Mike

Howdy Folks, I have very little time this morning, and I can?t even remember who brought this up, but BG Leonard?s grasp of the scriptures seemed weak to me from one modern story about him I have heard. I?m asking for verification of this story for any Corps people who were there. I was never Corps, and I think this happened at Corps Week 1985, a few months after Dr died. BG Leonard visited HQ and in an address to some body of people he said that God?s blessing was off TWI because we didn?t teach that the manifestations were GIFTS of the spirit. I seem to remember being told this happened by a 6th Corps Rev months afterwards, and he also said that a lot of people in the audience were shook by it. Did this happen? Was this just a TVT thing that stuck in my memory?

Oakspear, Dr claimed some of his writings to us were God-breathed non-subtly in 3 places: 1. TNDC p.116 2. TNDC p. 34 3. PFAL p. 83 I have found about 90 others, most very subtle.

Oakspear, I?ll yield to EWB?s report about EWB. You?re right, my data is flimsy there. This is NOT a fatal flaw, however, in my original argument where Bullinger was used as an example among many. I STILL think Bullinger had other people around him doing grunt work and not getting named or credited. I can back off of the specifics, but it's just logical that if Bullinger had fans buying his books, then he'd have groupies of one sort or another helping him publish. The market success of one book leads to volunteers who want to help him with his next book. Selling authors naturally attract assistants. When Ken Kesey wrote "One Flew Over the Coo Coo?s Nest" in 1962 it attracted some of the key beatniks out of the 50?s to ?hang out? with him. Kesey and his assistants, the Merry Pranksters, together invented the hippie movement, or helped it a lot. I've noted this author-attracting-followers phenomenon with other books and topics. Powerful thinkers attract schools of thought who do a lot of the writing for them. This is a well established tradition in many cultures. Jesus' apostles are a key example, where they did all of Jesus? writing for him. This was my main point about Bullinger and his "assistants" paralleling Dr and his assistants.

. . . Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! MOMMIE! Rascal?s not letting me play in my thread! Make her STOP! . . .

EWB, It's my understanding that Bullinger did have quite an assortment of assistants. Whether they were the equivalent of our present day graduate school students is irrelevant to my point. They did assist. Some were family members. Some carried on a society of sorts after his death publishing newsletters and such. I believe the Berean Bible Students Association is such a Bullinger splinter group. I have to admit that it is that rickety old TVT I am leaning on for this supplemental ?data? but I remember many leaders in the 70?s mentioning Bullinger?s ?graduate students? as a kind of a ?school of the prophets? that the Corps was somewhat patterned after.

Jim, Thanks for sharing.

