Mike

Ok Ginger, we can get into the situation about the mother. My time is out tonight, but soon we can. Mj412 wants to get into that one too. I'll type up what's in the book in the next day or so. Mj412, I'm not sure I yet understand the other questions you just asked. I have to go back and re-read the questions, and then re-read the book. This may take a little time.

mj412, She didn't apply ANY of God's promises that I know of. She didn't get her answer from the True God at all! Reading the book has the key. Do you have the book?

socks, I disagree on one point. Though THINGS were sold for money in the bookstore, the Word, and inspired teaching of the Word was not sold. I see the bookstore situation as how things had to be stewarded in the 5-senses realm and in the legal realm. Though this minor activity that looks like marketplace affectivity involves some small amounts of money, the heart of Dr?s activities was the teaching of God?s children. The bookstore money is totally insignificant when the greatest revelations since the first century were taking place. Dr?s putting God?s Word into written form, in our English language, is of such spectacular significance, that it totally eclipses the minor activities involving how the books were distributed.

mj412, You brought up a good point about the mother and her little boy in PFAL. Does anyone out there with a PFAL book want to handle this one? Something plain can be seen by re-reading the text that cannont be seen from memory.

Mike Drudge, reporter. San Diego, CA July 11, 2003 An Associated Press article by Kenji Hall appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune today that mirrors the George Harrison affair that this reporter broke for the GS audience just days ago. It turns out Bob Dylan may have lifted some lines from a Japanese writer. (developing)

Hi Ginger Tea, It?s been 22 years since my moped adventures past Big Sur, so even my accurate memories would probably not help you much. Yes, I?ve learned many things here. The reconsidering I?ve done about Dr?s material is that I see it even BIGGER than I did before. Challenges here have forced me to study areas unfamiliar to me, and the result has been a greater respect for how God effectively got through to Dr. I was quite stunned when Pirate listed all the people I?ve had a chance to talk to here. The depth of challenges I?ve seen has been awesome to me. If I hadn?t seen the TVT-PFAL split, there?s no way I could have conversed with all these people and their objections. Many people have many valid objections to the way things turned out, and by seeing that it was this ugly TVT that did us the harm, while PFAL did us all good, then things can get untangled. I think there?s going to be a lot of happy people when this dichotomy is understood better. Without bringing attention to their name, one poster has credited my information with helping to sort out the good from the bad in the past. I think that more are going to be able to have such happy reports. Even more, joy will be the result as we come back to PFAL and really get to know it.

Rafael, You wrote: ?I can see quite clearly how the spirit/natural dichotomy is ubiquitous in the teachings of VPW. Exactly how was it hidden?? It was hidden in that we did not develop a systematic awareness of how Dr referred to either the Natural/Factual side or to the Spiritual/True side by way of select vocabulary words. Page 1 of this thread has a tentative list I?ve compiled. By using these words Dr was able to bring this dichotomy into many, many contexts with very few words. So there is additional understanding to be gleaned from the books when these words are familiar, and are looked for. When Dr uses words like really, or wonderful, or truly, then we know that particular passage has a reference to the Spiritual/Divine. When Dr uses the word ?fact? it?s a tip off that the 5-senses realm is being referenced. Until we take these special vocabulary words into account in reading Dr?s books, we will have pockets of text with slightly, or somewhat hidden meanings. Dr did not leave any uncertainty about his special useage of these words. He says so in the record often. There is one whole magazine article devoted to it. I opened this thread up with my admission that I regarded this dichotomy as mere hype or window dressing. I deliberately ignored Dr?s references to it often, thinking that there was no application to my life in it. Maybe others did this too in lesser degrees. Not systematically keeping track of these special vocabulary words causes this ubiquitous teaching to be hidden. Dr?s overt references to the dichotomy are numerous. I posted a large handful just from one book here somewhere. His overt references, though very numerous, are NOT ubiquitous. It?s the quiet, hidden useage of these special words that is everywhere in the text.

def59, I've seen that before. It doesn't matter to me what kind of curriculum God had for Dr when He taught him His Word like it was not known since the first century if he would teach it to others. The route of this evolution of revelation is somewhat documented by Dr himself, and I regard him to be a better observer of the process than someone observing it from afar, both in space and time. I?m thankful to God for all of Dr?s teachers, and I?m thankful to God for His revelation to Dr as he put it into final written form.

mj412, A person may know God and lots of the promises, but get tricked out into left field. Here's where there's great comfort in the "saint and sinner alike" remark. WE ALL are sinners at times, and it is comforting to think that EVEN THEN God honors His promises to us as we believe. What a great invitation back into His arms! *** How about a sinner believing for something that's a promise of God, yet he doesn't KNOW it's a promise, and he doesn't believe in God? In other words, a sinner could accidentally be believing for something that's on the Available List. I think of the man near the train in India who believed in healing but not in our Jesus.

shaz, You got it half right: ?Render under Ceasar...? but the OTHER half is what I look at. [Render] unto God the things that are God?s. What truth Kenyon published belonged to God, not Kenyon. I realize my rendering of George H was abbreviated. He got a pass from me and just about everyone else, except the official court, and even there it was only a token fine or something, I think. I really don?t think he sucked any royalties away from the Chiffons. Do you think Kenyon lost any royalties? I'll bet his books sell BETTER due to PFAL.

