Mike

Shaz, I'm sorry to hear that he forgot about the family of God, God's ownership of everything, and God's inspiration for all good ideas. I'd like to think the best of him, and think that you somehow encountered a lie, and that his character had not deteriorated to such a worldly state.

Jbarrax and WordWolf, I?m about to derail this thread temporarily, but this topic will offer avenues back to the Natural/Factual vs. Spiritual/Divine. I saw your exchange on another thread and wanted to pipe in, but in this non intrusive manner. Jerry wrote: *********************************************************** ?I'm in the process of moving and setting up a new branch location at work, so I can't get into a lengthy debate about this, but I just wanted to say that I no longer count the "law of believing" among VP's erroneous doctrines. It may or may not be "unbiblical" (Depends on what Scriptures you look at), but I believe it pretty much works as advertised. ?I don't think fear is a law, in the sense that what you fear absolutely has to happen, but I do believe that what we set our minds on is the second most powerful factor in what we experience. Number one is of course the grace of God. ?If you want to look at some Scritpures that support this, you can of course look at Jesus' statements to his disciples about having faith as a grain of mustard seed and his repeated aknowledgment of the role faith played in the deliverance of those he healed. I am absolutely convinced that someone who is sick cannot be healed without faith that God can and will heal them. ?Likewise someone who believes he cannot succeed will fail. The fact that every successful coach, consultant and motivational speaker preaches this doctrine shouldn't make us suspicious of it and deride it as "unbiblical", but should testify to the universality of this truth. In other words, if it works time and again for athletes, salesmen, and businessmen, there must be something to it.? *********************************************************** This is verrrrry interesting, as you said, Jerry. I?ve not spent much time on the law of believing yet, and these remarks of your stimulated my interest. One thing that I?ve noticed about fear is that there is no teaching on ?the fear of a mustard seed? being as powerful as mustard seed believing the promises of God. Job mentions great fear, not mustard seed fear. He went to the temple with this fear DAILY. Reminds me of the Bereans who went to the scriptures daily to cultivate positive believing. Then WordWolf, you came in with: *********************************************************** ?...the LAW of believing, as stated, it means that a NON-Christian who absolutely believes their "magic 8-ball" will give them miraculous healing WILL instantly heal while a Christian who is semi-certain will get WORSE results than the non-Christian. As stated, God's irrelevant, and so is the content of what is believed. Whether or not believing in-and-of-itself can do SOMETHING is a separate question, and outside the scope of this thread, but as stated, the "LAW" says nothing about GOD-it "works for sinner and saint ALIKE". ?It's also known as "magical thinking" in certain circles-it's not "prayer", because that would only work if one's belief was IN GOD.? *********************************************************** I think that the law of believing AS STATED, or ?as advertised? as the way Jerry put it, is different that that. ?...the LAW of believing, as stated, it means that a NON-Christian who absolutely believes their "magic 8-ball..." I disagree. Dr never taught that random, personal, or 8-ball wishes could be indulged with this law. It?s only by believing a ?promise of God? that Dr teaches a non-christian can operate the law. It?s not just any old random desire that can be believed, it has to be a promise of God, and this is stated over and over in PFAL. When JAL came to SD in the late 80?s and early 90?s one of his first big messages was that Dr was teaching witchcraft, or the use of the law of believing outside of God?s limits. JAL taught people here and around the country that Dr?s teachings omitted God?s promises in the law of believing teaching. I have tapes of him saying this. I first heard this in 1988, and I was not nearly so much the PFAL fan I am now. I was convinced that there was SOMETHING good about the class, but I couldn?t completely put my finger on it, plus year after year I was getting talked out of it. JAL started to talk me out of it, because I could relate to what he was saying to a degree. It was here that I discovered the great difference between the TVT and what was actually in the tapes and books. I had been exposed to the TVT where God?s promises figuring into the law of believing had dimmed. JAL was accurately exposing the flaws of the TVT, but inaccurately pinning it on PFAL. JAL started to talk me out of it in 1988, but that was the year I found that the PFAL audio tapes were being bootlegged by hundreds of other people, kinda like the book situation I mentioned earlier in another post. I listened to the entire class carefully that year and documented several places where Dr DID teach that believing had to be on a promise of God or it was no deal. The next year when JAL came to town I told him of my finds. He was totally uninterested. Since then I?ve found more. This, is the second big lie about Dr propounded in those years. On this thread I?ve posted proof exposing another big lie from those destructive tours. That was the lie that Dr neglected teaching us enough on the lordship of Jesus Christ. It?s about halfway down this thread: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=3656073772&p=3 **** WordWolf, you then continued your distortion of Dr?s teaching with: ?...the LAW of believing, as stated, it means that a NON-Christian who absolutely believes their "magic 8-ball" will give them miraculous healing WILL instantly...? Whoa, Whoa, Whoa! Where did you get ?instantly? ??? **** ?...the LAW of believing, as stated, it means that a NON-Christian who absolutely believes their "magic 8-ball" will give them miraculous healing WILL instantly heal while a Christian who is semi-certain will get WORSE results than the non-Christian.? Well now, that CAN be the case. Dr does teach how the devil will target semi-knowledgeable semi-believers. It doesn?t HAVE to be the case, though, as Dr also teaches. **** ?As stated, God's irrelevant, and so is the content of what is believed.? Wrong, wrong, wrong! You?re propounding the same lie now. Dr teaches over and over that God?s promises are a MUST in the law of believing, and that it is God who watches over His Word to perform it. Dr always taught that God got the glory for the law of believing, not the believer. The page references are numerous. [This message was edited by Mike on July 07, 2003 at 21:36.]

