Mike

Shaz, In the earlier years many people attended many twigs and branch meetings without taking the class. They heard a lot and got helped and THEN took the class. I wass one. My first twig was in Novenber, but my class wasn't until the next April. Classes were a little more rare then, and the pressure cooker for numbers hadn’t developed. Many people got helped who didn’t even come to twig when grads were sharp in witnessing. Yes, things changed later.

UncleHairy, You wrote: “Mike...certainly you don't think that you are the only one here with an accurate knowledge of what wierwille actually taught and wrote, do you? I have most everything wierwille wrote...in book form. You seem to have this delusion that you have a monopoly on understanding this material better than the rest of us...Cannot you understand that someone can understand wierwille's doctrine as well as you or even better and STILL reject it as being wrong? How arrogant and pompous of you to assume that anyone who rejects the works of wierwille, simply doesn't understand it as well as Mike does!” I think I can see why you feel I'm acting pompus and arrogant. In many of my earlier posts I was totally up front with my admission that I include myself in the band of screw-ups. My memory is faulty too. The only reason I actually do have a better command of the material is because I went back to the books and started correcting what had corrupted in my mind (I’m not done either). I was shocked at what I had screwed up, forgotten, added to, and what slipped by me altogether. In a more recent post I admitted that if other sharper minds than mine (like JAL) had not drifted from the original teachings, or had come back to them earlier than me, then I’d be far behind in the holding it forth like this, with other smarter men way ahead of me. I am not special, I just hit bottom earlier than most, and was desperate enough to try the almost unthinkable: return to PFAL. I’m sorry that you probably did not see the many earlier postings I did on this that would have more softened the details you see in only my recent posts. The attitude you have perceived in me is very incomplete, and if there is any way I can help that out I will. I’ve been toying with the idea of re-organizing my posts, maybe on another website, or somewhere here if more hard drive space is available to Paw. More than once a proPFAL forum has been proposed. The more I post with you the more I get this impression that you did not see the many (thousands) of postings I did in the past 18 months. I hope you can get the time to search out a few. Try a search word like “formed” and you may see a lot, assuming the search engine is up to speed now. I haven’t tested it lately. So, did you recall what Dr told us was obsolete in the “Our Father”?

TWI may have neglected that (in the TVTs), but it IS in the taped teachings and in the writings. It is there and I can prove it. I posted a chalenge to your memory above, but it was a post-post edit, so you may have not seen it. (I've got to stop doing that!) Here it is again: Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up?

UncleHairy, I don’t know how you can post something like this when I am around: “I was just curious how others dealt with that particular doctrine when "sorting" through Veepee old teachings in their minds.” Maybe you haven’t seen the many exposures of corrupted, faded, incomplete, and mixed up old teachings in minds of non mastering students that I've done here. Maybe we need to do that thread on the teachings Dr did on our relatiohship with Christ that seem to have never made it to your mind. Maybe then you 'd see how untrustworthy our memories truely are. Of those remarks you just recalled of Dr's on Jesus' prayer, do you remember exactly what it was he said we shouldn't pray? Quick, without looking it up? Sorting though something in the mind, and not going back to the original to refresh fading memories, is one of the best ways to add to the confusion.