WordWolf, Here is how the PFAL book opens up in Chapter Two, with my ALL-CAPS: 1...?In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know FIRST OF ALL what is and what is not available FROM GOD. There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers. If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, WHAT GOD HAS PROMISED US.? A little further in that same chapter we find again: 2...?How am I going to be able to apply the principles of the Word of God and find out what God wants me to do if I do not know THE PROMISES IN HIS WORD? The first thing that we must find, in our quest to tap the resources for the more abundant life, is what is available. There are hundreds of different PROMISES IN THE WORD OF GOD that will enable us to prosper and to be in good health. One cannot utilize, one cannot operate, any more than those promises he knows. How many do you know? ? There is only ONE PLACE where we can possibly go to find out what God has available to us and for us: we must go to the Word of God.? And another: 3...?When we know WHAT IS AVAILABLE, then we can learn the other principles that are involved in making our life more abundant so that we can manifest the greatness of the power of God.? And another: 4...?If we know WHAT IS AVAILABLE, how to receive it, what to do with it, and have our needs and wants parallel, then whatsoever we shall ask shall be done unto us.? And another: 5...?If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, WE HAVE TO GO TO THE WORD to find out what is available, how to receive, and what to do with it after we have it. We are going to keep our needs and our wants in balance, recognizing that God is not only able but willing to perform EVERY PROMISE SET FORTH IN HIS WORD.? **** Now those were just the ones in Chapter Two. I didn?t even get into the man with the withered hand, which was coming up soon. When Dr gets into the Holy Spirit field, he repeats it a lot again. In the film class Dr says it even more. The law of believing operates in the arena of GOD?s PROMISES only. Dr taught us that the law of believing does NOT work just for any old human desire, but ONLY for the promises of God. Dr taught this MANY times, and those who accuse, like you do, that Dr did NOT teach this must close their eyes to these 5 passages, and many more in the film class. . . . . [This message was edited by Mike on July 11, 2003 at 11:59.]

Tom Strange, I'd be happy to bring my theories on card playing over to your thread on same subject. Just let me know when it reaches 10,000 hits and I'll be there.

socks, I want to thank you for fleshing out, and straightening out my paraphrase of the George Harrison situation. I like your music analogy. To a degree it fits with God's family as opposed to the marketplace or academia. In a way it?s the Stones greatness that gives them a pass, just like George Harrison. I see two other analogies, where origination credit or ownership are thrown to the wind. They are war and sports. A team effort does not make a big deal of individual contributions. If some techniques or munitions are needed by other team members, the originator or owner is not such a valid concept to consider deeply in the heat of battle. Thus it was in the family of God attempting to live behind enemy lines.

Rafael, How about if you name some things that ARE laws in your book? Just give me a few examples of things that qualify.