wyteduv58 I wrote it down to get it. There was another baseball movie out last summer. I forget it's name. With Dennis Quaid. ...The Rookie!!! It was great too!

Wayfer Not! You are right. How about this? ?If those are the only things you can come to that table with, I ask you to brainstorm a few new ones with me.?

rascal, How about getting into some areas other than the ones that insult a man I happen to love and am thankful to God for. If you want to continually insult my teacher, go ahead, but then don?t complain I pay little attention to you. How would you like it if someone insulted someone you were thankful to God for? How magnanimous would you be to such a disrespectful and rude person? If you want to beat on the sex thing or the plagiarism thing, don?t expect my attention. I have said several times I closed my mind to taunts like yours on those two subjects. If those are the only things you can come to that table with, I suggest you get a life and quit bothering me. If you want to learn what happened to us all, why we were so convinced of SOMETHING good that made it worth dedicating our lives to it, and why it then so quickly soured, then I?d love to help. The reason I can help is because I saw nobody else was doing it, and I scoured the tape/print record to find out where we missed Dr?s message. When we get that message intact, in detail, then many issues will take care of themselves. It worked for me. This is the great story of deliverance I have to report on that happened in my life. I was plagued with confusion as to why and how so many good leaders one time, suddenly turned into such complete jerks a few short years later. I had lots of questions plaguing me by 1988-98 an these lines. I can now forgive the leaders who hurt me. I see a bigger picture now. I described a bit of this in the ?Saving Private Ryan? method of forgiveness about one third the way down this thread page: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=8506086013&p=3

Exy, There were some good leaders... Jesus Christ for example. Sometimes someone who is not so good a leader at one time can hit a home run another... Oops, I think I'm merging the playing fields here...

I had no idea that was a baseball movie. There are VHS used video stores opening up all over for those switching to DVD, and it can prpbably be found there.

wyteduv58, I happen to LOVE baseball. Not major league, any more anyway. I played baseball and softball when I was young and loved them. I saw "1961" happen in the current sports pages of the day, and on the radio, decades before Billy Crystal made the HBO movie. Have you seen "1961"? (or maybe it's "61") It's good! It's in video stores. When I was a kid I thought that Mickey Mantle's kicking of dust would make designs on the infield that were God-breathed. ...almost Nowadays I marvel at all the baseball figures of speech that have entered the English language. It's a lot like the railroad figures of speech that came in, and they both seemed to happen at the same time, starting in the mid 1800s.

wyteduv58, You wrote: ?Mike, Would you like to get away from those books for awhile and just talk about something else? How about baseball, I love baseball and will talk about it with anyone interested. Its not a sin to enjoy other things in life and keeping God at the head right?? Well this thread has a goal. In my life I have other things going on. In other threads I?ve had other things going on. Did you see my mirror thread? Why Does A Mirror Reverse Left and Right But Not Up and Down? http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=4936053912&p=1 I have a few others like it in mind, but right now I?d like to finish the Ubiq itinerary I have laid out.