I am not thrown at all by the similarity of doctrine and material that is learned. It’s almost a tautology, because contextually if something is right and proper to be learned then it’s right and proper to be believed. But it is also the case that nearly every word in the English dictionary has several differing definitions, depending on how it’s used. In my bold fonting (in my predeeding post) I made a distinction between doctrine that is directly applicable because it’s addressed to us, and doctrine that’s NOT directly applicable because it’s addressed to someone else. This is a great and essential key if ever we are to apply the words that Paul wrote and that were equally authoritative as all the red lettered verses in the gospels. Jesus had a ministry after Pentecost too, and he taught Paul what to write. There’s no way to understand Paul if the Gospels are given first place. There’s no way to understand the Gospels if they are first. In the early church the gospels were first transmitted by word of mouth, but isn’t it the epistles that God first had put into writing?” Dates are tricky with these things, but my impression is that God’s first century curriculum was in this order: gospels spoken, then epistles spoken, then epistles written, and last gospels written. We got it in that same order: gospels spoken in our culture and all the churches (non-christians may have been at a slight disadvantage here), then epistles spoken (PFAL film), then epistles written (1971 books) , and lastly the gospels written (JCNG, JCOP, JCPS). Dr didn’t screw up, and neither did Bullinger screw up in giving us all this great key. The only ones who screwed up on this point were the ones who were in the ministry for social reasons and who looked at something that was for our learning as expendable. The screw-ups were those who didn’t want to learn. I can’t imagine getting all excited about “Christ in you the hope of glory” and then not looking up who this Christ was. There’s no excuse for those who didn’t study the Gospels too. We did get plenty of teaching on them, like we got plenty of teaching on forming our relationship with Christ. I may start a thread and document some of these many teachings, and talked a bit about it with UncleHairy just the other day. It looks like others could benefit besides him. I have often posted here how many times Dr taught on forming Christ within, and hardly anyone remembered those teachings. These teachings were so new to Steve Lortz he hounded me for months about introducing some new spirit. We were taught much about Jesus, and we paid little attention because it wasn’t novel to us. We screwed up, not Dr, not Bullinger. I think many didn’t bother to read the Gospels because they though they could wing it on cultural background, church background, and from what they saw of “Jesus” in the movies. Every way I look at it we were winging it on many things and we fell out of the sky like a lead Maltese Falcon.

If everything Jesus said was doctrine that was doctrine addressed to us then we should never witness to Gentiles. This is how Bullinger introduces the subject of "to whom is it addressed" in his book "How to Enjoy the Bible." It's in the introduction on page viii in my edition. Do you fellas want to take exception to Bullinger?

Danny, Yes he did say that. In fact he said it on tape, in writing, and even had it chiseled in stone. “I wish I were the man I know to be.” I referred to it above in my retro-post to shazdancer thusly: “I’m very grateful for Dr’s accomplishments, but like David, I’m sure he COULD have done more. Then again, maybe that’s why WE got to hear PFAL, so WE could go the distance Dr wished he could cover.” Because I have referred to this line so often in previous posts, I decided to paraphrase it in this most recent post.