WordWolf, I noticed that your post referred to your previous post on page 33 of this thread, so it is with the earlier that I begin. There you posted page 29 of BTMS. On it is a SIMPLY STATED version of the law of believing, one that leaves out of its abbreviated form the vital role God?s promises MUST play in operating this law. This I pointed out, but I forgot to mention that in addition to this being an admittedly short version, but page 29 is also the INTRODUCTION to Part II of the book. In other words, this abbreviated version of the law appears in an abbreviated outline of the several chapters in Part II. ********* Again, in that earlier post you quoted Dr thusly: "What we believe for, we get." "Our lives are molded by our believing-both by positive and negative believing." "What we believe equals what we are." "What one believes in the depth of his soul absolutely appears in his life." "You bring to yourself whatever you believe." "The law of believing works equally effectively for both sinner and saint" "The picture that you carry of yourself with clearness and concern is what you are. This law works for positive and negative thinking alike." "As you change your thinking, you will draw a mental pattern for the things you DO want in your life, which in turn will dispel and root out those things you do not want." We could go to the gospels, as JerryB mentioned, and see that Jesus taught similarly. On some occasions he emphasized the power aspect of believing, but he also emphasized the great need for man to get his sights and desires on the things God thinks are important. In one passage we read the we can believe for anything, in another we read that we should line up our desires with the Word. The quotes you isolated are good in their context, like the books have them. The same quotes, isolated from their books? contexts are the seeds of TVT?s poison. ( TVT = Twi?s Cerbal Tradition ) **** As you saw, the requirements to receive involve BELIEVING, and focusing your believing. At no point is a REQUIREMENT made for your believing being believing a promise of God. It was believing and your mental focus and picture that determine success or failure to receive. At NO point is it said that if you believe, but what you believe is NOT what God promises, you won't get it no matter how much you believe it. The context of the words you refer to is Chapter One of BTMS, titled ?Release Form Your Prisons? and so the context of the focus is an uncontestable promise of God. If we took the same words and applied them to a cherry red convertable, we might have some problems. BTW, the Foundational class syllabus (which you got when you took the Advanced class) mentions a few of these things, and says: "What you fear, you will receive-it is a law." Again, a syllabus, even the expanded syllabus, is an abbreviation. Plus ?Believing Equals Receiving? RHYMES, so it has that extra punch that helps it be remembered. But other things need to be remembered too, like keep God central to all this, and keep our mind?s desired disciplined to what God wants. Shazdancer brought up the red drapes. I don't know if it's in the books, but we ALL remember the "fire-engine red" curtains mentioned in the PFAL class. Shazdancer said "are red drapes a promise of God?" I was surprised to see that they were not in the book. It was this that I mentioned, not much more. In the film class, we must remember that part of the story was that Dr says he hadn?t gone that far spiritually, and that she must have had a need for red. She wasn?t believing a Red Curtains promise, she was believing God would meet that need, but Dr never explains WHY it was a need. No, red drapes are not a promise of God. **** Another promise in the Epistle of I John! Way in the back of your Bible! I John! The Epistle of I John! First! Second! Third John! I John 5:14: And this is the confidence [this is the confidence] that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, [if we ask any thing according to his will] he heareth us: Isn't that wonderful? If we have our need and our want parallel we ask anything according to His will; how can it be His Will if we don't know His Word? His Word is His Will that gets our need and our want parallel. If we know His Word we can parallel it off. And once we get our need and want parallel, whatsoever we ask, we get. Many years ago when I was first questing in the integrity and accuracy of God's Word and doing Biblical research, just starting in the field, there were some things in the Word of God that we believed and that we understood and were practicing in our prayer life. And we were really concerned about learning more about God's Word. We had a letter from one of our radio audience from Cincinnati. And this good lady stipulated in that letter stating the following: she said, "now on Thursday night when you have your prayer group meeting and you meet with your people; I'd like for you to pray for an apartment for me. Because I have to find this apartment and I would like for this apartment to be within walking distance, two or three blocks from where I am employed." And she said, "It has to be a furnished apartment because I do not have my own furniture," and she said, "while your praying for this apartment within this area of where I am gainfully employed will you please ask God that in this furnished apartment there will be red drapes on the living room windows." My, oh my. That shook me. I thought to myself well good lord, if I'm going to pray for her for an apartment and she gets that apartment she ought to be thankful. What difference does if make if its got pink drapes or yellow drapes or orange drapes on the living room window? But she had stipulated in her letter please pray that there be red drapes on the window. Well I don't know who did the believing, I helped in the praying but I want to tell you something that night spiritually I hadn't gone this far; I believed for the apartment this I could believe for, it was a need I understood this. So I believed that she'd have an apartment but I can't imagine and I know that I did not believe anything about drapes at all. But we prayed that evening and within fifteen minutes of the time when we had prayed for this situation this lady in Cincinnati many, many, many miles away had a telephone call from an entire stranger who said to her "a friend of yours told me that you have need of an apartment, is this right?" And she said, "yes." And she said, "well where's it located?" He said, "well such and such a place." Within two blocks of where she was employed. So she said to him, "May I come and see it in the morning?" He said, "You certainly may." They made an appointment. She went next morning and looked at this apartment. And when she walked into the living room what do you think the color of those