Exy, Well it seems like I?m doing it whether I ?would? or not. Five senses wise I wasn?t cut out for leadership. I thought I was going as far as I dared as a twig leader. I still shy away from the idea, but those who are 5-senses endowed greater than the average bear to be leaders are not doing it. What I?m doing here should have been said in 1985 by all the top OLGs in position at that time. They just didn?t have the Word pure enough, too much PFAL Word had slipped out by then, and they were overwhelmed. I?m very much looking forward to seeing some better equipped OLG leaders jumping into the mastery project.

rascal, I said tough. I match your toughness. Lighten up a bit and let's eee what we can discuss. Have you got any other beefs, other than the standard ones? Maybe I can help.

Tom Strange, First of all, not all condescension is bad. Remember the figure of speech condescencio? What?s bad is false condescension. False condescension is where an attitude if superiority is displayed, but no goods or services come down from this superior level. Leaders who refuse to serve, but expect to BE served, exhibit this false condescension. But condescension can be a good word if there?s love and service that ?come down? or conDESCEND from above. If I offer help that really is help, then the glory goes to God Who orchestrated my being able to deliver it. In other words, if I help, it?s not me reaching down or condescending to your level with this help. It?s more like GOD condescending to you lovingly, and He employs my services to deliver His help to you. Like I said in posts above, I can?t take credit for bringing a good message to you, because God gets the credit, the glory. I not thinking of myself as condescending down to you, but to serving God?s product on a horizontal level.

