hit with a number of my own much simpler computer reconstruction issues late last summer it put me behind 3 months in posting here. It's been only a few weeks that the site has been "down." And remember too that he was relatively invaded by GreaseSpotters after having a calm peacful slow startup period for about a whole year. You gotta figure he has policy and software permission issues as well as security to consider. Let's also not forget that dollar costs may be involved too. #########################################################################

I actually CAN remember that too being bandied about at twig announcment/promotion times! However, it was only once a year or so, usually summer camp time.

Pirate1974, Three posts above you wrote: "You were definitely in a different twi than I was, oldiesman, that's for sure. The pressure to take pfal began the second twig meeting I ever went to, I think. It wasn't pressure like 'if you don't take it, you can't keep coming to twig.' It was pressure like 'if you want to know all about this or that, you have to take the class. We're not going to tell you all our secrets unless you pony up. __ It might not have been like that everywhere, but it sure was in N.C.'" I don't think it was so much an "area" thing as much as it was a maturity thing. In my area there were some twigs that pushed the film class with the secretive elitism strategy you described. When I did see this in operation, it impressed me that those twigleaders were less mature in that they were failing to operate like we twigleaders were taught by headquarters. Some of these failings were due these less mature twigleaders having not heard the training that HQ did offer. Some of these failings were due to a twigleader having received that training, but later forgot or rejected it. In my adventures being a twigleader, twice and in two widely separated States, I see phases of my life where I fell, for a time or two, into all the categories I just described above. Here's a gross summary of what the HQ training was: (1.) All twigleaders were to promote the class bigtime. (2.) Twigleaders were to teach ONLY from the collaterals. This was RE-emphasized by Nancy D on the PFAL '77 album, but it was in the training materials well before that, before 1972. (3.) For new people twigleaders were to tell them that if they come to fellowship and don't want to take the class, THEY'D STILL HEAR THE SAME MATERIAL TAUGHT FOR FREE in fellowship meetings, but it would take about TWO AND A HALF YEARS for the all the class to material to be covered in those twig teachings. --- We were to tell the new people that they were WELCOME to take the long way for free at twig, or they could take the short way: 3 weeks in the filmed class. How many OLGs remember that calculated figure: 2 1/2 years? This strategy broke down because item # (2.) above was constantly violated on the field, where twigleaders would want to teach their own research material, instead of the "boring old collaterals." AGAIN, I not only report this as a common phenomenon among twigleaders, I plead guilty to it too. The whole reason for Nancy D's piece on the PFAL '77 album was to bring us back to the early 70's approach of collateral based twigs. The breakdown of item # (2.) above was occurring well earlier than '77 to have made it to such a prominent spot on that highly distributed album. I have much other tape and magazine evidence that breakdowns like this were occurring in all leadership, including the top ones, around '74 to '75. So, Pirate1974, when and where twigs suffered this breakdown, or where the twigleaders had not even had the training, the secretive elitism strategy was frequently latched upon by the twigleader. It wasn't as much an area thing as it was an individual twigleader thing. Later on it could have been more an area thing, as the lcm style took over area by area. Later on, in the post 1982 years, the secretive elitism strategy took greater root. As you put it: "We're not going to tell you all our secrets unless you pony up" became the norm, but that was much later. The proper way WAS done in some twigs where the two learning tracks, fast and slow, were offered to new people. Fast track was 3 weeks in Dr's required donation class. Slow track was 2 and a half years for free in the twigleader's home teaching of the collaterals. *** I distinctly remember being taught these things in twigleader training in both NY and CA, and I also remember the winds of doctrine and character immaturity that blew me off them at times. . . .

Wow! I've been away from my computer a few days, real busy with work. I've only scan read the above two pages or so, but I did see a see a lot of tangential topics to comment on. I'm not trying to ignore anyone's posts, even yours, Song. ;)--> They say rain is in the works for Thursday, so that may give me some time to respond.

WW, I'm not an answer man for all things general. I hardly know anything about Armstrong. I do know that what Dr did with his teachers' material benefited us all greatly, and it hurt no one. In my own personal ethics I do my best to hurt no one. I do not have the desire, the time, the data, the brains, or the authority to make judgement calls on each and every scenario, factual or fantasy, that you can throw at me in this debate. I do look at the laws of man with respect, and I try to determine in my following of them what the overall gist is, not the persnickity lawyer-like details. Dr was up-front and honest about naming his sources. The fact that you plagiarism vigliantees didn't way back then follow up on Dr's citations and find these details that now bug you is a testament to how sloppy you were when being first taught PFAL. This also testifies to the treasures you will find when you come back to PFAL. If you take the energy and resources you now are devoting to defeating me and my message and focus that brain power on the contents of PFAL instead of it's periphery, then you will see much that you missed the first time you were in this Word. The treasures you will find will be great when you come back to PFAL and begin again the great adventure in learning God has called you to.

def59, If you'd been reading my posts on the thread titled "New TWI Website" in the About the Way forum you'd know that it's my heart's desire to reconcile with TWI and get down to serious study of PFAL with them. I feel the same way about you and all the posters here. I have no intention of antagonizing them over copyrights. By the Way, just a few months ago TWI opened their bookstore back up for us, so the need to self publish (or re-publish) the PFAL writings has gone way down.