drapes were on those living room windows? Green, oh no they weren't. They were fire engine red. That's right. People, she must have had her need and her want parallel. Look at this. All right! She rented a furnished apartment and it had to have drapes on the window, right? Does it make God any difference whether the drapes are green or red or pink? No, but she had a need, that need was that they might as well have red drapes on, that's what she wanted. She got her need and her want parallel. She not only got that apartment but she got the red drapes on the windows. You talk about the accuracy of God's Word when He said He'll supply all of our need according to His riches in glory. Doesn't say He'll supply our greed but He'll supply our need according to His riches in glory. That's true. It's wonderful. *** As VPW taught it, believing IN AND OF ITSELF appropriated results, REGARDLESS OF THE CONTENT OF WHAT IS BELIEVED. This is not true. In many places Dr mentioned that the promise of God was mandatory. Suppose I found TWO. Would that satisfy you? How about if I found three? **** You then quoted the page 29 passage again, and here I?ll raise the ?simply stated? part to ALL-CAPS. "The law, SIMPLY STATED, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual." So, remember this is an abbreviated version. *** To your: ?We just SAW "numerous" references.? I again mention that they all were taken out of contexts. It was in the contexts that the limits of the law of believing were taught. *** BTW, Mike, don't pretend I said vpw said God's promises are irrelevant, or that we shouldn't believe God. He did say we should believe God, and to believe His promises. What I AM saying is that as vpw taught it in pfal, the CONTENT of what is believed is incidental to appropriate it. NO! What you are saying that AS YOU seclude yourself in the abbreviated versions the content of what is believed is incidental. AS Dr taught it, in it?s full versions, the promise of God is MANDATORY. *** Now we finally come to your more recent post, the one I promised mj412 I?d deal with. ?Ok, Mike's understanding of 'law' doesn't seem to be that far from what vpw was saying. (As originally cited a page or so back.)? Because I haven?t thoroughly studied Dr?s use of ?law? I?m not in a good position to comment further... yet. I have however, noted some other more ?exotic? laws pop up here and there in PFAL. *** ?I'd like to point out, however, that Mike has freely admitted he doesn't know what vpw said about "laws".? Gads! Are you desperate for points in this debate, or WHAT?! What I mean is that I?ve not studied it as much as I?d like to before posting on it. I was being honest, and you penalize me? **** What vpw said about "laws" was all over Session I, the Blue Book, and the Orange Book! (See previous citations from same about a page back if you don't have yours in front of you.) Some time ago, I cited the first Session of pfal, "The Greatest Secret in the World Today", and how its main points contradicted his main thesis. Did you notice or mention that in the film class there are two mentions of two ?greatest secrets? but one got edited out of the book? I noticed this in the 70?s and often pondered the common points that these two greatest secrets had. Here they are: ***************************************************************** Well, ladies and gentlemen, if Jesus Christ came that we might life and have it more abundantly; he either told the truth or he lied. If he lied to us here in the Word of God when he declared that he came that we might have life and have it more abundantly, if he lied to us, then the best thing you and I could to do is just chuck the whole thing. Throw it all away. But if he told the truth, if he meant what he said and said what he meant when he declared that he came that we might have life and have it more than abundantly, ladies and gentlemen, somewhere, someplace, somehow, surely there must be keys, there must be signposts that will guide us into the understanding and the receiving of this life which is more than abundant. And I believe that this class on Power For Abundant Living, that this class is one of the stepping stones to make available this to people. And this which Jesus Christ did and came to do, this is the greatest secret in the world today; the greatest secret in the world today. And this great secret is what we want to declare and make known. A secret is like a mystery--sometimes like a woman's purse, what she has in it--it's a mystery. Once you open it, once you see what's in it, then it's no longer a mystery. The greatest secret in the world today is that Jesus Christ did come to make life more than abundantly available to believers. And this is the purpose of this Biblical research class: to enable our people, our children, our young people and our adults to tap into these resources that they can manifest this more abundant life. This is a class on keys. I am not going to teach you the scriptures, every verse from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21. This is not the purpose of the class. But, by God's mercy and by God's grace I expect to set before you all the basic keys in the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation which will unfold for you this life that Jesus Christ came to make available which is a life which is more that abundant. This is why these keys in this class should bring us to the place that we will be certain in the midst of the uncertainty of our time. This Word of God and the greatness of God's revelation should be unto us a firm rock in the sea of speculation with which we're surrounded on every hand. And I want this class on Power For Abundant Living to be for you a safe anchorage in the ocean of doubt with which we are surrounded. And today certainly there is so much doubt and so much un-safeness, unconcern, that if we can come back to the keys of the Word of God and set these keys that you can utilize them with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision, then once again you can begin walking and you can begin to manifest that more abundant life. This first lesson, the first lesson in this first session of this class on Power For Abundant Living deals with the greatest secret in the world today. And do you know that this greatest secret in the world today literally is: that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. The greatest secret in the world today, anyplace, anywhere, is that the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God because people for the most part just do not believe it. Even those who are deeply spiritual, they'll take one segment out of the Word of God and drop another. Ladies and gentlemen either the Bible's the Word of God from Genesis to Revelation all the way through or it's not the Word of God anywhere. And