WordWolf You wrote: ? Considering he had to be either completing his education, working, or both during this time, and including things like a trip to India interrupting this, this would be an INCREDIBLE pace to maintain. (Of course, if you think he was at the pinnacle of human ability, this is not an unreasonable feat.) Just thought you guys would like the numbers crunched.? Mrs. Wierwille has spoken and written that while in school Dr started doing a very large amount of reading. In the late 70?s I worked close to EO?s office i nthe bookstore. Every month she would get a shipment of books for Dr piled up on her desk to inventory. These were mostly current titles Dr would order. It was often a challenge to do it without getting caught, but I?d try to see the titles whenever I could. It was an amazing assortment of things that he was reading up on. I guess he had a relapse in his voracious reading habits and got back into it decades later, after the reported book burning. Wordwolf, your cackle-ations on the size of 3000 volumes didn?t take into account that professional academic journals are often rather thin. I think a thousand volumes of them can easily fit into a small closet. Also, I?ve noticed that often people buy entire personal libraries at a time at auctions, or are given libraries of elderly or diseased scholars. In the 80?s ministry meltdown I saw entire libraries of books and tapes go this way and that. People donate personal libraries to seminary students and ministers. Your citation of pages 119-120 in PFAL included ?I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, its words.? In this quote I surmise you see a contradiction. You probably see Dr saying that he stopped reading anything but the Bible, and that Dr?s learning from the other teachers like Kenyon was not the Bible, so Dr lied? If Dr had written: ?I decided to quit reading around the BIBLE. Consequently, I have spent years studying the BIBLE - its integrity, its meaning, its words? or if he had written: ?I decided to quit reading around The KJV. Consequently, I have spent years studying The KJV-its integrity, its meaning, its words? THEN I?d have to agree that there was a contradiction. But he didn?t write it that way. Dr received the Word that he studied and ONLY studied from several sources. The KJV was one, the Greek was another, Lamsa was another, Kenyon was another. When we confuse ?God?s Word? with ?Bible? to mean the same thing, then Dr?s words cannot be rightly divided. Dr maintained a difference in his vocabulary regarding these two words, and within that vocabulary is great consistency. Dr stopped reading around the Word via the academics volumes he had collected and had previously committed his life to, and he took God at His promise of 1942. God led him to various sources and teachers, often well outside the mainstream of academic christianity. From these sources and teachers Dr received the true spiritual Word, as much as had been made available by God to these others Dr learned from. I see the book burning passage in PFAL not as a renouncing of all other learning by books, but more of a renouncing of the official academic churchianity that he had been previously committed to. When Dr learned from these other men, he THEN felt a need had to bring it back to the Bible, the received scriptures and see what fit and what didn?t fit, to the best of his ability. On those few occasions where his spiritual insight and awareness led him to believe the received scriptures were inadequate, he?d hold out to find at least one manuscript that backed up what God had taught him via the various methods. ********* You wrote: ?What about the WHITE book? Does the white book contain such a claim as well? ... ...The preface says that this book is the result of vpw's own personal search...? The same holds with this book. Dr put aside all the official baloney, and went with God?s guidance as to how to open the scriptures. Sometimes God guided him to other men?s work in the scriptures, men not in the official mainstream, so there was a pooling of efforts. God gets all the glory, for He was guiding the whole team. The final product of many men working with God was PFAL. I do not see now that any of these books claim Dr to be a sole originator, or even and originator at all. Dr was up front with us about his teachers, and your beef is not going to entangle me. Your whole stance on this subject is to ignore the family of God aspect, and you laud to the skies the academic and marketplace ethics. I don?t buy it at all. ********** You wrote: ?...and Leonard added elaborate copyright warnings to all his work after he learned of it. So Leonard, at least, DID mind, quite a bit. Perhaps it was because he was mindful of fellow Christians that he did not seek to recover damages, as he was legally entitled to do.? Well, I was wrong about Houdini, and I was wrong about Bullinger?s graduate students, I suppose I?ll be wrong about other things that I don?t look into very well. ********** You wrote: ?An ethical system for the family would seek to treat each member respectfully, whether they be present or not. The fact that all OTHER Christians besides YOU are mindful of copyrights and respecting the property and work of each other does not move you, I suppose.? I think that copyrights have their place in academia and the marketplace. Not in God?s family where we are not owners but mere stewards. You then whispered: ?(I am a little curious how you'd feel if someone else rereleased vpw's books and claimed to be the author of original works. No, don't answer-I don't expect a truthful answer to that one.)? Actually, I believe this is the reason the PFAL videos suddenly appeared with a copyright notice in the 80?s. No one had bothered to do it, but it suddenly was proposed that someone outside the ministry could come along and copyright it for themselves if we didn?t do it. Such a theft may not have been all that likely to succeed, but it could cause a lot of paperwork hassles. Your scenario is a little different, but has similarities. Actually I do cringe at the cyber copies of Dr?s books that are beginning to appear. I?ve tried scanning a page or two and that?s not too hard. It?s formatting and then proofreading that are gargantuan tasks. I fear that some will be inaccurate, or not the best editions, and that it will became difficult to tell with the cyber versions which ones are well done and well proofread. When the TWI bookstore cut us off from sales several years ago, they probably had no idea how many people immediately bought scanners. I estimate at least one hundred. There are very few hard core believers in these books out there like me, BUT there are THOUSANDS of grads out there who want the PFAL books and they want their children to have them too. Only by reopening the bookstore and paper copies to us can they slow down the proliferation of inaccurate cyber copies of Dr?s books. So, this is still not exactly your scenario. For what you proposed, I?d say the consumers of such products would be robbed of the opportunity to know of the entire PFAL teaching. But this is moot, because I believe that PFAL reached everyone it was supposed to reach, at least in the video/book form we were reached with. I think if your scenario took place not too much good would arise from it and not too much bad. ****** You then wrote: ?In case you missed it, side-comments made in a few tapes here and there don't absolve one from responsibility of giving proper credit where it is due. Several editions were made of BOTH books. In ANY of them, credit could easily have been added. vpw CHOSE not to do so. Since we were unaware they were not wholly original books, we didn't pry when he made comments that he learned a few things here and there from other Christians. We believed vpw would never lie to us, and that if his books contained work by someone else, he'd CERTAINLY have told us. We were trusting fools that way. Never again.? I?d say with you, don?t ever again be ?trusting fools" THAT WAY. ?That way? is characterized in your paragraph above by: ?proper credit where it is due? ?credit could easily have been added? ?wholly original books? ?work by someone else? This great homage to human originality is unfounded. Don?t you remember all the teaching we got on how great art was really spiritual, as well as great intellectual endeavors in letters and science and math? We were taught that originality on the 5-senses level was an illusion, and that humans don?t really think up anything. That we only know what we are taught. If it looks like we came up with an idea that we weren?t taught via the 5-senses, or sufficient pieces of it taught via the 5-senses, then the ?new? idea came from either holy spirit or unholy spirit. Weren?t you taught this about originality? I was. And it fit quite well with what Dr taught us about him being taught by the men God guided him to. You are magnifying a concept that need not, indeed MUST not be magnified in the family of God. When I invite you to ?come Back? to PFAL with trust, I don?t mean that kind of trust in Dr's originality. I suggest you come back to PFAL with the attitude that it is NOT the original work of VPW, but that it originated OUTSIDE his mind (...remember the Pressed Down song ?It?s Outside??... ) and Dr was the organizer more than the originator. Come back to PFAL and trust that the real Author is God. [This message was edited by Mike on July 07, 2003 at 17:46.]