The following are a taking a step back a bit, and are retro-responses to pages from yesterday and early this morning. Please forgive the delay. **************************************************************** Don'tFenceMeIn, You wrote concerning my Roman Catholic captivity: “Mike, I'm sorry to hear that. __ So just about anything would have been better than that.” That’s a fact! However, it’s not the case that just about anything else could have wrested me from the grip of that puritanical religion. It took many years of PFAL to get over the hump (no pun intended), and still some remnants flare up even today. The Protestants in the Reformation couldn’t shake it off, and I see many on this board who have not been able to shake it off either. **************************************************************** Tumbleweed Kid, You wrote: “PFAL was retired, sold at a discounted price and replaced with "The Present Truth" and syllabus study. Corps were instructed to teach what they were taught on Corps Nights. Just because PFAL books were printed, doesn't mean it was being taught.” I agree. The upper leadership started getting bored with it in the late 70’s. You wrote: “Also, PFAL covers John the Baptist "leaping for joy" at the hearing of Mary's voice, but that doesn't mean that a fetus reaction to a voice, or a fetus having "joy" was fit into a teaching on when life started. That section of PFAL was not included in the discussion on soul life, interestingly enough.” To this day I have no idea how John the Baptist operated, especially that womb incident. I’d have to see the pages you are referring to in order to follow your comments on PFAL and this situation. The next lines you wrote were not clear to me. I’ve boldfonted the parts I don’t understand.: “So just because something is taught in PFAL doesn't mean it was fully studied or uses enough "data' to insure a fully populated field. __ PFAL had many "sample" data sets in its research process. You wrote: “PFAL is flawed in that it gives many the false impression that they have the "whole truth" and the "keys" to Biblical Research simply by knowing a few rules.” It’s not PFAL’s fault that it’s students didn’t seriously study it’s contents. Many did get a false impression that they got it all when they hadn’t. They (we, including me) didn’t listen to Dr’s many exhortations to master the material, and we all just winged it into oblivion. **************************************************************** shazdancer, You wrote in paraphrasing me: “…all those women gave him hundreds of daily opportunities for action…” however I didn’t use the phrase “all those women.” I omitted such mention on purpose to make it more general. It was the adversary who gave him hundreds (figure of speech) of daily opportunities for action, or at least much more than many men. I purposely wanted to avoid the debacle of blaming any women. For someone who didn’t see the sex abuses you write as if you were a first hand witness. Are you a frustrated lawyer, taking up someone else’s cause? Do you think light can result from your fighting against the bad guys? Just to conduct such a fight you need to have spiritual light to shine on, yet that light is not forthcoming. Exposing and focusing on dark deeds of others may make some FEEL more righteous, but that feeling is illusory, and wont help a bit in a face down with the devil. I hear talk escalating these past two years about drug use. It started off with a remote maybe one time and now you write as if it was commonplace. Are his sins getting bigger 20 years after his death, or is it just the stories that are growing? Do you have any idea how many times I heard my college “chums” discussing their many strategies for bedding babes? Alcohol and drugs were just a part of it, and this was decades before date-rape drugs came out. I wonder how many male posters here tried a few such strategies, and now conveniently forget it or excuse it as commonplace (which it is), or that it’s ok because they weren’t the pastor. Sure it’s despicable, but so are a lot of things. Religions of condemnation are more so in my book. *** You wrote: “…he could have, he should have said no.” So should have David! So should YOU say “No!” to the constant talk and focus on darkness. God is the ONLY one who knows how well Dr did in temptation, yet you and many others act as if YOU know too. You don’t! You should ask God how many times Dr DID say no to temptation, but as long as you are out of fellowship with Him and focusing on other men’s sins instead of Him and His Word and Son I doubt you could hear Him answer. I keep on having to remind people here that God is different than our religious selves. God tolerated David, even in murder. So far none of the stories about Dr have grown that big, but it wont surprise me when the do. David’s reported sin cost him dearly, but God knew it was going to happen and planned accordingly. God and David were able to get some work done when David was in fellowship. When he was out of fellowship God had to wait. We only know of one cycle in this process for David, because that’s all that’s written. However, I know that David had to jade himself into a lot before getting to murdering Uriah with many other cycles prior to that occasion. No one trips up as bad as David did without lots of practice. And no one cleans up such a habit pattern immediately and completely, so I know he must have blown it one big way or another even after Nathan successfully confronted him. I think what David did was despicable, even just the one cycle with Uriah. If I had been God then I’d have fired David. If I had been in Dr’s presence {…rascal, here’s some more of your answer…} and he did half of what he is reported of doing I’d probably fired him in my mind and not be here typing this. It would have probably blown me out of the water, and I’d never had had a chance to see over it and see the treasures God put into PFAL that I do now. Still today, after all the hidden treasures I’ve seen in PFAL, I do STILL have great difficulties with the whole affair. But I