WordWolf, You wrote: ?Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable when Mike does it".? I see anecdotal information as useful in sowing up a subject after the main data has been considered, like a confirmation. It?s like numbers in scripture: where blazing a new trail with numerology is a dubious methodology, but seeing interesting confirmation in numbers as a last step is acceptable. I would never try to build anything on anecdotal information, but final decorations with it can be ok. I just think it is sadly interesting how people who beat themselves up for falling into hero worship with Dr, now look with big goo-goo eyes at new heroes like Bullinger and Kenyon and BG Leonard. I thought a little anecdotal information on BG?s tough army general M.O. was called for, seeing how conveniently forgotten it was. As for BG being a lightweight in VP?s eyes, I wouldn?t agree with that. Did you read the entire passage? I only quoted a tiny sliver. I see Dr as thankful to God for those teachers of his and that thankfulness rubs off onto me. We all have a place in the Body, and no member can be said to be lightweight. It is the case that Dr?s job was one of pulling together and refining. Dr taught a lot of things missing from BG?s understanding. Dr had the believing to move it around the world and BG didn?t. Dr reached me, and BG couldn?t have. Have you forgotten how Dr taught us there is no such thing as originality and that all new ideas come spiritually? Why do you worship this non-existent commodity of originality? Have you ever wondered what will happen to your world if you were to find that BG or Kenyon ?lifted? some of their material from an uncited source? It?s SURELY the case that they did! Everyone does in to some degree, cutting and pasting, mixing and matching lifted elements and re-packaging them as something new. Have you looked into the George Harrison case where he was ?convicted? of lifting a song from another writer? It?s quite interesting how all that happened. Dr referenced his teachers lots of times, but not formally, as you seem to insist on, ex post facto. You are all hung up on ego when you insist on this. What?s the PURPOSE of formal citations? In academia it?s to spur further research where a student may search out the sources of an author?s work to improve on of go beyond that author?s understanding. That?s fine for academia, but here we encounter the end of the line on ?going beyond.? I see no possibility of going beyond God-breathed writings, so footnote citations are useless to me, a meek student of God?s selected teacher. Footnotes clutter up books. I think it?s nice that some of Dr?s books are footnote free. Some others do have lots of footnotes, and that?s fine too. To me, the big hoopla is just a bit ego trip. Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good product. Instead of you getting ruffled ego feathers that Dr had his part in the Body, why don?t you find out what YOUR glorious part in the body is? I?m sure God has more in store for you than being an internet Lone Ranger fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for truth justice and the American way! I?m also sure that within PFAL is the key for us ALL to maximize our potential in Christ. We OLGs were all gathered together in the class back in those 70?s for a reason, a GODLY reason. It looked like all was lost for a decade there, but now there has been a resurrection. It?s now all coming out that God had a great plan for us then in PFAL but EVEN MORE is the case that God has a GREATER plan for us NOW in PFAL. This plan is most awesome! There are still some more things in the print/tape record about the Return of Christ and the Appearing and the Gathering Together that I?ve only dared hint at, but sooner or later I?ll be posting them in full... I hope... All ego trips will fade when it is seen that Dr?s part in this plan is not NEARLY as glorious as ours! Dr said, and wrote, and even chiseled in stone ?I wish I were the man I know to be.? When we see what we get to enjoy in PFAL, we?ll see that we CAN NOW BECOME that man Dr knew to be, and put into written form for us. We get to become that man Dr wished he could become but couldn?t! Dr admitted he fell short of the PFAL man, the new man, the Jesus Christ men and women we can now become. This here is a much higher level confession of his own shortcomings and guilt by Dr than anyone here on GS has yet thought to demand. It?s very much like Moses not getting to enter the promised land for his sin, but WE DO GET TO ENTER. The PFAL writings are our guide. ************* You then wrote: ?Are you aware that there were whole research teams at hq that produced some of the weightier, "original" books?? Yes. In the 70?s I knew some of those team members. I lived with one. I pumped them with questions back then as part of my natural curiosity, and then again in the last 5 years as part of my PFAL revival. I have systematically sought out and sorted MUCH information about these teams. I see many parallels between them and similar ancient teams that put earlier revelations into written form. I?ve mentioned some such teams here: Paul/Timothy/Silas and Jeuemiah/Baruch. There are many others in the OT. All the scriptures were produced this way, as body of people working together with God. God?s selected men had many assistants and consultants, like Jethro was to Moses. Dr mentions his team at the end of the Preface in RHST. He credits them with Biblical (5-senses/mental/scholarly) abilities AND spiritual abilities (revelation and inspiration). I believe that part of the PFAL revelations being put into written form involves Dr's team members operating all nine manifestations. I know that in all my ministry activities, at HQ and on the field, I always TRIED to get revelation where needed. I think sometimes it worked, too! All nine some of the time is better than nothing. I saw MANY people getting revelation back then. Ralph and others have testified here of the power that flowed from US, and not at all confined to the research and print teams. Yes. I?ve included this in my pondering, in great detail, and for 30 year?s. *********** You then wrote: ?"Jesus Christ:Our Passover", for example, was a hefty book written by the research dept and edited by VPW. Ever see the words "edited by" on the covers? No? Is it because he didn't know the names of the research team? Is it because they refused to allow their names to be connected with their work? Is it because he just thought the manuscripts just materialized, and he had no idea the research team had done it? Or was it a matter of VPW wanting all the credit?? It is a well established custom for team leaders to place their name on the cover as author, and not the names of all the contributing researchers. All graduate schools I am aware of operate this way. The professor teaches the students a general concept with some details filled in. The students, as part of their training, contribute their efforts back to the teacher in the form of research and collecting of MORE details to fill out more. The teacher gets the professional credit on the final paper or book, but the teacher also must bear the responsibility of the integrity of the work. The teacher gets the honors, but the liability also. Bullinger did it this way. Much of what he did was the grunt work of his graduate students. When I first heard of the team effort books in the 70?s I looked into this well established custom. Some of the team members themselves told me of how it worked. They considered it a privilege to serve in this particular way, and an excellent learning opportunity as well. Everyone benefited. There was no ego problem of Dr?s name going on the final product. The ultimate glory REALLY goes to God Who REALLY authored it. *********** Lastly you wrote of OMSW: ?So, you ARE aware that there is a VERY STRONG possibility that Kenyon's name coming up might have been an editorial insertion, right? Supposedly, VPW's style should remain fairly static throughout the years, and major changes in style are likely to be the results of other things, like a complete change of the editorial process. That book has a somewhat different "feel" than the first four-you DID notice that, right?? Yes, I have noticed a BIG difference in the revelation that book embraces. The transition from pre?82, 5-senses perspective, magazine articles into post?82, spiritual perspective, book chapters is quite spectacular. How God pulled off the slight changes in format and the great changes in perspective are irrelevant to me. Whether He utilized the larger teams available for Vol.V to implement these changes, or He simply told Dr outright, doesn?t concern me. I just read and master the finished product.

