Mike

Hi Oakspear, I think I misspelled your handle over there... sorry. Maybe not, though. I hope you don't mind the heavy way I answered your post to me. I tried to lighten it up a bit with some jokes. Plus I characterized it as a general answer, and covering Abigail's question as well. I try to remember that we are guests there, and that that in itself is a revolutionary step for them. I'm a little surprised that my posts weren't edited or deleted, seeing the material I mentioned was sometimes in areas understandably very sensitive to them. I saw your post in the youth section and winced. That's their CHILDREN'S section there! You're a daddy, you know how much you want to protect your children. They are the same. Messing with the children is a sure way to get a post deleted. They are bending over backwards just having us in the Elders section, but to throw barbs at the kids was definitely over the line. Then again, the walls of separation between sections are pretty flimsy, since the kids can roam into the Elders section quite easily. It's like paper walls in a Japanese house. Cyberspace can be a pretty weird place of pretend. And then still, here we are openly discussing that site here as if we're behind closed doors and they can't hear us. Let's huddle: Shhh! Listen up while I whisper. Oaky, you run wide to the right and long, igotout blocks for Abigail while she fakes a handoff to me as I charge up the middle, all the while she carries the ball past the defenceless left and passes long to Oakspear in the end zone. Ok, BREAK! Hup one, hup four, hup! Golly day! I'm trying to decide how to handle my next post with contradicting the BOT (or the BOD) or not! Should I challenge the unwritten papal succession doctrine or not? Tune in tomorrow to see if Mike's thread is deleted. I love those people! I love you people! How are we going to get this family back together? Only God can do it, that's how, ONLY God.

dmiller, You wrote: "It will be velly interesting to see the response you get to pfal..." So far the administrator has been very nice to me. I started posting about "Dr's Last/Lost Teaching" in the visitors section, but he politely asked me to move it to the Elders Table. I seem to run into this "wrong forum" delemma a lot! --> It's almost exactly the same thing here where GSC's About the Way forum is for visitors and the Doctrinal for is for heavy revy... or something like that. ;)--> My thread is now located in the Elders Table forum at: http://www.familytables.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3 *** You wrote: "That's ancient history to them now, isn't it?? " Pretty much ancient history here too. Actually they do have the collaterals, some of them, in some use. *** You wrote; "I use a net to catch butterflies!" Try putting honey on the net instead of vinegar? :D--> *********************************************** excathedra, You wrote: "a site for "youthful" fellowshippers ?" Yes. In some ways I think of myself as youthful believer, only about seven years old, since I got REALLY serious about God's revelation in print, and forgot about focusing on the printer. I can hear Karen Carpenter singing "We've only just BEGUN..." What a great way to deny my bald spot! *********************************************** Seth R, You wrote: "This is not good. How can we compete when there are pictures of young girls in Hooters t-shirts on that site? __ Wait I think this is good maybe, because all the preachers and teachers here can now go there." What pictures? Where? Got link? Seth, did I know you from Long Island ten thousand years or so ago? I knew a Seth there, but the last name had faded in my ... --> er... ahem ... my YOUTHFUL memory.

HCW, Thanks again! This is more confirmation of many things I knew or suspected, and some of which I have posted. All of God's spokesmen were and are human, with human flesh, and human error sewn in. I know that's true of me, my old man nature that is. We're all called in PFAL to be God's spokesmen. Praise God that he can work with us in spite of our flesh. I expect that God can give me revelation, not because I deserve it, or because I am skilled at it, but because I WANT it and because God WANTS to give it. Some things impossible for men ARE possible for God. Praise God for the revelations he gave to that old flesh man vpw, foreknowing that vpw would then put them in writing (with help from his team who helped God filter vpw out of the equation) for us to know God's Word like it has not been known since the first century! Now all you posters who want to complain about me interrupting this thread just cool it. --> I am done posting here for now so that I can sit back, listen, and learn more from those like HCW who were there. :)-->

Abigail, Oops! :D--> I simply didn't log in after registering. It worked this time. By the Way, THANKS Abigail, for alerting us to this. And we should ALL remember that those people over there are all greasespots on the "highway" now that it's past midnight just like us, because they don't follow Craig's "my way" any more. BE NICE! You can catch more butterflies with honey than with vinegar.