am learning to forgive more every day, and I pray for your learning too, as well as other posters here, and many others too. I’m very grateful for Dr’s accomplishments, but like David, I’m sure he COULD have done more. Then again, maybe that’s why WE got to hear PFAL, so WE could go the distance Dr wished he could cover. We’ll never do that with a focus on darkness, though. We’ll never be able to thoroughly examine the good deeds and bad of Dr’s. No one’s memory can contain the complete context of those events. There are all sorts of subtleties that are lost forever in every first hand witness’ mind. *** Take out your Bibles and turn to I John. Let’s look at Chapter 1 verse 9, and we read: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The word “confess” is homologeo, and it means to say the same thing, or to agree, or to admit. In Living Victoriously Dr talks about this very easy way to re-establish fellowship. It’s easy because of the verse 7: “…the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” In one of those LV teachings he describes how he had a disturbing phone call that got him anxious. Anxiety is not walking in the light and is not walking in fellowship. He recognized, admitted to, agreed to, confessed this broken fellowship, and BOOM, back in the light. We can train our minds to do this. The faster we get back in fellowship the better. The quicker we can get to that admission, the quicker we can get into the light. Religion teaches us otherwise. Religion teaches us that a long painful recognition is necessary, followed by a successful plan to never repeat the sin. THEN these religions think it’s just, right to think full forgiveness has happened and fellowship restored. In another LV teaching, he talks about how this admission, this confessing of sin has to be sincere. It can’t be a simple ploy to go out and sin again. I posted these paragraphs here somewhere. We were taught that restoration is quick and easy, that God is faithful as the verse says. Peter thought he was being magnanimous in asking Jesus if he should forgive 7 times. Jesus told him to start thinking 70 times 7. People weary of repeated confessions and are not faithful to forgive, but God is faithful. Aren’t you glad!!? God is more ready to forgive than people are. We can be blessed if we learn to forgive like God does. I didn’t say stupid, though. If we are assigning responsibilities to someone who has blown it sinfully and repeatedly, we may want to wait out some period of time and look for evidence that that person has successfully changed their habit patterns. This is because we don’t have access to their heart and can’t see the future. It’s a practical measure we must take, but that doesn’t mean we can’t still learn to forgive quickly and faithfully like God does. When assigning responsibilities we have to be as practical as possible. Now remember, Dr. Wierwille is dead, and has been for almost 20 years, so no one is going to ask you to allow him to escort you teenage daughters on an long trip staying overnight at a Motel 6, like Rush Limbaugh often bragged you could do with him. God is faithful and just to forgive. It’s right for Him to forgive that way. It’s just, and we are unjust when we harbor grudges and refuse to forgive. We are not walking with God when that anxiety rules our mind. **************************************************************** excathedra, You wrote: “dude what are you smoking ? not kool shorties __ i'll take the bless-ed mother any day over the man of god of our day and time” When I talk of Mary worship I’m not talking about the very blessed mother of Jesus. The Catholic Mary is a counterfeit, and not the same person at all. I know, I used to pray to her, and even had a vision or two or three of her when I was in Jr. High. I was a very committed Catholic, and after reading the Bible I see the two Mary’s are vastly different. **************************************************************** Oakspear, You wrote: “Your position that PFAL is God's Word reissued hardly gives you credentials as a rational participant in this discussion. To you it's a question of master vs. don't master, assuming all along that it's right. You accept that Wierwille was sinful in many of his actions but rationalize them with "everybody is tempted" and deny the possibility that the actions could have affected his ability to teach the truth.” Actually, I’m sure that like David, Dr was hindered in his ability to teach by his flesh. We all are. Yet it does not hinder God. He knows it will take place before it takes place, and He acts accordingly. Yes, I do now think it is a crucial thing to master PFAL, but I didn’t think this “all along” as you wrote. Yes, all along in my posting history, but it was only 6 years ago that I adopted this position, and I remember lots of the processes that led me to this. I think these considerations can give me something rational to say here. Here’s what you wrote in the first post of this thread: “I believe that tearing down the whole edifice and building anew is a better way to go. Start from scratch and learn what truth is independent of anything Wierwille said.” I believe something close to this. I advocate tearing down the whole edifice that’s in our minds, the TVT in there that is, and building anew from the neglected written record. It’s the next part of your post I’d take some exception to. For thousands of years people have been doing the truth search thing. I think they’ve all failed to reach the endpoint, because no one has learned to do all the things Jesus Christ did. God stepped in to give us a chance of really finding the truth in the written PFAL. What he said and what he wrote can be miles apart. **************************************************************** Mark Sanguinetti, After quoting a paragraph of mine you wrote: “Mike, you are a sick man. You know that don't you? Why would you choose either one? Oh, yes of course. Because your hero and idol partook in the licentiousness.” Mark, you didn’t quite read all of the quote of mine you posted. I even bold fonted