rascal, You wrote: ?...you cannot logically dismiss the instruction of an entire book of the bible...? Correct, but I can dismiss YOUR interpretation and application of that book. I can dismiss it, and I DID dismiss it. Your religion is evident in your activities. How much time do you spend in trying to thwart of derail my efforts? Your preoccupation with another man?s sin is most disgusting. The darkness you fill your life with is sad. The loving thing for me to do is not join you and be on the lookout for an opportunity to help you out of it. I will not join you, and I will eventually ignore your repeated nagging to reopen the case. One of the few reasons I don?t ignore you now is I still believe that this conversation can be profitable in bringing out details that fit into my message plan. Maybe before the final ignore mode, I?ll try an exhaustive paste job of all the times I?ve treated this very topic. Maybe I?ll just paste in one repeat, like a summer TV re-run, for each nag job you come up with. *** Here?s the first such paste job. This is a reformatted version of an exchange I had with a poster on the ?promises never fulfilled? thread at http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=1226063003&p=2 *** POSTER: Hey! I just had an idea to simplify things. Mike, please teach me the three most important messages from your new understanding of VPW's work. 18 paragraphs or less, OK? Aw, come on, Jesus boiled his stuff down to "Love God and love your neighbor". I'm sure you can give me your own condensed version. I'm totally serious.? *** MIKE: I witness a lot, because I like it. I?ve constructed my entire lifestyle around witnessing. One useful trick I have learned is to never ask people for anything at the top of any list. It?s too challenging a question, and people get too easily bogged down in deciding between close ties. So, I?ve learned to ask them questions like: ?If you had the chance for ANY of your top ten questions about God answered, what would be one of them. It doesn?t have to be first, just ANY of your top ten questions. Pick a random one.? This takes the pressure off of them to wax philosophic about making sure their priorities look good. It?s a little the same for me. I?d have to do a lot of analysis before I could arrive at a top three. I?ll give you a few high priority ones: * God works with sinful men, in spite of their flesh, to do great spiritual things. * God has reissued His Word for us in PFAL, and it?s better than all human efforts to reconstruct and translate the ancient scriptures. It?s like how He re-issued His Word with Moses, after it had been corrupted in the stars. It involved a format change. * We need to graduate from mental assenting to the PFAL message to mastering it in believing. Most of our ?believing? in the good old days was mental assent. There?s three biggies. There are others, even bigger, but they fall on deaf ears until the above are acknowledged. I?ve tried posting some of the bigger items, but they are usually ignored. *** POSTER: Out of the three messages you chose to share, I can apply the first one to my life. But this is not a profound new message. Everybody knows God works around our screw-ups. And lots of folks do great spiritual things. *** MIKE: There are two extreme applications of this principle that may be passing you by. The first is that God DID INDEED work very closely with Dr to bring forth His Word like it has not been known since the first century. One of the MAJOR themes in this GS atmosphere is that God was not willing or able to do this with Dr because of his flesh failures. The other extreme application is that we are to do all the things that Jesus Christ did, all nine all the time. None of us has learned the ?other? six manifestations yet, like we did learn the first three. There is a reason. Dr?s teachings are the only ones I know of where we believers are not to follow Jesus Christ at a distance, but that we are to fill his shoes, and BECOME him. Most grads totally forgot that we are supposed to become The Word in the flesh. [This message was edited by Mike on July 04, 2003 at 14:44.]