the greatest secret in the world today is that the Bible, the Bible is the revealed Word and Will of God. That's the great secret. You know, I'd like to state it another way: that the Word of God is the Will of God. This is our power for abundant living. It's like it's up here above this chart board and you'll see it hundreds of times through the teaching of this class. The Word of God is the Will of God--the Word of God being the Will of God--that's the greatest secret in the world today! Now to get to the depth of this and to start into its depth I'd like for you to take your Bibles and turn to the Book of Jeremiah. The book of Jeremiah! In the Old Testament: Psalms! Proverbs! Ecclesiastes! Song of Solomon! Isaiah! Jeremiah! And there in chapter 2 in verse 13 of this chapter listen to what this Word of God says: Jeremiah 2:13: For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. Who is God talking to? He says, "My people." He's talking to His people. He's not talking to people who are on the outside of the pale. He's talking to those who are within the fold so to speak. **************************************************************** ?A page ago, Mike utterly mangled the story of Elijah, whose name he couldn't even get close to remembering. (He didn't even confuse him with Elisha, which would be understandable.) This is especially strange, since vpw taught on Elijah. This is partially understandable, since Mike has proudly proclaimed the inferiority of the Bible, and, as such, might well not have opened the book for years. So, what does this tell us?? I?d say this tells us you are again desperate to find something to criticize me on. I tried to cover both spellings in one name, along with the appropriate international sign of (sp?) which in every language means ?You?re not important enough for me to bother looking this up or using a spell checker, even though I know I got it wrong.? Sorry, next time I?ll look it up. **** So, when we quote PAGE AFTER PAGE of material that vpw wrote, it becomes obvious what vpw said. We looked at several pages of vpw's writings a few pages back, more than once. These quotes were diametrically opposed to what vpw said. (They said the OPPOSITE what Mike SAID they said.) It looks like I could say the exact same thing of you. I too havce posted page after page of obvious things. The only difference is I have been closely examining these pages for 5 years, and you?ve been doing it RECENTLY far less. I?m glad to see you all getting your books out and re-acquiring them as needed. And they ARE needed. ?Mike's response was NOT to amend his thinking to match the pfal materials...? NOPE! My response was NOT to amend my thinking to match your recent appraisals of the pfal materials...? I KNOW what I responded to. *** ?... (which would be internally-consistent to Mike's STATED theology). Mike's response was ALSO not to cite another place in the same books, trying to refute the previous quotes. What was Mike's response?? Talk about citing page after page, I can do that too. Sometimes when pressed on this I cite Green page 34 and page 116. Page 34 says ?...every word i have written to you is true. Page 116 says ?...if you think this is just Victor Paul Wierwille writing or speaking to you, you will never receive. If you know that what I am saying to you are words which the Holy Ghost has spoken and is speaking to you by me, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God.? Just for the book ownerless, here they are in full form with my ALL-CAPS: **************************************************************** TNDC p.34 Change what you put in your mind. To change the food you are sending to your mind is to ?renew your mind.? Think those things which are true, honest, just, pure, lovely and of good report. If you by your free will accept Christ as your Savior and renew your mind according to The Word, you will find THAT EVERY WORD I HAVE WRITTEN TO YOU IS TRUE. I challenge you to stand upon the Word of God, declare your authority in Christ and claim your rights. The Amplified Version translates a verse in Romans so vividly. Romans 10:11: The Scripture says, No man who believes in Him ? who adheres to, relies on and trusts in Him ? will [ever] be put to shame or be disappointed. (The Amplified New Testament) Let us make our unqualified commitment; let us confess Jesus as Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead. We will never be disappointed. **************************************************************** TNDC p.116 Let me unfold the keys to you and shortly you too will be speaking the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:4 says, ?And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.? They were all filled, nobody was missed. Nobody ever gets missed if he has heard The Word and if he believes it and then acts upon it. God is always faithful and nobody then can be passed over. Do exactly what I tell you to do down to the most minute detail. Paul in I Thessalonians 2:13, thanked God that ?when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God.? You too must follow God?s truth as told in the Word of God. But IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST VICTOR PAUL WIERWILLE WRITING OR SPEAKING to you, you will never receive. If you know that WHAT I AM SAYING TO YOU ARE WORDS WHICH THE HOLY GHOST HAS SPOKEN AND IS SPEAKING TO YOU BY ME, then you too will manifest the greatness of the power of God. If you will literally do what I ask you, then you can manifest the fullness of the abundance of God, the wonderful power of God. ***************************************************************** ?Well, way back when I cited Session One originally, Mike's response was to pretend I didn't, and hope the points would go away if he never acknowledged them.? Wait a dog gone minute! How do you know your citations weren?t buried in the threads before I could get to it? Paste it in again if you think it?s important. I loose track of many posts here, but I try not to. I still have to track down Thomas Heller?s from last month. I lost it too. ******** Mike does not know the contents of the Bible, and Mike does not know the contents of vpw's books. Personally, I'm curious if he even has a copy of them at present, or if he's relying on his memory of what he thinks the pfal books said. Mike's theology is in no way based on the Bible. Mike's theology is in no way based on vpw's pfal books. This has been pointed out, in parts, many times. At the moment, we can see that we probably grossly misunderestimated the degree to which Mike is ignorant of the contents of the books upon which he claims to base his theology. Are you really? Again I sense the air of a desperate man? I really see little need to comment on this. I just want to get a good grade on this composition.