Steve, Remember how many times Dr taught us "It's God's Word even if NOBODY believes it." I never dreamed I'd be embracing this teaching of his as much as I am now. It would be greatr to have company, but I finally found out what it would be like to have to apply the teaching "It's God's Word even if NOBODY believes it."

E. W. Bullinger, You wrote: ?Your reasoning does not make any sense. You stretch the rules of ethics, logic and the bible to justify that VPW was the man of God for all time. You do not even consider the possibility that your hero was not 100 percent perfect.? I?m not so sure I ever used the phrase ?for all time? or even ?of the world? when describing Dr as a man of God. I think he was OUR man of God for OUR time. I actually DO consider the possibility that he was not 100 percent perfect. I KNOW that he was not perfect. I think God did a PERFECT work in PFAL with him and his team of others helping him. I have considered at GREAT length, in much detail and for several decades, the imperfections of Dr and I have concluded that they did not disable God?s ability to work with him. This is encouraging to me in that it promises that God can do a lot with me in spite of MY shortcomings too. This may be of comfort to you as well. ********** You wrote: ?Do you not understand the beauty of the scriptures? How a man like Moses will all of his doubts of his ability could lead the children of Israel out of Egypt to be the lawgiver? How a sinful man like Paul could check his loathing for his former self and write so many wonderful epistles to us!? It was solely due to Dr?s teaching that I DO INDEED see and love the beauty of the scriptures. I thank God that because of PFAL we can see the scriptures better now with PFAL. Outside of PFAL the scriptures are very difficult to see clearly. It?s with PFAL that the scriptures unfold to reveal all their beauty. ********* You wrote: ?The truth of the matter is that not only was VPW dishonest for plagiarizing others works, but he was also lazy. He could have easily re-written all of those manuscripts and make them totally his work. Yet he chose a dishonest shortcut.? Actually lazy was never a charge that could stick with Dr. He did a lot of work. I think he chose the harder route by not altering his text. He chose a route that could later be fraught with nit pickers who want to bring marketplace ethics or academic ethics into the family of God. He chose to print EXACTLY what God wanted him to print, and not what was safe from a business point of view. God guided Dr to those men for a reason. By God?s grace, mercy, and help, they had come up with some texts that were perfect or nearly perfect. It was in God?s best interests to have farmed out or subcontracted some of His work to other teachers that Dr could later learn from, integrate it into a much more comprehensive package, and then distribute around the world. I think, EWB, that you have picked up a limited supply of data points on this subject, and have come to a premature judgement of the motives on Dr?s heart. If you are grateful for the learning and healing that PFAL gave you once, than I urge you to come back to PFAL and see what greater surprises God hath wrotght.

rascal, I'll translate for you. If someone gets tough with me, I can get tough back. OK? That was the context of my post. It was someone asking me why I get tough.

Steve, You wrote: ?Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe.? Often totally alone on these boards, but one or two or three semi sympathizers, show up from time to time. You wrote: ?If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country.? All correct, except that the ten?s are in the leaning positively category, mostly. Under ten are gun ho. You wrote: ?Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance?? Very small, very loose knit. Our main activity is reading the books. It?s very time consuming and very satisfying. We?re not into taking an inventory of who?s at what stage of development. It?s a very casual atmosphere where none of the ministry meltdown stuff ever comes up. The focus is the material in the books. We?re not into devising tests for discerning revelation that can be thumbnail into an internet post. We?re getting to know our Daddy through His Word. You wrote: ?Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU.? Put yourself into my shoes here. How would you respond to an antagonist asking you those same questions? If I had a glowing story of great deliverance and miracles, it would distract from your getting into the reading of the books. I?m not going to try and prove with formal logic to you that coming back to PFAL is the best thing for an OLG such as yourself. I?m not going to try and entice you with great stories of healing and success into coming back to PFAL. I?m simply announcing that coming back to PFAL and mastering it will be a wonderful thing to do. I?m also supplying some of the details that may have slipped my most of us but are in the record. With these details we can make more informed decisions as to whether to come back to PFAL. Along the way of doing all this, I also engage in SOME discussion. There are some areas of discussion, especially public discussion, that I wont go into. The affairs of other people is one. In this limited arena of public discussion I don?t want to bring in the people I am learning from. I volunteered of my own volition to come to GS and distribute what some of what I?ve learned, to the best of my ability to get it accurate. I volunteered with my eyes open to come here and take the heat. They, my friends, did not. They don?t ever read GS and we hardly ever talk about it. I have the time to internet surf and post because I have no wife or children. Their time is taken up with family and study of the books. If you were approaching me privately, and you had convinced me that you want to learn from my teachers, that would be a different matter, but here in public, I think we should respect their privacy.