the answer to your question, but you didn’t reproduce that in your quote. In that quote I said this in bold fonts: “If I had to choose between…” and then I listed only two choices. It was a hypothetical setup for discussion purposes. You act as if I wanted to choose between the two. Please read my long post on page 4 and you’ll see much more on this. I think I made a pretty convincing case of displaying my leaning AWAY FROM licentiousness. In that post I reveal that I made my hypothetical choice, and my actual choices, IN SPITE of my feelings on this. Before calling someone sick, why don’t you try to gather the whole story? *** You wrote: “Read Bullinger's "How to enjoy the bible"...it's where wierwille stole his material from for the first 8 sessions of his "class".” If he stole it, why did he sell it in the bookstore, and frequently discuss it? I just got done listening to a Summer School class titled “How to Enjoy the Bible” that he did in 1965. He was right up front with us on that book. He changed several things in the class from what Bullinger wrote, too. Again, why not get the whole story? **************************************************************** Lifted Up, You wrote: “Mike, I have seen people talk about something a LOT more serious, IMO, than "a few unwanted advances". Finding out more about just what DID happen seems to be another matter. But with this phrase, you seem to brush it aside with an attitude of...even if it did happen, it wasnt that big a deal. So, I ask you, and very seriously, were there only a few unwanted advances involved? Because I have seem people here talking about a lot worse, at least in terms of how you seem to downgrade the phrase. If you have reason to believe there WASN'T any worse, then I would genuinely like to hear about it.” I used that phrase because if people are ever going to forgive, forget, and move on a literary playing down is useful to calming down the mind. Of course, the opposite happens if people don’t want to calm down. Some here want to hype it up, thinking that will lead to healing or something. I offer the opposite: let’s hype it down IN WRITING about it in public. Love covers a multitude of errors. It should be covered and not hyped up in a mob setting. If I were in a one-on-one counseling situation I would not even think of such a thing, at least not in the initial stages. Having many hurts of my own in this area, I think I can lend a very sympathetic ear to someone who wants to grow away from the pain. I would not downplay it when they need to know I'm there for them. I think that compared to murder, whatever happened was a lot less damaging than murder. As far as ever finding out exactly what happened, the approach taken here is very much the opposite of what has evolved in our legal system and in science. To do proper detective work on something like this, if it were worth trying, would be a daunting task. A good detective would have to cut through all the rhetoric, all the emotion, all the hyperbole, all the exaggeration, all the distorted memory, and even the lies. To think these things are absent in the approach taken here is ludicrous. Only God can sort through all of this. I see a tremendous lack of confidence in God’s ability to even the score on these things. There’s a reason why He says “Vengeance is mine.” It’s because human beings cannot sort through all this stuff. We’re told to think and focus on the good, not the bad. Your last line was: “If you have reason to believe there WASN'T any worse, then I would genuinely like to hear about it.” I have reason to believe it wasn’t any worse than murder, and I see the precedent set in the OT that even murder does not thwart God’s ability to teach and give revelation and get a job done even with a very flawed human being like David. In the long run, all sin will be forgotten, not just by God but by all. Whatever actually happened will be forgotten and fade into nothingness. But if I’m right, and God really did re-issue His Word in what we would call a highly unorthodox fashion, then those who oppose it will suffer great loss, feel great shame (I John 2:28), and that loss lasts an eternity. When it comes to what really happened, it’s much more important for us to look more closely and more accurately in what happened in the formulation of the PFAL writings. **************************************************************** UncleHairy, You wrote: “…a theological debate over wierwille's teachings.” And: “…the doctrine of wierwille.” And: “…the fruit produced by wierwille's teachings…” And: “…adhering to wierwille teachings…” And: “…Wierwille taught…” And: “…wierwille taught…” In all of your post you brought out items from TVT, that is the Twi Verbal Tradition, of what this doctrine and these teachings supposedly contained. You just pulled up these things from memory, and I’m saying that it’s a faulty memory. You forgot some, some slipped by you, and you fully embraced the TVT. I don’t dispute that the absent Christ AS PRESENTED in the TVT was devilish. I’m not disputing that we did indeed make VPW the head of the body in our minds. I’m not disputing that many were led away from a healthy relationship with Christ. What I’m saying is that these errors are not present in the written record that we were repeatedly told to master, yet continually refused to do. If we had taken our doctrine from what Dr really did teach, especially in written form, then all these devilish situations could have been averted. Have you gone back to the record to see if your memory jives correctly with what is actually in there? My challenge to you is just that. Let’s examine the record on all the points you brought up. Of course you don’t have to accept, but if you do I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised. You’ll find out that there was much more good in what happened to us in The Way, and that much more good can come of it. Because I returned to the written form of PFAL I have found that relationship with Christ I craved, and it’s surprisingly better than anything I could have imagined.