mj412, You are right that I did not know you very well at all.

Thanks! You HAD to give me the biggest?

mj412, I never said I?d throw you away over grammar and punctuation. And I don?t think I ever mentioned spelling. I?ll say it again, in a different way. If I?m tired from various daily labors, or if I?m distracted by many other posts here, then I may miss important things that pop up in you posts that I can respond to. If it takes extra work to read your posts, then they stand more of a chance to get lost in the shuffle. I tend to miss more of what you write, if your posts give me a headache (or a heartache), so I?m telling you how to increase the efficiency of your communications transmissions to me. Because I knew you in a somewhat more positive setting a few years ago, before our rounds here at GS, I feel that we should be communicating BETTER than I do with others here. Instead we are communicating worse. This baffles me because I thought we had some good e-mails last year. Please, instead of trying to beat me up, just lay a few clear, proof-read thoughts out at a time. I?m very inclined to give you higher priority in post responses than some others here, because I genuinely cared about you, and then you just disappeared on me. Look at the unanswered posts above me here. I sometimes get a whooping daily assignment of posts to respond to here at GS. If this was an English composition course, it would be considered a very rigorous course indeed to require this many pages of text per week. I?ll be looking forward to having the time to outwit the limited scenarios, dares, and challenges that are printed above. Mj412, who?s post should I respond to next? I?m off to work right now, but maybe tonight I?ll have time to give one or two IN DEPTH ANALYSIS responses. Let?s see how much is wagered on this one. *** You wrote: ?Ok Mike BUT the bible is no longer your standard because it is a mere translation of a man.? It?s the KJV and other versions that I see as much weaker on the list of priorities to study. I see KJV verses and promises WITHIN the PFAL books and see them as totally sufficient for my life. My standard is what is in print in the PFAL writings.

mj412, I agree with you that the law of believing must be operated within GOD'S will. There is no promise that God will give us anything according to our unrenewed mind desires as long as we believe. Finding out what God's will is crucial to believing. I teach that and Dr teaches that. In order to operate the law of believing we don't look for which one of our own desires we want to "believe for" next. In order to operate it right we must find out, as you stated, what GOD?S will and desires are. In order to operate the law of believing we look for a promise of GOD to believe. If it?s a promise of God already, then we KNOW God?s will. If it?s a promise of God already, then His answer is always ?Yes.?

Rafael, Copyright laws don't mean anything deeper than the men who steward them. They are a mere convention of men. George Harrison at one time had a copyright on "My Sweet Lord" but it was later determined that he did not OWN it. He claims that it came to him independently, but too late to get the legal ownership. In order for copyrights to prove ownership, a title search, something like those done in real estate, would have to be done. But unlike real estate which is relatively finite, searching the relatively infinite universe of all possible songs for a title conflict is not so well executable a task. The ownership proof of a copyright is only as good as the search for conflicting claims. Who knows where Kenyon got his material from? How might we search all that he had available to him to see if his ownership is ?valid.? But I?m not nearly as interested in legal, 5-senses ownership as spiritual ownership. In fact I?m bored silly with copyright ownership. In all, it?s a 5-senses crock, and will be someday done away with. We?ve hardly discussed this possibility, but might God have stoln material from Kenyon and gave it to Dr? Another possible scenario: God gave it to both. Another scenario: Kenyon came up with it (or close to it) via his 5-senses. But Dr got it by revelation. Each passage in question could have a different origination scenario, or a permutation of several. People who get all uptight about copyright laws must REALLY do backflips when they see God giving all that real estate to Abraham in Genesis, and then Joshua collecting it by force. Look at all those property violations! This ownership thing needs some serious thinking through. **** About the word ?law? it seems that you have certain criteria that you apply to determine that it is not a law, according to your definition. But it?s Dr?s definition that we need to determine. I simply have not yet done that. But it does seem that you already do have a certain definition that you reserve for ?law? and you seem to be using it. I?m just suggesting that we determine what is being said first, and then later we can decide if we want to accept the whole story. The best I understand SO FAR about laws is that they apply to every person, in every place, at all times, and they?re relatively simple. That?s some of the most important elements that go into defining laws in the realm of science, but I?m not sure yet as to what degree Dr defines ?law? this way too.

Tom Strange, OLG is Older Leader Grads. It's a very loose term for those grads who were even just a little matured in PFAL during the period 1982-85. I feel it was us OLGs who dropped the ball by failing to perceive and obey Dr's post presidency ministry. It's also us OLGs who saw PFAL work well in the 70's, so we are the ones with the most motivation to come back to PFAL. TVT stands for Twi's Verbal Tradition. It's the doctrine that got believed by us OLGs instead of the teachings of Dr in the PFAL writings. This TVT started out pretty accurate, but by the early 80's had lots additions from other sources water it down, plus things Dr wrote to us got forgotten, and changed as the years passed. In this TVT I also include the written teachings of others in the Way Magazine. Most of my posts are to show that we don't really hold Dr's teachings in our heads, but close counterfeits of them. I believer it's these close counterfeits that REALLY doomed the ministry. Dr's many exhortations for us to master the written PFAL materials were to fight off this TVT.

