Mike

wyteduv58, Schwaigers has a recent post that Rosie has just relented on TWI?s exclusive truth ownership. I am totally up-front in my posts here, that they are addressed to Rosie via the WAYGB, just as much as they are addressed to GS posters. I count Rosie and the top leadership as OLGs, and they are included as intended audience in all my posts. Unlike many here, I happen to like Rosalie, or at least how much I knew her in 1978. I also happen to understand why and how current TWI leadership have their wagons circled to protect their flock. I do NOT think they are the totally corrupt outfit that most here think they are. I?ve been treated politely for the past two years now in all my few phone calls to them. I?ve seen more focused and determined nastiness from some people HERE on GS, than I have received from TWI in years. I count TWI as a splinter group, and a particularly hard hit one at that. Of all the splinter groups of grads, they are the closest to the collaterals (reviewing but not mastering), and under the most attack by the adversary. They have lots of fears there, and I pray for them and their deliverance. I see God?s got something spectacular up His sleeve.

wyteduv58, I got in around 1971 and out around ?89. For most of those years I noticed that there were small pockets of ?bad guys? floating around doing bad things to people. It seemed that they were stretching out of shape some decent discipline principles, and that they would soon learn a better balance... or so I thought. The ministry was like marble cake, in that there were lots of genuine patches of great light, mixing in with darkness. By 1985 the darkness was pretty total in leadership, while lots of lower down twigs were doing ok. I phased out of TWI around ?89, but several times I have gone back to talk to leaders and/or a few friends I still have in. Over the years, these talks were pretty negative and fruitless, but ij recent years they are much more approachable. I have offered them my help, but they are not used to that kind of approach, so they have backed off mostly. I seek a breakthrough with them regularly. One thing that complicates things greatly is their need to save face with the new people they have brought into their organization. It?s got to be pretty difficult for innie OLGs to admit to having lost Dr?s last teaching. I see OLGs who are OUT who have a hard time coming face to face with the fact that they blew it on Dr?s final instructions. OLGs who are still in TWI have more to lose, 5-senses wise, in admitting that they too blew it on obeying Dr?s final instructions. I pray for the breakthrough that they?ll see the spiritual side, that God will back them up royally if they attempt to come back to PFAL. Wouldn?t THAT upset the applecart, if Rosie were to start implementing all the suggestions I have made here? I like to dream. I have a dream where Rosie and I discuss some really worthwhile things here on GreaseSpot. Now wouldn?t THAT be entertaining!

Please have patience, since time is at a premium for me right now. Pirate1974, thanks, that was nice. I?m awed by the list. It?s been a privilege to have talked with so many. My intentions are not to foist any of the evils of Dr?s flesh on anyone. I?m sure you all, like me, have plenty of evil to deal with already. I too was hurt in the ministry meltdowns, and I too have some things to say about it all. I exercise my right to say them, even here. I differ from most of you posters in a number of ways. A few ways we DON?T differ on is our distaste for blind authoritarianism of many sorts, and for sexual abuses of many sorts. Our great differences lie in how we view symptoms verses causes in analyzing what went wrong. I?m looking at deeper subtle causes, while many insist of the more sensational symptoms. Another great difference is how we view the villain(s) involved in what went wrong. Many of you say there was only one (or two) big villains, and they?re gone, so now it?s just a mop-up operation that?s left to do. Those who subscribe to this theory must view my posting as a grand interference to this clean up. Your understandable outrage must be all the more frustrating in that most of you OLGs who left in the late 80?s have had essentially no opposition for 15 or some years in the presentation and application of your one-villain theory. Here on your own turf comes this one guy with a seemingly endless supply of surprise moves that you?ve never had to deal with. All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong. If I were you I?d sit tight and at least wait for my data to be relatively depleted. I am NOT trying deliberately to antagonize anyone, but just the opposite is my intention. I?m convinced that the data and the many villain theory I?m presenting will help heal the hurts. Those of you who complain about me opening up old wounds need to learn how to not open up my threads if it?s pain reduction that you?re really interested in. ************************************************************* Would it help anyone if I were to split this thread up into a Part II and let this first Part slowly slip beneath the surface like Leonardo DiCapria did after the Titanic sunk? My intention is to make data available, not to antagonize, and I just thought that if we had a fresh start that might help a little.