rascal, I'm thankful to God that I was taught His Word, and the ONLY man who really inspired in me a love for the truth of the Scriptures was Victor Paul Wierwille. Without his teaching I'd be lost, so I'm glad I was found. Any grad who cannot be similarly thankful is in sad need of recognizing what really counts in this life. I love truth, but your religion of hate and disgust I'll have no part of. The more you try to foist it on me the uglier it looks. Your understanding of Galatians is pathetic. You're stuck in the SNL church lady mold without a laughs. I'd take the imbalance of licentiousness any day, over the imbalance of law your religion exudes. Your take on us children selecting men to represent God is unacceptable to me. God selected VPW to minister His Word to us and it got done. Your rejection of God?s man is not only impotent, but it?s also several decades late. Your rejection of him does not thwart God?s plan, except perhaps the blessings intended for you. God did not submit Dr as a possible minister to us for our approval, to be scrutinized by readers of Galatians or Timothy to see if he qualifies. No, it didn?t happen that way at all. God selected Dr IN SPITE of your religion?s objections and placed him in the Body as it pleased Him. God didn?t ask you or anyone else if Dr was an acceptable choice; Dr was God?s choice and that overrules any objections you may have ex post facto.

Wordwolf, I realize there's more to your post, but it's late and I'm bushed. Tomorrow's another day.

...ixnay Ordwolfway... (~~I hope he can read this secret code~~) ...OMSW was ublishedpay a few onthsmay before his eathday... I got the apetay... ... an ideovay of the ookbay, red cover and all, like on e-bay... ...it was acedplay in the ornerstoncay of the auditorium at it?s peningoay an onthmay before Dr iedday... ...the alleysgay were oneday a few onthsmay before that... ...all but one apterchay is a re-work of eviouspay agazinemay articles... ...where you gettin your ataday oybay?...

Why? Are them Germans in an even later time zone?

karmicdebt, Oh WOW! What a flashback! You're right, I lost the detail where youu said I did not know you. I do pay more attention to doctrine, but people are important too. I have had a difficult time getting to know all the 74 posters pirate1974 culled plus others, and keeping each one's details in mind is challenging to say the least. Thanks for answering my question this second time. ...and if you ever change your mind about the... nevermind...

Oops! Thanks for the tip. How's this: "As every well English teacher knows goodly, the more you consideration put into your expect, the more writing you can consider from your reader."

karmicdebt, You?ve refused to answer my question if I knew you in SD, so I?m beginning to conclude it?s yes. If not, you?d have little reason to refuse. If so, I know we could better communicate if I could take into consideration what you were exposed to here. Are you afraid if I know your identity I might communicate TOO well with you? Oh, well, I?ll respect your privacy, but I?ve been open enough as to who I am. I have no secrets... hardly. ****** You then wrote: ?Mike you threatened us with the following statement: ?All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong.?? Oh THAT! I was referring to the stakes that Steve Lortz had threatened ME with. You'll have to ask HIM what exactly he had in mind there. Meantime, since you insist, I'll brainstorm a few consequences with you. It should be obvious that a most severe consequence is coming SOOO close to having something really good, and then letting it slip away. It?s the kick-yourself-in-the-pants consequence. Coming close to "all nine all the time" and getting it snatched away with a mob mentality for sorting baby from bathwater is like getting the big rasberries on "Truth or Consequences." How about the consequence of missing the Gathering Together? Have you ever wondered if it was volunteer or mandatory? Does it require believing to receive or forced on us in spite of negative believing. How confident are you in Dr?s teaching that you will never see the wrath? Like I said before, though, I don?t like thinking through this line of reasoning. Why do you insist on it so? Why are you so demanding of me on this? Was there a booby trap I could have fallen into if I answered it wrong in your eyes? If I answered it well would I get points toward converting you to Mikianity? ********* You then wrote: "Dr. told us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from, ladies and gentlemen." and ?Dr. told us he, guided by God, sought answers from certain men.? Hey! I like what you wrote there! Looks like I chalked up a few of those points after all. Golly, I wonder what I?ll buy with your abundant sharing.

rascal, You wrote: "Have you considered the fact that in totally closing your mind to galations that you might be slamming the door on God also?" Yes! I most certainly DID consider that, and many times too! My closed door was proceeded by many years of open consideration. I don't see Galatians as being a checklist for determining who will minister the spirit or the Word to us. It's much bigger in scope than that puny SNL Church lady perspective you exude. Galatians is teaching us more how tune things up within our unrenewed minds, not a how-to for setting up churches with ?official? ministers. The Galatians were not mature enough, having been freshly bewitched, to conduct such high level matters. Paul talks about these matters with Timothy and Titus, but not with the Galatians. You need to study Galatians with the PFAL keys in operation. ...like context. In fact, I see your focus on the flesh as exactly opposite of what Galatians as a whole teaches. Because you have not earned my trust and respect, and because you HAVE give me much reason to totally DIStrust you, therefore you would be one of the LAST people I would consult to tell me about the heart relationship that Dr had with God. I can?t trust your observations in the book of Galatians, and I can?t trust your firsthand observations of Dr?s personal life, and I can?t trust your choice of friends to relate first hand experiences you may not have to tell about. People who have positive contributions earn my respect, even if they disagree with me on many matters. I have yet to see any positive contribution to anyone?s renewed mind coming from you on ?my? threads. If you have some on other threads, show me, and you may come up closer to zero form your current state of negative trust. Your demand that I adopt your perspective is very Craig-like. Are you a control freak? Have you noticed that ?Christ Formed In You? comes from Galatians 4:19?