Abigail, I tried to post in the message board where you did, but nothing happened after I submitted it. Is there a delay for approval? Sorry Garth, I refrained from posturing myself like a rabid dog, your m.o. of choice. -->

Oldiesman, Maybe you just got up on the wrong side of the bed, or accidently had decaffinated coffee. ;)--> I liked Donnie too, but I don't think HCW slammed him. Donnie was human, and the good work that VPW did do was very demanding on all those close to him. Then again, his error was all the more demanding. The New Knoxville culture was pretty demanding too, but in the opposite direction, and I can see young Donnie both loving his dad and yet deeply resenting some of his moves. VPW did earn my love and respect, but like Donnie, I also had plenty of reservations towards vpw. He was a very unusual man, and he had a very unusual job to do.

. . . . . . .......Bravo, HCW! . . . . . . .

I just sent a letter to the area leader here, and one to Harve Platig about us and them coming back to PFAL and mastering the books. Many months ago I had a very pleasant talk with Harve on the telephone, congratulating him for his communications breakthrough in sending an open letter to Pawtucket. While few here were happy with the contents of that letter, most must admit it was a breakthrough. I think they are TRYING to change, but that's very difficult for a large organization. Oldiesman, I'm with you. I will fear not, and report back what I hear from them.

Could this incident be a (mis)application of the following verse? I John 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

Maybe this will help: Isa 55:8-12 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.

Yes. :)-->

There most certainly IS a difference between "all without distinction" and "all with distinction." However, there was no doctrinal change on this matter. The PFAL book uses the phrase "all without distinction" on pages 65 and 66 for the context it discusses. There WERE some changes made in the PFAL book over the years, but this phrase was NOT changed. Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" twice. Once is in "How to Enjoy the Bible" on pages 109 and 110 regarding John 12:32 and a few others. The other is in "The Companion Bible" page 1531 in the marginal note regarding John 6:44. Then the situation (not the doctrine) changed. The situation change regarded time and context, and the differing phrase "all with distinction" occured in JCNG p.94 and GMWD p.241. The time change I refer to is the passage of several years between the 1971 publication or PFAL and the 1975, 1977 publications of JCNG and GMWD respectively. More became available in those years. The context change I'm still working. It seems to regard people or individuals. I'm working all the places Dr used the word "distinction" and those references are available by e-mail.

Please allow me to point out two things that we were taught in the class and in the books. This is different than What we picked up in the verbal tradition of TWI (Twi's Verbal Tradition = TVT) was loaded with error, and hence loaded with condemnation and bondage. The law of believing finds it primary application in the spiritual realm. We were taught to believe the promises of God, not just any old wish that pops into our heads. Our focus in believing was to be proficient at all nine manifestations of holy spirit, not in making millions of dollars. This was pretty well lost in the verbal tradition by the early 80's. Let's also get clear on what mental assent is. Assent means agreement, and the addition of the word "mental" makes it clear that it is NOT spiritual agreement, but 5-senses, flesh agreement. Jesus told us that in order for us to receive we needed to believe with no doubt. It's also well documented in the Bible that in order for believing to work it must endure. So, the kind of believing that gets results must endure and be pure. Mental assent, or "agreement" is a lot like this Biblical believing, in that it looks similar, for a while. We could define mental assent as "weak believing" in this sense. When the 5-senses environment, our external situation, is roughly in agreement with some promise of God, then it's easy for us to agree, or mentally assent, or weakly believe that promise. We might say that God's promise "Sounds good to me. I can go along with that." But when time goes by and the external situation changes to disagreement, challenging the perceived likelihood of God coming through on His promise, then our agreement with that promise may falter. True Biblical believing, the kind Jesus talked about, will endure challenges and disagreeable circumstances, and it will do so for a LONG TIME. When we find our "believing" shaken due to unpleasant circumstances or a perceived too long a time in coming, that was not actual believing. We temporarily agreed with it when it was easy, but our believing had a few seeds of doubt in it or was too weak to withstand the onslaught. I think of the believing of Shadrack, Mishack, and Abendigo often. The circumstances were very disagreeable, yet they vowed to continue believing EVEN IF God didn't deliver them from the firey furnace. Abraham endured in his believing for a son for years and years, way into his old age. His believing did not crumble, like mere agreement or mental assent would. His believing was not weak believing. Joseph spent a lot of time in slavery and in prison, unjustly convicted. He even saw his revelation work well for two other people, and still had to wait another two years under those conditions before his deliverance. I'm convinced that in all my experiences back in "the good old days" most of what I thought was believing was mere mental assent, agreement during favorable circumstances. I harbored many doubts, and my "believing" pooped out when the positive environment turned negative. Most of the good that I received was not due to me operating positive believing, but God's grace where He gave to me in spite of my unbelief. God can do this, and we were taught it. The last thing I want to mention here is that God gets the glory when believing works. God set up the law, God watches over His Word and is honored when it is believed. God honors our believing in His Word by bringing to pass what we cannot.