The table of contents is in a state of construction. It is a table of my intentions for this thread. So far this week I've had very little time to post. I do have a life outside posting, and right now it's getting more attention than posting. I do find pockets of time from time to time.

Thomas Heller, It is in the name of Jesus Christ that I post. Your request is denied.

Thomas Heller, Gads! Do you ever dare step out of the sarcasm stance with me? I?ve made some successful attempts at deeper discussion with some. Why are you so impatient or annoyed with my response schedule? I have four times as many posts as you, and I?ve only been registered half the time. You?ve been on line for a shorter time than some, PLUS you?ve repeatedly ignored (or bothered not read) several questions I?ve posed to you. So what?s your birds eye low down on this caper? ...whatever that means.

So many people have mentioned the imposing length of this thread that I decided to do something to try and help. I've placed a table of contents, or the bare beginnings of one, at the very beginning of page 1. This is only the beginning of a more thorough version to come. I've itemized some of the highlights of the data most pertinent to this thread's understanding. Maybe this can help.

So many people have mentioned the imposing length of this thread that I decided to do something to try and help. I've placed a table of contents, or the bare beginnings of one, at the very beginning of page 1. This is only the beginning of a more thorough version to come. I've itemized some of the highlights of the data most pertinent to this thread's understanding. Maybe this can help.

For all the length of this thread, I STILL have massive amounts of data to post. Most of this thread is composed of tangents to the topic; some I participated in heavily. Still a lot of the topic?s data and applications have yet to be posted on, and the ones I have posted on could be discussed in far greater detail. Maybe someday I can distill it down, but only after I?m finished with the data. Those of you who think I?m wrong (most posters at present), have yet to see al the data. This is one reason I sometimes resist tight logical inspections of my so far posted data. It?s because I?m aware of what?s to come. Wasn?t that post of PFAL pages awesome? I found two more to add, and I think I will, but I?ll edit them into the end of the list on whatever page that was. That post of Dr?s handling of the realms was just the PFAL book ONLY! I have just as many for several more books each! Then there are magazine articles. Steve Lortz?s premature demand for understanding from me on BTMS p.23-24 will eventually find satisfaction in this body of text. Additional posting I have planned involves applying the key vocabulary words. By carefully noting Dr?s choice of words in various passages in PFAL, we can see deeper and richer truths than when we first were exposed to these writings. This is one way that Dr?s books unfold. I said in the beginning of this thread that this was Dr?s UBIQUITOUS, or everywhere present teaching. Not only does he often come out into the open and mention the realm like key words, but he is almost ALWAYS applying this Natural/Spiritual spin to many of his vocabulary words. The grand finale of applications of this Natural/Spiritual dichotomy is to the subject of spiritual understanding, the operation of the revelation manifestations, and the Appearance of Christ.

It?s nice for me too to see you all. Unfortunately, I?ve had little time lately to see as much as I want to. Sirguessalot, I?m pondering your challenge, but after WordWolf's many more challenges. Exy, I?m glad you come and visit once in a while. I believe our growing collective brain/heart power can help us all over the hump eventually. It?s just a matter of hearing enough to believe. My job is very demanding at the present, so I appreciate everyone?s patience.