waterbuffalo, Yes I deeply considered that very thing, and often, before taking up this stand. Plus, I did the same thing in the 70’s, and very deeply. I went very slow in accepting things because I know how subtle the deception can be. I’m sorry, but all my consideration of these things has cause me to reject traditional Christianity on many counts. For God to use the services of one man to issue His Word is not at all unusual. It’s the norm, in fact.

I was never taught by Dr to disregard anything in the gospels. I was taught that they were written for our learning, so I read them and learned from them.

Rafael, In all this re-reading I noticed an unfortunate thing happened. It was neither you nor WordWolf that I had in mind when I referred to the cruelest posters here. I apologize to you both that our subsequent posting may have built that illusion. You both can be pretty rough, but I don’t think you as cruel. Like with WW, I'd like it if you'd re-read it. Your very quick response gives me the feeling you didn't consider the heart I was trying to convey.

WordWolf, I didn’t say you said it was a mistake. In re-reading your post I see now the last lines and can appreciate them in a guarded way. However, I don’t think my moral fiber to be superior, just different. I see many flaws in it, as I briefly alluded to. As to your hashing cynicism, I’d have appreciated it more if you had just read my post for the heart, not for the point-by-point debate. In that analysis I think you missed my heart. Maybe you could do some re-reading too.

rascal, I've been working a bunch of responses on my word processor and I think I will address that soon. I did, however, cover part of it in my long post on the previous page. I’ll repeat 3 paragraphs from that post for you here: “Has anyone here ever thought about the hurts that happened to men in TWI’s sex system? Men are not prone to complain about these things, because when they do they are ridiculed. Although I tried to stimulate a few thoughts along these lines with a few sparse lines here and there, no on has picked up on them. “It is only with the greatest persuasion of my heavenly Father that I am able to support PFAL. I feel the tug to hate Dr more than most of you, but I also have God’s vote to consider. Most of you never were hurt at all, and now you get your self esteem thrills at taking up the cause of someone else’s hurts. I was hurt, damn it!” “I have been persuaded, against my deepest conscience, against my emotional habit patterns, that God did bring forth His Word in written form in modern English in PFAL.” Just to give you a quick answer, if I was physically hurt I’d have an even more difficult time promoting PFAL, but I’d still do it because I am convinced God is in it regardless of all these hurts.

LiftedUp, I agree. However, that approach is only the initial step in healing. It's been done and done again, and again, and again here and in many other places and in private.

Raf, I don't downplay the hurt others feel at all in my heart. I do try to dodge discussion of it because I think it adds to the hurt. What you see is me UP-PLAYING the more important things. In relative terms, this LOOKS like downplaying of the hurt. This is difficult to see for those who don't want to hear my heart and only oppose it, and who are all charged up with outrage and looking for villains to prosecute. There are more important things than the proper conduct of sex. We live in a culture that lauds female sexuality to the sky in many many ways, far beyond it's rightful place. I do not agree with this, and again it LOOKS like I'm a heartless downplayer of the hurt to those who buy the uppermost position and ultimate priority of femininity. I'm not downplaying the hurt, just looking for the best way to help those hurting. This stuff weighs down much more heavily than I let on. I simply don't want to focus on it nor magnify the hurt. It's the introduction of light that dispels darkness.

Yes. And until we master what God put into that class, we cannot accomplish such a ministry of reconciliation. To accomplish such a ministry we need the right tools. If we only partially mastered the tools, we can only partially reconcile. God made these tools available in the first century and again in the twentieth. It’s the Word. II Cor. 5:18-19 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Sunesis, Thank you greatly! :)--> I was beginning to think I made a big mistake after Raf's immediate stomping, and WW's cynical hashing.