Oldiesman, I have RC in my background too, but StayedTooLong's comment looks pretty right on to me. Is it possible you mis-read that post? I don't think the revenge theme was being endorsed, just documented as existing in SOME Christians' minds, which could include RCs, but not exclusively. It also seems to be in StayedTooLong's post that this unfortunate longing for revenge is noted as temporary, giving way to love in the end. If I'm reading it correctly, StayedTooLong is saying things here that you have often posted to. Ditto for Kit Sober's originating post. I am hoping you chime in on that, because she seems also to be in great harmony with things I've thought were your position all along. This thread, as Kit started it, looks like an excellent effort in separating the baby from the bath water. The VPW worship that went way overboard, way past the double honor that is Biblicaly correct, was definately bathwater and not of God. A very large amount of the information that was given to us was of God. To the extent we believed it, believed the right stuff, we got real blessed, just like Naaman. I see the longings for revenge as being totally calmed when we clearly see God's brilliance in His Son, and as we see clearly how much God forgave US for.

Kit Sober, You wrote: "when praying around the death of a recently deceased beloved of God and of many of the denizens of Greasespot Cafe, it came to me that Naaman received his healing, not through the benevolence of Gehazi's ministry but his own faith. "Gehazi received his judgment, as I hope to see vpw receive his. "It appears to me that many of the blessings of twi that we received were not due to the greatness of vpw's ministry but to the faith of the truly faithful (faithful according to God's viewpoint, not twi's)." Please know that I agree with this, probably more than would be expected of me here. I have OFTEN posted to this effect. I know that God will be just in His judgement of VPW, and consider all things, and not merely the things that might stand out in our minds. As for us, a postal worker does not need to be wealthy to deliver a valid million dollar check into our hands; it's the signature on the check that matters, not the delivery agent. God had a delivery man bring us words that helped us more accurately believe God's promises, and God honored our believing in those His promises. The fate of the delivery man is a side issue, that need concern us less and less, the more we learn His, God's promises.

Danny, That whole cancer doctrine was blown out of proportion. I searched the 1979 AC and it's not in there. I think it was very early TVT that got way out of bounds, propagating by word of mouth. I heard it in the early 70's but then never again. It may have resurfaced much later, but it never appeared in any publications that I am aware of. The hurts came from lack of love and lack of clear and detailed knowledge. It is important to know that God does not propound disease and death, and that we were taught clearly. The more the devil was brought in, the less clear it got.