WordWolf, You wrote: A) The reason you keep coming up is that the issue here is your private interpretation of PFAL-secret messages only you've found, hidden meanings only you've seen, special revelation only you believe. ---------------- This issue is not really an issue. There are some things I?ve seen because I went to the books 5 years ago. I?ve invited you to come and see the same things. I?ve NOT said you are limited to me in seeing them. I do think that I can give you a head start or shortcut into seeing some things. It may take you 5 years to see some one thing without my pointing it out, but by following up on what I point out you may see it in FAR less time. And besides, I?m NOT the only one who?s seen these things. There?s a whole fellowship here and a few individuals scattered around the country. I too had a head start of some items in that my teacher showed me, and then I saw it too in the books. I?m trying to help, not lord it over any one. I?m not recruiting anyone to my team; I?m encouraging people to come back to see the treasures in their own books. I?m posting the information for free, so no one has to pay for it or even register for a class. I desire to help accelerate the learning curve here. *************** When we addressed PFAL, you said you won't be sidetracked. Hours and hours of discussion of the less-than-perfection of the object of your adoration came up. ----------------- These were hours of unprofitable discussion that I eschewed and spit out. The subject of PFAL was indeed addressed, but from a perspective I had decided to abolish in my life. It?s a matter of deliberate policy that I won?t waste my time with researchers discussing AEs. I do work on PFAL AEs (Apparent Errors), but only minimally, and under more efficient conditions, as I have explained ad infinitum. ********************* You have recently admitted that you claim to be refused to be sidetracked, you refuse to entertain what disproves your claims, etc, etc. ---------------- What disproves my claims to a team of eager PFAL critics is their eagerness. ************** MIKE has announced that VPW repeatedly said that his material was the results of VPW and God and various other people. --------------- I can cite passages where he said these things. ************* This claim was already addressed on many threads. VPW very prominently proclaimed in PFAL it was just HIM and GOD. ------------- Page and paragraph, please. *************** Another question on this subject..... ..Mike has claimed that VPW claims that some of what VPW said (wrote) is of God directly, and some is of VPW. Supposedly, now, some was also of other people, yet also of VPW AND some of other people AND GOD. That's a tangled mess. If one must claim that PFAL was DIVINE, it swiftly becomes a scrambled mess concerning who wrote what. --------------- It?s only a tangled mess to those of you who want to discredit it. I see no need to have an inventory of just what came from where and when. The books are the picture of simplicity. It?s your analysis that?s convoluted, in that it?s trying hard to make a case of flimsiness, when it itself it based on a partial understanding of the contents of PFAL. When you get to know better what?s in the books, as opposed to your tangled memory and present understanding of them, THEN it will be simple. ************** B) On the charge of plagiarism... ...VPW NEVER indicated that the PFAL class would NEVER have happened without BG Leonard's class, which seems to precisely parallel VPW's class, complete with the imaginary examples of Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jumpup and so on. It can clearly be shown VPW had taken BG Leonard's class before starting work on PFAL. It can be clearly shown that VPW had read JE Stiles' book before starting work on his own. Like the situation with Queen Esther, if these men hadn?t done the work they did to help accelerate Dr?s learning curve like we discussed above, then God would have found another way or someone else to do the job. The DID do that work, they DID help, Dr, and Dr DID credit them appropriate to the family setting in which they were used. If you insist on Dr crediting them in they style of academia or the market place you?re going to be disappointed. But I think that?s a silly