rascal, I've told you before that I don't trust YOUR application of that chapter, NOR your understanding of that chapter. You haven't earned that kind of respect from me. Dr did. I'm not ignoring you, I just ain't changing my mind on who I trust. I've eaplained how I closed my mind on this subject after 30 some years of deliberation, and that included a lot more information than you can contribute. I totally throw YOUR argument out of the courtroom of my mind! Next case!

def59, You are an OLG. I?m an OLG too. I was a lower level leader myself: twig coordinator. Goey and EWB got it pretty right. Thanks guys. I wrote my post explaining OLG before I read your explanations.

Thanks Exy, But now I can't see Nurse Kratchet's face!

def59, You wrote: ?I find it amazing that no one called mike (GC as I call him) on his forgeries remark. If the translations are forgeries then how can ever know if pfal is god's word? Since piffle uses those "forgeries" and the weakest of the "forgeries" (KJV) then it seems mike mogfot liked it well enough?? You are on to a valid point, but I?d disagree with your choice of some vocabulary to express it. This is a point which I have made here before, but from a slightly more friendly-to-me perspective. In a nutshell, the answer is that the forgeries work pretty good as approximations. If the adversary had TOTALLY messed them up people?d know. So he messes up only the most subtle things he needs to mess up to keep the power from flowing. I?ve mentioned before the actual manuscript messing may be minimal. The ways ancient language schools could be messed with is rarely discussed, but it exists. I see this as a target of greater opportunity than the ancient manuscripts. On one strategic point, where the ancient mms may have it relatively together, ALL the language schools may get it wrong. Result: mere approximations make it to the English-only student. Dr showed that although he had some outrageous things to teach, outrageous to tradition, yet there they were in the Bible (the approximate KJV Bible) all that time. This gave us the confidence to trust him for more. If we get this trust balanced just right so that it isn?t in the extreme of hero worship and it isn?t in the other extreme of skeptical cynicism, then God can work with us to show us He had His hand in there. God will prove His Word to those who come back to PFAL to see it better the second time around. The received texts and versions like KJV are great for many, many things; good for anything BUT the power. That?s why God had to step in with Power for Abundant Living. He had many agents working on it years, even generations, before Dr showed up. Dr was His last agent to get the revelation into written form, and WE HAVE IT NOW! We are God?s agents to master it and serve it to others. [This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 22:33.]

Goey, How about the logic handstands one must go through to "prove" that the received scriptures are valid? Who's able to prove that no valid book of the Bible ever got lost? Who's able to prove that the adversary hasn't subtly tampered with the academic fields of ancient languages? Most of us are hardly even AWARE of these subtle leaps of faith required of all believers, but they are there. Most students leave this one for the professors, and the professors quietly shove it under the rug when no one?s looking. Many guts feel decisions are made. Scholars have to make guts feel guesses about which texts to feel firm with, while English-only students have to make guts feel guesses as to which Greek scholars they can trust with their lives. ********** Anyway, Goey, it finally time to clear up the famous telescope mystery, an urban legend of GS proportions. In the same chapter I?ve been quoting from lately, chapter 2 of OMSW, there is an interesting passage. From page 26 I?ve mentioned the microscope Dr challenged us to use in seeing the perfection in God?s Word. In that same chapter, on page 33, Dr mentions ANOTHER Kenyon credit, and this time a telescope is mentioned. In the very first days of my posting, when I was still learning the ropes, I meant to make mention of Dr?s microscope challenge from OMSW Chapter Two, but I typed ?telescope? by mistake, a merged association from that same chapter. Once I made the goof, it was quickly spotted by some, and derided as nonsensical. I was still stuck on the mis-association though, and could see what was wrong. When I finally got it, it was too late to correct. I waited all this time to correct it, because there was just never the context or the time. Tonight was the night.