Rafael 1969 You wrote: ?I have no problem with the positive motivation. It just ain't a law.? What is your definition of law? It seems you reserve this word for something more special than Dr does. If that?s the case then to read Dr?s books you will need to adopt his vocabulary perspective on this word. Otherwise you can?t say you are understanding what you disagree with in the books. I?m not saying your definition of ?law? is bad for you, it?s just that when examining Dr?s books we need to know if he used any words differently than mainstream dictionaries. What would qualify for ?law? in your book as is? ******* You quoted me thusly: ?Another totally critical factor to bring into this mix is the difference between believing and mental assent.? And then you commented: ?A distinction Wierwille stole from Kenyon, incidentally.? To which I was shocked. I still am interested where you saw the deed of ownership. But moving on here, let?s just note here that if this mental assent versus believing dichotomy can also be found in Kenyon, then it might have value, and if you?re a Kenyon admirer, it might have a lot of value. Then you again quoted me regarding mental assent and believing: ?The two can be extremely close, both to examinations from without by others, and to examinations from within by ourselves.? And then you commented: ?More evasion. This is the standard "blame the believer" approach whenever the law of believing doesn't work. You didn't REALLY believe, you see. It was just mental assent. Had you really believed, the law of believing would have worked. ... H-O-R-S-E M-A-N-U-R-E.? I agree that the TVT had fostered a bunch of leaders to act like jerks AT TIMES in handling situations like the one you described. Something would go wrong, and the easiest culprit 5-senses wise, to pin the blame on was the grad?s mental assent not growing to the level of believing. Yes, you pointed out an actual abuse that I witnessed in the ministry as the 80?s progressed. It was not so much a 70?s thing, though. Now, I ask you, just because some people during a small span of time abused the concept of this mental assent versus believing dichotomy, should we throw it out? Remember, it?s in Kenyon too, so it might be good even from an antiPFAL perspective. I?m sure the mental assent versus believing dichotomy is VERY valuable to keep in the mix, and that?s why I mentioned it. I promise to not abuse anyone with it. I?m convinced that the majority of what we OLGs did in the70?s was mental assent and NOT believing. At times we hit the believing strides, in limited areas of our lives, but it was like our operation of the ?other? manifestations: hit or miss. I?ve come to raise my standards on what I regard to be believing, based on how I see it handled in the PFAL books. Galen has been posting a quote from George Meuller on praying (believing) for something and NEVER stopping until you get it. What we were doing in the 70?s and 80?s was more mental assent than believing because when the stuff hit the fan in the later 80?s the ?believing? suddenly stopped in SO many people and/or in SO many areas. That means it wasn?t believing. Believing latches on and never lets go. Mental assent is where the 5-sense circumstances are conducive, and ?it? LOOKS agreeable, and it feels fun to think it, and it seems to fit, and there?s no harm... so I?ll say with my mouth that I believe it. BUT when the circumstances suddenly change, and it?s not so openly agreeable, and none of my friends believe it any more, and it stirs up lots of not so fun associations, and ... so I?ll say with my mouth that I do NOT believe it. No, I do not propose we use this mental assent versus believing dichotomy to play one-upmanship games on each other. But believing should be thought of as something that is bigger than mental assent, even though they may look the same to the senses under non-trying circumstances. I do propose that the concept of mental assent be utilized in rightly dividing what Dr wrote us, and in rightly dividing our operation of the law of believing in our own mind and lives.

Rafael, . . Gosh! I didn't know Kenyon OWNED it! . . [This message was edited by Mike on July 08, 2003 at 20:53.]