Steve, Because I think it will help her to think more clearly. This works with all people, not just her. Proof reading what we write is important too. We saw her do it once before, and here posts were easier on us readers too. If I didn't know she has the ability like I do, I'd have never utilized that one thought provoker as a shield against her assaults. Let me ask you, Steve, why do you have a double standard in viewing my posts with her versus her posts? You're not curious about her gripes with me being unreasonable?

Dan, For now I'd rather focus on the needs of people, and this is where the people are. This is the ONLY gathering of grads anywhere where full and frank discussion is totally allowed. I've been shown information that I totally believe will help my fellow PFAL grads both understand and deal with many people and events of the past, but more important, the things that are happening now with PFAL.

TheInvisibleDan, Someone here asked me something like this on a much earlier thread. Here was how it went: ***************************************************************** >Did you ever meet VPW? > Yes. I happened to park next to his camper truck at the 1972 Rock of Ages. For days it was like a football game getting around Mrs. Wierwille to get to Dr with my large list of questions. He thought it was funny and accommodated me for hours of discussion. Then at Emporia's Advanced Class in '75 he accommodated me some more with questions, especially at the end. My train wasn't leaving until the next day, so I and 3 or 4 others, who also didn't have to pack and leave, hung out with him and talked heart stuff (no Q&A this time) for a long time. After that I saw him only briefly and occasionally on the field at meetings, until I went to work on staff in '76. He seemed to be much more busy in those days, but there I got to know Uncle Harry very well. He sort of took me under his wing and helped get me an apartment, and took me to auctions, and had me over for dinner. He told me a lot about his brother Vic. On staff for two years, I worked with an older lady who had gone to high school with Dr, and I heard a lot of stories from her. We worked alone most of the time and had many day-long discussions of how Dr grew up and matured in his wisdom. There's lots I can post of her recollections, but I don't consider that hard data like the tape/print record. It does falls into the category of confirmation data, though, so some I will post some of it only much later. I lived in town with J.F.W. and family, who had worked with KM on editing the PFAL book from the film soundtrack. For two years I pumped him with questions, like I did Dr in earlier years, about how the editing process worked. We became good friends and stayed in touch. In these last five years I resumed my discussions with him about the editing he had participate in. It was a very fun and challenging task to approach him with what I had come to believe about the God-breathed status of Dr's books. I was basically telling him I believed he and KM were like Timothy and Silvanus (see a previous post on this) who helped Paul hammer out the Thessalonians texts. It went over better than I had expected, though he didn't jump in with me. When I approached KM with the same stuff it didn't go as well. I had never known her, so I was a stranger on the phone with a wild idea. We corresponded with about 8 e-mails, but she got exasperated with me at one point (ego leakage again?), which most of you can relate to, and we stopped communicating. Still I learned some more from her about Dr and the book production from her perspective. Once at HQ while I was on staff, Dr had a private meeting with me in his office. I was proposing a Word in Science project to him, but he rejected it, and we talked of a few other things for a while. About a half hour after our meeting he called for an emergency staff meeting. In turns out the something I had said privately to him was the cause of the "emergency" and in front of 400 people he read me the riot act. He didn't mentioning my name, but he gave just enough clues so that everyone who knew me also knew that it was me on the hot seat. This was not an easy thing to take because I was told that his hearing in one ear was going bad before out private meeting, and I needed to remember to speak up. What he reported to the staff of my off-the-wall offending statement seemed to be inaccurate. He seemed to either mis-quote me, or he seemed to get the paraphrase of my statement totally wrong. It wasn't what I intended to say at all. I was pretty sure that he had simply heard me wrong, but what was I to do? Correct him at the staff meeting? Correct him later? Take it on the chin (he gave me a little practice for enduring things here) and just forget about it? It was a quandary that I didn't solve for a long time. Years. I was wondering why didn't he get revelation as to what I said, and I tried to think of all kinds of other scenarios to explain the harsh treatment I got. Slowly over the years I got little flashes as to what it was all about, but after I returned to his books and started learning again, the situation resolved rather neatly, and totally. I'm comfortable with it now, but it took years. Shortly after my 15 minutes of de-fame at HQ I left the staff for California, not because of the that most embarrassing moment in the BRC, but because I had plans to do so many months prior. There was one other incident that involved him, but it's too private to relate here. I can tell you this, it involved some of the same things that others have complained about him here at GS and elsewhere, and I had to deal with it along with much pain. ***************************************************************** Back to you, Dan. The times I saw him at the 1972 Rock were quite numerous. I had several other times with him at HQ not mentioned above, and at Emporia in 1975. He visited San Diego several times, but by then there were too many other people taking up his time for much of an interaction. I always thought the spiritual action FOR ME was NOT around Dr and HQ so I left after two years. I love the field and witnessing. Witnessing was very hard in New Knoxville, but I still did it. I was appreciative of what ?man-breathed? teaching Dr had given me, as I perceived it, and I wanted to apply it on the field, not hang around the administrative machinery of a publishing company, which is what TWI was. I used PFAL as a window into my KJV, and it was the KJV that I studied intensely. Compared to many of those around me, I did not get all that excited about Dr being all that great and good a person. Now, in the face of lots of negative reports, I still don?t get all that excited about him NOT being all that much of a nice guy. What got me excited then was the Word I could get out of the KJV, and what gets me excited now is the MORE Word I can now get out of PFAL. I was somewhat impressed with Dr?s accomplishments and abilities, but not so much as to go into his Corps. There were several years in the 80?s, before and after he died, when I felt a degree of annoyance at him. Dr is not at all central to my message, Jesus Christ and his appearance is. Dr was a key player, but his role is over. The Word he put into written form for God is still here.