karmicdebt, Didn't I tell you I know nothing of such a threat? Did you miss my post? Here it is again: ************ karmicdebt, What makes you think I even KNOW the answer to your question? I'm not into finding things like that out. If you don't believe in the truth of the Bible as originally given, they what the heck do you CARE what I believe, what Dr believes, or what GOD says? Why would you even be interested in such a question? I'm investigating what happens to me as I OBEY Dr's final instructions. I already KNOW what happened when I (and everyone else) disobeyed Dr's final instructions. Why would I care to inquire about the consequences of unbelief here? The only possible reason I could imagine is to use such a piece of information as a fear motivator. I?m just not into that. Sorry. You?re asking a question that doesn?t hold much of a curiosity lure for me to want to bother to investigate. I?m into knowing what is available from God and how to receive it. The consequences are NOT receiving it. Beyond that I?m quite uninterested. Hey, I got a question for you: Do I know you? Did we cross paths at all in SD? Your posted history of what happened here was somewhat over abbreviated.

wyteduv58, As every good English teacher knows, the more you consideration put into your writing, the more consideration you can expect from your reader. OLG stands for 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 was 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. It was us OLGs who were the many villains who REALLY took down the ministry. We were the ones who were supposed to be representing Dr?s ministry to new people, but we got sloppy in our memory of the written forms of PFAL, and refused to refresh those memories when repeatedly told to master the written materials. We OLGs repeatedly disobeyed him from 1979 to 1985 and I have posted the proof here. If you took the class after 1985 you are COMPLETELY innocent of these charges. We OLGs started taking the ministry away from the Word almost immediately after Dr stepped down from power in late 1982. By 1985 we OLGs were so far out, so deep into our own counterfeits, that we universally ignored his dying last words to us, and his final instructions fell to the floor. Anything good that happened in the ministry after 1985 was grace and grace alone. ***** You then wrote: ?Another thought came to me.....if pfal is God breathed, then God didn't give it to VPW, he gave it to B G Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles and all the others that VPW stole from. Victor just had the audacity to credit himself with "the God breathed word" that wasn't his to begin with.? I?m just reading pages 206 and 207 of ?The Way Living In Love? where Dr remembers taking BG Leonard?s class. So Dr didn?t credit himself as you charge, he credited BG for helping him with ideas for the PFAL class. Here?s what you forgot, or never read, and got caught up in the mob accusing Dr of not crediting his 5-senses sources. Here?s what Dr says on page 207: ?We took his whole trip ? really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures.? ********* Remember I posted of Dr?s on page 30, this thread?s previous page? They were from OMSW p.24 about the Forest Queen mine and on page 26 about the microscope. In those SAME pages Dr credits Kenyon for something, page 25 to be exact. Now it would be my guess that if Dr mentions in print both Kenyon and BG Leonard, and he sold Bullinger stuff in the bookstore, I?d say Dr was NOT trying to hide anything at all. When people steal something they hide their deed. Dr TOLD us in print and on tape how God guided other men to come up with many (not all) of the answers that later appeared in PFAL. Dr TOLD us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from. Dr TOLD us that once there, he got revelation as to what to accept and what to reject from these Godly teachers. Once Dr collected from many various sources he then had to get revelation as to the order to place it on film, and then the order to place it in print. The text of PFAL is a mixture of all the above PLUS any outright ?Take a note, Vic.? revelations from God, and Dr was totally up front in telling us OLGs these things. I don?t know how things were handled for people after the 80?s but all us OLGs know Dr was totally honest with us about the hybrid sources of PFAL text. Dr never asserted it was by divine dictation, and neither have I. A small amount may have been, but Dr said on the Thessalonians tapes #1 and #11 that most revelation is hashed around a bit before put into written form. *********** One last note on BG Leonard and his adoring fans I?ve seen here. I could be wrong about this, and I will stand corrected if anyone can pinpoint another name for this story, but I think I remember Dr saying it was BG. Anyway, what Dr said was that the thing that really built respect in his (Dr?s) mind for him is that Dr saw him throw a student out of the class. This was a literal throwing out, even to the point of throwing him down a flight of stairs! Apparently there was a disagreement and the student was asked to leave. Upon refusing, the student found himself very quickly on the sidewalk below. Dr laughed out loud when he told us this, I think, at AC ?75 at Emporia. So there were some things that Dr had to discard and omit from PFAL that he learned from these other men of God, flawed as they too were. [This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 21:34.]

Exy, That pic appears to be from one of my favorite books. I met the author. Is there any way you can trim it? It's stretching the page.

Well, mj, at least you're helping me pump up my number of posts. Maybe I'll hit 2000 with banter like this.