Goey, You haven't answered my question about where that story was from. I've learned to check the TVT-PFAL dichotomy routinely, when I hear stories of grad experiences like this. Likewise, when I hear stories of passages in the books, I routinely go there and look for the Natural/Factual ? Spiritual/Divine dichotomy manifested in the special vocabulary words Dr used to convey this dichotomy. ************************************************************ rascal, You wrote: ?You have had hundreds of people posting at gspot of God`s great deliverance, abundance, healing, and continued blessings in their lives.... why would he DO that if he was dissapointed in our lack of adherance to vp`s doctrine?? Grace. I?d add that the deliverance you describe was from the TVT, not PFAL. ************************************************************ WordWolf, With little time, I?ll just say this for now: I posted here several times that I think the copyright law has it?s places in academia and the marketplace. It?s only in the family of God, with we who understand it, understand that our Father owns all, and that within this family the man-made copyright laws are superceded. Deut.29:29 was retemory #2 I think. ************************************************************ Oakspear, I don?t know. I do remember the prophet Ilija-sha (sp?), after a big win over Jezabel and the 400 prophets, went up on a mountain and asked God to let him get hit by lightning. He was tired of the fight and wanted to die and get the better resurrection. It looks like the adversary takes him up on it, and then God gives him a revelation that there is still a lot of work to do, so he gets his believing turned around to go back in and fight again for some more rounds. There might be something implied there, as well as in other OT scenarios. ************************************************************ shaz, I?ve always wondered about that one. It appears to have been edited out of the book. I?m still wondering why. One last possibility I?d consider was that it?s just TVT. There are other ways of looking at it, but I just now saw that it wasn?t in the book. In addition to the Nat-Spir dichotomy and the TVT-PFAL dichotomy, there?s also the tape-print dichotomy to be on the lookout for. I?ve seen this many times now, where our great familiarity with the tape of the class interferes with our potentially more refined familiarity with the book. This is the most classic example of where we got tricked into the good, and missed the best. Evidently the red drape thing was probably something that God gave revelation to slide away from our sight when the book was being edited, yet we held onto it. What a switch! Things God would have loved to have us hear slipped by us unnoticed, and this thing God would have slip way from us we hold onto. ************************************************************ WordWolf, Your quote from BTMS p.28 contains the key: ?The law, SIMPLY STATED, is that what we believe for or expect, we get.? With my ALL-CAPS for emphasis. This is the highly abbreviated law of believing, the SIMPLY STATED law of believing. A highly abbreviated formulation of the law of gravity is ?Things fall.? If you want to be an astronaut a more full formulation of the law is F= (GMm)/®2. In an abbreviated form of the law, false conclusions can be drawn if it?s abbreviated nature is not taken into account. There are places where the abbreviated form of the law of believing is depicted, but there are enough page references (don?t make me find them) where Dr tempers this with the fuller form, where the promise of God aspect is stated as MANDATORY. I?ll try to get to the rest of your post tonight. ************************************************************ Pirate1974 You wrote: ?That whole "believe for it and you'll get it" stuff was pounded into our heads all the time with no restrictions on what you could believe for: a good parking space, a good grade on a test, a better job, winning the Powerball lottery. If your believing is strong enough...I remember hearing that the only thing you couldn't believe for was something that affected another person's free will, like believing for somebody to fall in love with you.? What you described there was the TVT, to the ?T? !!! I agree this DID happen. It was wrong. If we had obeyed Dr?s instructions to master the books we would have seen that this is wrong sooner. The books tell us not to think the way we were led by OLG leaders. They were doing their best to pass on what Dr had taught them, and did well for a time, but as the book doctrine drifted out and TVT drifted in they failed to see this error well enough to fix it. I did it too. ************************************************************ Rafael, Howdy. It?s nice to have you back. I always got the impression that for the law to work for ?saint and sinner alike? was a great relief. I think, but I?m not sure, that the ?saint? mentioned here means NOT born again, but highly disciplined at rule following, like the medieval saints, like as opposed to an undisciplined sinner. In other words, I can attempt to work with God on one of His projects, and the fact that I blow it occasionally in my believing and in my walk and discipline, doesn?t negate the truth that I CAN ALSO walk in the truth with no self condemnation and when I do walk in truth believing it, God can bring to pass great things, in spite of my failing sinner flesh. When that phrase ?saint and sinner alike? in Dr?s exposition of the law of believing is looked at this way, then it?s good news, it comforts, it edifies, it exhorts me to go on to a more worthy endeavor, like getting more disciplined. It?s the positive motivator, so I can do away with fear motivation, and just get into believing more and more. Another totally critical factor to bring into this mix is the difference between believing and mental assent. The two can be extremely close, both to examinations from without by others, and to examinations from within by ourselves. ************************************************************ WaferNot!, I?m not so sure about the universality of your observation. I do know of a few who appreciate my posts, and I expect there are a few who haven?t made themselves known to me... yet, and I expect in the future some here may get to the point of hearing enough details to change their believing. We?ll see as the details emerge. ************************************************************ [This message was edited by Mike on July 08, 2003 at 13:29.]

Goey, I'm not familiar with that teaching. There is one additional factor. Believing on a promise of God is not restricted to written promises. Believing a direct revelation of a promise works too, and it's the case that this kind of believing is really the manifestation of believing. It may be that what you heard was a group of men believing a direct, unwritten promise of the True God, but I don't know. I'm at a disadvantage of ignorance regarding this story you mention, but if the True God was involved, it'd have to involve more than just not liking the guy, like a great need of life or death such as in a war. It may be that what you heard was a group of men believing on the counterfeit side with the adversary and helping him in his plans. I'm at a disadvantage, have not ever heard the story. Are you SURE it's not TVT? [This message was edited by Mike on July 08, 2003 at 3:20.]