Do I hear a song coming on? :D-->

shazdancer, I put this same post on my Doctrinal thread to try and not spread myself too thin on too many threads, but I see think it got buried there pretty fast. Here it is again: I do remember being taught "first thought," but not so much by Dr in the AC. When I took that class in 1975, I had already heard so much about it from others that I kept my ears open, but heard little to none about it. Maybe it was is in my syllabus, but I think it was largely removed by '75 from his teaching. Maybe that was because Dr saw it was being abused, or not understood well enough. I do know for sure that Jack Kerouac was a big proponent of "first thought" and that he even used that exact phrase in describing his writing style. Maybe that's where Dr got it. Some principles that work for one side may work for the other as well. * (see footnote) Possibly Dr's teaching "first thought" was useful to some for some time, but he seemed to remove it by 1975. I have recently done a thorough search of Dr's 1979 AC tapes and there is NO mention of "first thought" in that class at all. Still it might have been briefly mentioned in the syllabus, but it is NOT in the "16 keys to Walking in the Spirit" list that is in that syllabus. ----------- * (FOOTNOTE) I have a John Gnagey "Learn to Draw" graphic art set from the 50's. He was a famous TV artist back then. In the instruction book he has some lines that also found their way into Dr's teachings. Dr certainly "drew" upon many sources, just like he told us. I'll have to look them up some time. They are not "first thought" lines though.

def59, I think you got your Bible wrong. God gave it to Abraham, who took a small part of it for three generations, then lost it, and his family didn't fully claim it until many generations later with Joshua. While they were gone from the land, those who lived there would have been given all the squatter's rights in the universe by those same courts that recognize intellectual rights today. Before I saw the difference between God's ownerhip and man's ownership ...(which is like the difference between God's family and man's court/marketplace/academic circles)... I was very disturbed by Joshua's taking that land from those people who had lived there generation after generation for centuries. Think about it. How would you have felt if you were one of those real estate "owners" who lost everything to Joshua's armies?

Raf, Those prices for the books were to cover costs only. Actually books were given free to new students. I gave books to people too. When I say marketplace, I mean in competition with other writers, as I have clearly stated in recent days. To this day, the books sell well below marketplace book prices.

def59, The points you just brought up in your second post were just recently handled on my General proPFAL thread alongside this one.

def59, You wrote: "But it's not then now, it's now. __ So the current rules apply, whether you like or agree with them or not. So if vpw took without permission or attribution, then its stealing. __ It's the same if you took pfal and republished it under your name without permission. American Christian Press owns the copyright and can sue you for infringment. But it's not THERE in the marketplace or academia, it's HERE in God's family where Dr Apropriately Apropriated what God told him to give to us. If the American Christian Press wants to step outside God's family and get persnickety about their copyrights, then let them. I think TWI may, by this time, know that it's unwise to stray from the Real Owner of those revelations and of those copyrights. They have strayed enough already from the True God, and they were trounced for it by the world's courts. I think they want to stay where God's protection can work for them: WITHIN His family.

Are there any Bible believers here who can tell me why Joshua was right in taking the land from those who had occupied it for hundreds of years? I brought up this issue in my post to Oakspear this morning a little above, but it really is a challenge to all the plagiarism vigilantees here, especially the Bible believers.

HCW, I haven't forgotten your post. :)--> I've been busy with work and other responses, and also I've been collecting points scattered all through my e-mails and posting to bring to the table for the topics you brought up.

shazdancer, I had written regarding socks post on tender love: "It's good to see that people are thinking about love... after all these years." Then you responded with: "Aw, Mike, most of us never stopped! We just won't bend over and put a "kick me" sign on our tushies in the name of love anymore." I am not advocating anything like that. Did you see my posts on the website of this thread's discussion? I was in there with tough love, and tender love, but no "kick me" signs at all. There's no way I would ever recognize the present BOD as having any authority in the church other than the legal ownership of certain properties. If they ever want to have my respect level for them elevated from my seeing them as duped Joe believers who have been through the ringer and are in great need my tender (but firm) love and the PFAL insights that were given to me, then they will have to earn it. *** I DO advocate to those here who never stopped loving to apply it in posting and behavior toward TWI, now that thay have been totally shamed by the courts.

Oakspear, Once again you too, in you last post, are refusing to look at these matters from within God's family. From that perspective the negative word "plagiarism" does not fit. Grads and Gospel writers alike rarely operate with full recognition of God's ownership. It's hardly practical to do that in this world, the way it's run. When and where that recognition is full, then borrowing without explicit permission is totally ok. When everyone see's that God repays, and everyone walks in love, no one is going to borrow the wrong thing at the wrong time. These things are highly theoretical right now, but when God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, THEN it will be different.