demand. I like our family, and I like what God has done for us in giving us His Word like it has not been known since the first century. Screw academia and the market place. *********** Despite huge sections of both appearing to be photocopied to form VPW's work, he never said- not once! -THIS is the class I owe so much to, THIS is the book I owe so much to. Rather, both names seem almost nonexistent in VPW history. Your demands are silly. He TOLD us, and you could have researched out how dependant Dr was on all that stuff while he was alive. You could have asked him then if this was so important. It?s only important to you know because you need an excuse to chuck the whole thing. I don?t buy it. *********** Now, Mike, you've claimed the Bible is full of "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments." VPW declared in PFAL (chapter 8 entire) is NOT. ------------- You misrepresented me. I agree with Dr that the BIBLE is perfect. It?s miscopies, translations, and versions that get tattered and partial. (1) I claim that the MODERN compilations, the critical texts of Bible have some problems. (2) I claim the MODERN translations and versions have some problems. (3) I claim the cultural religious bias causes LOTS of problems for people, even when they read accurately translated passages in modern texts. What gets registered within these many readers is often not what is written. *(these three items were significantly edited many hours after posting)* I have meticulously explained that it?s the SUM of these factors that make modern texts LIKE tattered remnants when COMPARED to PFAL. I have also explained that factor (1) is not as intense as factor (2), and that factor (3) is VERY strong. I think you are looking only at (1), and forgetting that my description was figurative and relative to PFAL. I don?t think anyone would contest my ?tattered remnants? description if they were comparing the received text to a convincingly freshly issued authoritative text. You?re just not yet convinced that PFAL is such a revelation, because you refuse to master it from within, AGAIN. You misrepresented me above by over abbreviating my position, and by misapplying the label ?tattered remnants? to the wrong target. **************** E) I didn't say that studying was WRONG. YOU said that, Mike. You claimed that using the intellect to discern good and evil-thinking about whether Mike's thesis is legit or not- is wrong. I've been SAYING that THINKING is important all along, by implication AND direct statement. Don't pretend I said otherwise. Your claim was that thinking was a 5-senses approach and wrong. ------------------- I said that LEANING on our understanding is wrong, as it says in Proverbs 3. I said that the 5-senses approach is useful if it?s the ONLY approach, but when it becomes AVAILABLE to see it spiritually, then the 5-senses approach should be put aside. ********** E) You said you're not trying to present evidence. Goey already pointed out that's inconsistent with your posts. Also, you keep saying that blindly accepting your instructions will get us the results. Outside of religious cults, that kind of claim never works. "I refuse to prove I have anything to offer, but if you do things my way, you'll see it." ----------------- You?re wrong. It ALSO works this way in the way of a Father with His family. And again, you misrepresent me. It?s not ?if you do things my way? that I say, but if we do things GOD?S way, which He revealed to Dr and Dr put into written form. *************** F) Your latest appeal is one of loyalty. I'm supposed to obey VPW "because he taught you so much of God's Word." So, then, if I teach people a lot, they're supposed to do whatever I say? I?d say that it?s not if you were to ?teach people a lot? but if you were to teach people a lot of ACCURACY of the Word, then those who listen and benefit will be very motivated to believe more from you the next time. It?s not just teaching a lot of quantity, but teaching a lot of QUALITY that earns this kind of respect. For me, and for many thousands of others, Dr did earn our respect. We did benefit from PFAL. . . . . *(The section containing the three itemized claims was significantly edited many hours after posting)* [This message was edited by Mike on June 25, 2003 at 2:46.]