Tom Strange, This is an adversarial atmosphere, and I am treated as if I don?t know what I?m talking about by many posters here. I combat their assaults on my postings, and it?s perceived as my aggressiveness only when the aggression of the other posters is factored out. In person, on the phone, in personal e-mailings, and when approached here personally, I can respond in such gentler atmospheres in more personable ways. Sometimes I treat my attackers kindly as a first gesture. I?m trying to be that way with you now. Sometimes my aggressive statements of what I believe are perceived by some readers as more hostile than they are because said readers cherished beliefs are being challenged, and many hate this. Sometimes the harsh world of mere ASCII characters makes it difficult for both writer and reader to diplomatically conduct an intense discussion. I try my best to select the least personally insulting wording, yet thoroughly confront the errors I see as most hurtful.

Garcon, I'll have whatever Goey's having.

EWB, Thank you for the history that made it's way to you on Bullinger. Do you understand why I brought up the reference to Bullinger? He was a church member. Church people work together on things. I just can't buy the idea of him doing everything alone. The kind of assistants I GUESS he had would not only not find their names on publications, but they wouldn't be mentioned in biographies and recollections of him by friends BECAUSE it's so commonplace. For a historical account to have a passage about people helping him would seem profitless. Why bother to mention the mundane? I suspect that if you did the "proper" research you'll find no mention of Bullinger's preferences for toilet paper rolls going over or under. Are you going to conclude he had no such preference? Impossible!