Thou almost persuadeth me to be a Rabble Rouser. -->

In the “Witnessing and Undershepherding” class Donnie Fugit taught that the goal of all witnessing was PFAL. I initially rebelled at such a thought, but gradually saw that it was right. The goal was to bring people to hear exactly what we heard. The methods we could use along the way to that goal included all of what Catcup and pyroberge mentioned about love, testimonials, and spiritual spontaneity. But we were very new to it all then, and could only give a partial picture of the good that God had to offer in the class. Through the Seventies these things worked pretty well, but the Corps did bring in a mechanical, and business-like element that eventually took over. Then it did indeed suck. I dodged the Corps lead downward as long as I could. As far as the $200 raise, I thought it was more to filter out people from the class more than anything else. By that time there were some people taking the class for social reasons and not spiritual searching. I do not know why it was lowered back down later.

Dan, You wrote: "...Wierwille's erroneous doctrines led to his group splintering and falling apart." It was the erronious TVTs that led to the downfall. The written doctine of PFAL was only a dim, partial, distorted memory in most leaders towards the end. Come back to the written form of PFAL and you'll see doctrines differing from the ones you mention.

Good doctrine is necessary to know what genuine love is, as opposed to counterfeits. Good doctrine is necessary to know who the real Jesus Christ is, as opposed to the counterfeits. Counterfeits, if they are well constructed, will feel very good, and get a lot of people co-operating and having fun… for a while. If doctrine is not given heed, and we try and “wing it” on crucial issues, things may go well for a while, but there won’t be the GREAT power God wants us to have. If there was no devil, or if he were less intelligent than us, there would be no counterfeits to be concerned with, and winging it may well bring us closer and closer to the truth. But there is a smart devil, and he tricks people into getting sloppy with doctrine. Add one word, subtract one word, change one word, and things still feel the same… then swallow a big lie and everything goes down the tubes.

Raf, You have the empathy of a Craig Martindale.