Steve, I'm talking about having the lord Jesus Christ FORMED within, not an alien spirit being INVITED in. We KNOW who Jesus Christ is, he's our brother, not an alien. Just what do you think Paul was talking about in Gal. 4:19? The way we form Christ within is detailed in Dr?s teaching posted here ?Christ Formed in You.? It?s by imitating Christ, informing ourselves of details of his character, that forms Christ within. This teaching can be found on this thread?s page 6 about one fifth of the way doen from the top, and posted April 13, 2003 13:13 or by clicking here: http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...2192#5746062192 You don't want to invite in some pre-packaged spirit, because THAT would be dangerous. We take in God?s Word, His words, and that?s what does the forming. We have to work at it by reading God?s Word and applying it. It?s a SLOW growth process, not an invitation process. [This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 21:07.]

Exy, You can also learn to like it. Especially when you see more goodies are in the details. I've got more surprises to post still.

Steve, You slickly wrote: ?Soooo..... Eve's chances of being wrong in changing her mind were 100%, but my chances are only 50%/50%, because sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong already. ?From what you've presented PFAL mastery should look like a reasonable risk, eh? You may have presented some odds (very dubiously odds at that), Mike, but what you didn't present were the stakes. Nobody can make a reasonable risk assessment without knowing the stakes.? In the first sentence you assign your own numbers to the odds, and then You dub them ?very dubiously odds? at that. Then you say I didn?t present the stakes, when I DID present them. I said that the stakes are the same for NOT experimenting and staying with current traditional paradigms and later finding out that THIS was the wrong course to take. Let?s compare our presentations: I totally recognize the stakes, mentioned them, and then pointed out that the stakes are high no matter who?s wrong here. You don?t seem to recognize the stakes are high if YOU are wrong, you DON?T mention this, and you TRY to portray the situation as one of the stakes ONLY being on my side. Notice I?m giving you the benefit of the doubt. I?d LIKE to think you didn?t recognize these equally high stakes for your position being wrong, and that your obfuscation to others was not deliberate. ******************* So, Steve, you are arguing the classic safety in numbers fallacy. It?s the false safety in numbers of people and in numbers of years invested in the current paradigms of traditional churchianity that you signal as the safety zone. I?ve seen enough Biblical examples of false traditions prevailing in a culture of ?believers? to say baloney to your pukey warnings. I?m real comfortable with Paul?s exposition that the Galatians were missing something CRUCIAL in verse 4:19, and you are in the modern role of one of the types who bewitched the Galatians, and in record time, back into foolish traditionss and 5-senses perspectives. *************** Meanwhile, Steve, you not only seem to have had a feeble understanding of Galatians 4:19, but you now want to keep that feeble understanding of yours undeveloped, and you want to keep others from learning what it?s all about too. I notice a continued lack of threads you start with any positive instruction of correct doctrine. I notice that after ?your? people heed your warning, then you have little planned for their continued growth. Maybe you could post a Gospel of John for them.

Exy, My message isn't about liking VPW or not. It's about liking what God produced in PFAL, in spite of VPW. . . . . [This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 16:04.]

Thomas Heller, I apologize for having lost track of the post from which you took your break. Maybe you also noticed I've got a backlog again with WordWolf too (I'm sure he noticed) as well as this droning exorcism Steve has going on in the background. Maybe some split pea soup has obscured your post from my attention. If you would be so kind to paste it back to these more current pages it?ll save me some work finding it. I can?t even remember any key words, otherwise I could find it pretty easy. P.S. Regarding Kenyon?s version of ?The Love Way? that you told me about a year ago. I?d like to see it, but have no idea where to find it.

I Thess. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. In a large dictionary nearly every word has multiple definitions. The word ?spirit? has multiple definitions. Does anyone think the new spiritual body we get in I Cor.15 is a new spirit other than the holy spirit gift? It's a similar situation with the new spiritual mind, the perfectly renewed mind, the formed mind of Christ we receive as we feed from God's Word. Does anyone think this is a spirit other than the holy spirit gift? Here?s what God wants for us: (1) Spirit - holy spirit, incorruptible seed, token, created, Christ in you the HOPE of glory (2) Soul - perfectly renewed mind, the mind of Christ, Christ FORMED in you, the glory (3) Body - spiritual body, resurrected body, perfect health To the best of my understanding, the timing of God?s GREAT intervention to make these abundantly available is: (1) 1942-1982 (2) NOW (3) ? I don?t know..... yet. I Thess. 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [This message was edited by Mike on June 24, 2003 at 13:19.]

DR MIKE But lovematters, you have nothing to fear, because when you?re in love with an angel nothing matters. LOVEMATTERS Kiss me you fool! That?s all that matters! DR MIKE But I don?t even know if your a man or woman. You Public Profile doesn?t want to come clean.