WordWolf, You wrote: ?BTW, Mike, you missed my point about OMSW. It's my assertion that the anomalous appearance of a citation there would be the act of the EDITOR. Since vpw was dying during the book's compilation, I hardly think he was pausing to spend hours on it, editing. Cancer is a painful, debilitating illness. If he tried to do that while in the finals stages, he'd be unable to do much editing.? Your doing a lot of inaccurate armchairing about OMSW. First you guess it?s publication date wrong. It was many weeks before Dr died. The galleys were done and shipped to the printers probably months before that. On pages 32 and 33 Kenyon?s name is mentioned in the text, in addition to appearing in the two footnotes. You could have noticed that. Also, this chapter appeared as a Way Magazine article in the Sep/Oct?80 issue. In that article are both footnotes and only one of the text references. That?s a total of 7 references to Kenyon in print. And this is in addition to all the advanced class stories and SNS taped stories where Dr credited this and other teachers God sent him. Lastly, I trust those OMSW editors, who Dr utilized while he was alive, to have had the ability to get the necessary revelation to cover for Dr?s condition. WordWolf, I don?t know how you can say: ?The point was that vpw deliberately gave the impression that, regardless of any other person out there, the orange book and the white book were the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the contributions of others. Dr never made a point of his originality, and just the opposite, he did cite many sources and often. He also taught us that 5-senses originality was really an illusion, because the stuff gets received spiritually. Your whole ethical system is valid for the arena of academia where people are competing for grades and degrees, and it?s valid in the arena of the marketplace like newspapers, magazines, and books addressed and/or for the customers of the marketplace. Dr did not operate in either of these two arenas. He operated in God?s family, where we share, and all the credit goes to God for all new ideas (Deut 29:29). It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were also operating in Daddy?s family, and that neither they nor Daddy minded. It?s you who inappropriately bring into God?s family your worldly ethical system for students, professors, writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their application to the respective arenas from which they were devised. Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics. *************** Here are two excerpts from an old SNS tape #214, October 17, 1965, that show how in the older days Dr was very up front about his sources. He did this so often that the need to do it in his later years was not there, since he had put it in the record. Trouble with the TVT was it drifted from the record of what Dr said about his sources, and people forgot, and manufactured their own inaccurate EXPECTATIONS about Dr?s originality. These two excerpts are from a much larger transcript that can be found at: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...42&m=6816064602 and at: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...0821#4006050821 ****************************************************************** ?And so I?d read the Word; I?d read it??I?d read it. Then I?d work, start looking??start working, and as we began working this Word of God, is when light began to dawn. And wonderful things that God did for us, He brought men and women across our paths who came just at the right time to help us in our light??men who had gone so far, but no further. But God brought these men so that we could go further because these men brought light. Men like Rufus Mosely; men like E. Stanley Jones; men like Albert Cliff; men like Star Daley; God brought all of these men and others??many of them, across our pathways, just at the right time to add to this revelation and enable us to walk on the Word and understand it.? ?But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He?d teach me the Word if I?d teach it, but I had to study, I had to work. And revelation begins??this is why I know this so well??revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the work that have already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and countless others. But, He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then, what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it, and I?d researched to my fullest ability??tried to find out, then, if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation. Time and time again, He?d take the scripture and make it this big. I?m reading along in a verse and all at once there it is, two words, this big, for instance. Well, you have to be stupid to miss it, you know.? ****************************************************************** Of all the message elements I?ve deposited and redeposited here, the biggest one is that Dr did not really write the books. How odd that we seem to agree on this. I just didn?t get tricked into thinking that his originating the stuff was all that important. I just wanted to know God, and how it got to me didn?t matter. I wasn?t auditing the Way for proper procedures on copyrights. I was getting FED the Word! I gave God the ultimate credit then and now for the benefits in PFAL. The 5-senses authorship is just a natural man?s approach to all this. I chose to look at the spiritual matters involved and the spiritual authorship far supersedes Dr, Kenyon, Stiles, etc. Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics.

Goey, How familiar are you with Living Victoriously? It was made available in tape form and I've studied the tapes quite a bit. There are some very interesting things Dr said in that class regarding what happened as a result of the 1942-82 intervention. The year of import, AS I SEE IT in my present state of learning, is 1982. In LV that year he hit on some MOST unusual points at times. I'm not familiar with the word "covenant" so much. I see it like an administration change. When an administration changes FROM GOD'S spiritual point of view, that doesn't mean people automatically enter into the new administration with their 5-senses understanding. Many of the denominations out there I see are still living in the Christ Administration or even the Law. Look at the slow transition to the Grace administration of Peter. It took God a long time to find someone who was willing to believe the new revelation, Paul, and then it took Peter a long time to believe what Paul wrote. I see administration changes as meaning God places something new on the Available List that we can believe for. The Living Victoriously Class was the formal announcement of the new administration, and it slipped right by us, like so many things.