Well, maybe Rafael was right. I do seem to have ignited a firestorm again. Before I try to answer all these posts, please let me make some tangential remarks. I may not have the time to get to specific responses at all today, but I do want to. I see that many are reading attitudes into my posts that I do not have and even find repugnant myself. I once dealt with this same kind misunderstanding with Abigail in the first month of my posting. With a few private e-mails we were able to straighten it all out. But I am reluctant to say the same things in public that I trusted her with. Not only are these things private and even shameful to me, but once posted, they would be the place the most cruel of posters would resort to, once they ran out of substantial material to debate me with. Many less cruel posters would also be tempted to attack me in my weak spots if I were to post them. I’ve posted a few tit bits of same to test the waters, and sure enough, the pariahs went straight for the blood, and they continue to once in a while. I will bare a little more of my soul, and let the cruelest of you all be the first to pounce. When I worked at HQ my heart was always in a broken state. Sure I had heard on the field of the licentious sex that was “available” but I never saw it. I couldn’t even get a date! The sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies was only for the pretty people, and a few not-so-pretty though very-cool exceptions, but it was definitely NOT for the nerds. Exactly two times at HQ did I ever hear someone issue any of the licentious excuses that make up the 14 Appendixes in the Scheonheit paper, and it sickened me. Sure I wanted it, but I wanted it the “right” way (whatever that is). I had grown up with a conscience that would not allow casual sex. This has never changed, but I do recognize it as a mere habit pattern. It’s how I grew up and I haven’t shaken it much at all. From what I have been able to gather from God’s Word, some aspects of my conscience habit pattern are right on, and some are questionable, and some are definitely devilish and harmful to me. I will not explain in public why I mentioned the last two categories. A few years later, in my twig, I did some more research with a few grads, and debunked about 10 of those 14 excuses in the Scheonheit Appendixes, and this was about 5 years before he wrote that paper. I was (and still am) VERY much leaning away from the licentious end of the spectrum, and quite definitely towards the traditional “puritanical” end. Even before I got into the Word, in college, I was appalled at the techniques many of my friends used to bag babes, even if they were initially unwilling. It worked for them, though, so I half-heartedly tried once with a willing woman. My conscience rebelled though, and I couldn’t continue. The shame I had every time I saw her is still with me today, when I allow my mind to picture that situation. When I often say that I hurt for all those grads who were hurt in this capacity, I seriously downplay the intensity of that empathy pain I have. I do this to protect me, and to not give fuel to those who would love to burn me. But I’ve gotten tougher in these many months of posting against the cruel hearts of many posters who mistakenly think they left all that nastiness crap behind in TWI. Some posters here might think that I support PFAL because I want to reinstate a system whereby I may engage in licentious sex. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The irony I have to deal with is intense here. More than most people I have felt the pain of that kind of system. Has anyone here ever thought about the hurts that happened to men in TWI’s sex system? Men are not prone to complain about these things, because when they do they are ridiculed. Although I tried to stimulate a few thoughts along these lines with a few sparse lines here and there, no on has picked up on them. It is only with the greatest persuasion of my heavenly Father that I am able to support PFAL. I feel the tug to hate Dr more than most of you, but I also have God’s vote to consider. Most of you never were hurt at all, and now you get your self esteem thrills at taking up the cause of someone else’s hurts. I was hurt, damn it! I do not downplay any hurt that happened. My own personal hurt continues to this day. But I’ve learned to compartmentalize these things. I compare the relative values of things unemotionally. When there is a desperate war going on, people learn to shelve emotion when it hurts the cause. Grieving is saved until after the war, because the war effort for the many is more important than the relatively few lost lives. I did NOT say that the few were unimportant, I said there was something EVEN MORE important. I have been persuaded, against my deepest conscience, against my emotional habit patterns, that God did bring forth His Word in written form in modern English in PFAL. I will never be able to convince anyone here of this. You’re all so focused on the 5-senses evidence and perspective that there’s nothing my words could ever do to persuade any of you. The reason I post is to help prepare you all to hear that still small voice of the True God. He’s trying to say “Calm down. It’s all right. I see all issues in all hearts and I will even all the scores. Now, come back to my Word that I brought to you and master it. When you master the PFAL writings you will grow up to that full stature of Christ that I yearn for you to be.”

JustThinking, You wrote: “Ah...the flawed logic question. Two parts, which are independent, are made to appear related. How can [pick your subject] who is [negative but indefensible attribute] be [seemingly connected but not really, good attribute]? How can a monster do good kind of dichotomy. Unfortunately, if one takes the bait, you have a problem that can't solved because one part does not control the other. __ The neat thing is that it works in reverse. Just put the good attribute first and it makes it seem less likely that a good person/thing/ etc. could do bad/evil, etc. Oops, did I just give Mike ammo? Uh oh. ;-)” No, don’t worry. I’ve been painfully aware of that trick and others like it. They are often used by posters here to make their points SEEM more believable. The greatest use of these kinds of false persuasion is the repeated litany of nasty descriptions of Dr that people pepper their posts with. It seems to me that the more eloquent the rant, the more they think they’ve proved their point. Many people here use great repetition and great negative emotion to try and “prove” that Dr was a bad guy. It doesn’t work on me, although I do feel the tug. I think it does work on less aware readers, because I’ve seen some posters turn more and more negative toward Dr when compared to their initial posting style. I think it also works on the authoring poster as well. Many seem to be talking themselves into a deep commitment of hating Dr by using the same system they used to talk themselves into worshipping him in decades past. I saw this brainwashing of self and others going on all the time in the 70’s as the cultist worship of Dr grew. I resisted this systematic positive brainwashing back then like I do now the negative. JustThinking, if you see me employing such techniques, please let me know. Maybe PT or e-mail would be best to spare my embarrassment.

DontFenceMeIn, You wrote: “When have YOU seen puritanism in your lifetime?” I grew up Roman Catholic in the 50's and 60's. I was taught by nuns that were certainly puritanical and outward Mary worshipers. The thought of going to hell was THE predominant thought of my life (even before puberty) from age 6 until I took the class. I hungered and thirsted for righteousness, and was filled!