excathedra, I'm sick of the hurtful doctrines too. They can be fixed by looking more clearly at what we were taught, in writing. The hurtful doctrines were the innacurate versions of the good doctrines that are in print. It was available for that mommy to have the fear decrease in her life, but the way Dr told it, she increased her fear year after year. This detail is usually forgotten. She was an extreme case. The mental assent thing was crucial to understand, but few paid any attention to it. Another way of describing mental assent is "agreement" but minus the commitment to agree in the face of challenge. We needed to learn to see that most of the time our "believing" was easily shaken by circumstances and was merely a nodding in agreement with God's promised protection, not the believing the Bible talks about. If we had paid better attention then we would have known that believing was sometimes like entering a battle, then we wouldn't have seen lack of believing cast in a shameful light. It was because we thought believing was easy, when it was only simple agreement that was that easy, that we never got down to learning pure believing without one iota of doubt. We confused the easy mental assent with difficult believing. It's not that believing itself is difficult, it's just difficult to keep it going when the battle rages. We never faced that challenge. It's not too late.

Diz, Thanks again. I've discussed this type of hipocracy with another prominent poster here long ago, in the aftermath of Donnie Fugit's death and all the phoney shmoozing up to him we had to hold our noses for. In fact, it was he that elucidated it for me. I'm trying to locate him for his input.

Raf, You can thank WordWolf for starting the inappropriateness.

Thanks Diz, Mark told me a few years ago that that he had listened to a recent year Dale Sides tape teaching where Dr was slamed bad. When it got to the intense parts Mark told me he turned off the tape and asked God for forgiveness for the sin of tolerating such garbage and thanked Him for restored fellowship. I think, this is MY opinion, that Mark would be insulted to see his name and life praised by many anti-VPW posters here. It is intense HIPOCRISY to laud Mark and stand against everything he stood for! As far as being thrown out of his funeral, that is admitedly hyperbole on my part. Mark would not tolerate, though, most posters to continue in any rants against Dr in his presence. THAT I know for sure.

There's nothing ripping apart of Mark's life in my posts. He stood exactly where I described him. I'm telling you all, Mark loved Dr more than I did. I think it's bad taste to shmooze up to a superstar to get some of the glory, and yet stand agaist the heart of that same person. We did not agree of the writings, but Mark and I agree that it is sin to say the things that are posted here in hate toward Dr. He used that word once, "sin" in describing the slightest disrespect to his and my man of God. I'm sure Barbara and his kids feel the same. How many people posting here here so far actually knew them as friends? Mark attributed all of his good qualities to what he learned of God from Dr, and to think anything different is a slap in his face!

WordWolf, This post was originally on the Open forum thread about Mark Gluckin. Since you don't like me expressing my heart (or Mark's) on that thread, and want to call it a commercial, I have a challenge for you. Mark Gluckin told me 3 years ago that if Dr. Wierwille buttered his toast one particular way, Mark would endeavor to butter HIS toast the same way. How hypocritical is it to praise Mark to the skys here, yet totally reject his total heart of total love towards Dr? Ditto for Donnie Fugit, and Ken Barden. Ted Ferrell loves Dr, yet no one challenges this because he's cool and people want to shmooze up to his coolness, regardless of how much he loves Dr, as long as he doesn't post it too much. . . Many, and maybe even MOST posters here, . if Mark had ever read their posts, . would be thrown out of his funeral service if Mark could effect it. . . Are you a hypocrite or just ingorant of the great love Mark had for everything concerning Dr's ministry? Who here will say that Mark was delusional in his love for Dr and PFAL? Yet If I were to post that I butter my toast Dr's way it would instantly be jumped on as crazy. Was Mark crazy in his love for Dr? Ask yourself this question VERY carefully. I was willing to let my one paragraph in the other thread stand alone, but you started YOUR anti-Mike commercial, disrupted the thread, and drew out this challenge to you and all who praise Mark here. You just joined an exclusive club here along with alfakat and Research Geek in drawing out the very posts from me that you detest so much. You three have provide great inspiration and impetus for me. Congratulations!

Jim, I agree, now that I've calmed down. I'm letting my first post stand, but I put the second in a new thread.

this post deleted.

dmiller, You made an excellent point earlier. You wrote: "I agree with Chuck --- that our system of "merits and demerits", will probably come to naught, once we reach the Pearly Gates -- where ever they may be!" Then I showed you that your statement applied to Dr as well. Did you see that? Have you learned anything from your own words here?