lovematters, I can assure you that the trepidations you feel are the fear of the unknown. You may have missed this, but the same topic of obedience came up earlier on this page. Goey post something to this effect: ************************************************************* Mike, You have posted many times about obeying Wierwille. Here are just a few: "I'm sure that if we all had spiritually heard Dr's final instructions immediately after his death, and had REALLY obeyed them, then the ministry wouldn't have died." "The most often cited flimsy excuse for NOT literally obeying Dr's final mastery instructions is..." "But this was not the case. Dr's final instructions were not obeyed by leadership, and these final instructions were not properly presented to the rest of us." "...then I can only reasonably appeal to those OLGs to risk all and get their spiritual assurance from God to start obeying Dr and come back to this Word in PFAL addressed to us." Mike, obedience to Wierwille is a theme that runs throughout your posts. You equate obedience to Wierwille with obedience to God - as if it were the same thing. He was a man Mike - not God. Goey ************************************************************* He had thought the quotes above were in contradiction to this earlier quote of mine: ?I'm talking about obedience to GOD and His SON by obeying His Word, this Word He gave to Dr by revelation.? So, here?s what I posted: ************************************************************* Goey, Come ON! This isn't hard. A command from Jesus Christ is as good as a command from God, right? Jesus got his words by revelation form God, so he doesn't have to BE God to have his words worthy of obedience. Right? When Peter spoke before Cornielius' household he spoke with all the authority of God Almighty. If and when Dr spoke by revelation, then obeying Dr is obeying God. Disobeying Dr on one of these points is disobeying God. It all hinges on whether God got His revelation through and THAT is what was spoken. Can you see that your found "idolizations" of mine melt away IF Dr spoke by revelation? ************************************************************* THEN, a little later, Oakspear chimed in with: ?IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL. IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it. BUT...? So, lovematters, I suggest you be a little more thorough in your research before criticizing me on things that are very well explained here already. If you don?t, you leave yourself open to the charge of just going along with the crowd and not thinking things through thoroughly. I suggest that when you jump on on a thread you at LEAST read the whole page.

WordWolf, You wrote: I'm doing my best to get a clear, unambiguous summary of your position, or positions. On some subjects, you keep moving your position, so it is very difficult to get a single, clear view. So, when possible, I'm trying to get one. When possible, I also state my positions as plainly as possible. I do to, but I think you want more than plain. My position is "Read PFAL" plain and simple. Why do you want to get a microscopic view of my position? Why do you NOT want to get a microscopic view of PFAL? Why make me the subject all the time? I think, unless you convince me otherwise, that you are going after the softer target. You want to get information about me so that you can take pokes at me, while PFAL is much harder to poke at. I?m tired of endlessly catering to you focus on me. I?m tired of figuring out how to twist the context you bring up BACK to the thread topic. Get your clear unambiguous pictures from God in PFAL. ************************ You wrote: B) If thinking (having my senses exercised to discern good and evil) is a 5-senses approach to spiritual problems, then so is READING (taking in information by sight and thinking about it), no matter the subject matter. Either both are eeee-villl, or both are acceptable. If all we have cooking is the 5-senses method then it?s better than nothing. It?s GOD?S responsibility to see to it that a 5-senses seeker, especially one working the tattered remnants of the Bible, FINDS Him. God sees to it that the 5-sense reader will get holy spirit fairly easily, even from inaccurate translations and versions. But to dechomai holy spirit does not affect the mind, so more is needed. God also lays out a curriculum (as much as available) for this 5-senses seeker to gain spiritual insights in the soul/mind category that will lead him to a spiritual understanding, needed to surpass the temporary benefits the 5-senses approach can provide under the adversary?s interference in his realm. This curriculum got a 2000 year boost in the 1942-82 period. Advanced Class key #4 is ?Study (5-senses reading) the Word much. What you can know by your 5-senses God expects you to know.? See how much you forgot? If you have been applying photographic memory and memorization to my posts, their limitations are apparent, because I?ve posted this key #4 about 3 times before. Memorization doesn?t mean it?s put together. Memorization is good, but it?s a few steps away from sunesis. *************** You wrote: I still haven't seen you present any "evidence" that vpw's writings were of surpassing quality, let alone of divine origin. Since you seem to be saying you've been providing data along those lines, please label it when you're doing so, so we know when you claim to be providing evidence vpw's work wasn't one man's work supplementing an agglomeration of the work of a handful of others. I?m not trying to present the personal things that convinced me. If you want the evidence of this you must obey Dr and master the material. If you can?t dredge up the motivation to obey him because he taught you so much of God?s Word, then you?re lost! Hey, maybe God will let you into the Bride of Christ if you don?t want to function in the Body of Christ. [This message was edited by Mike on June 21, 2003 at 12:43.]

lovematters, I was in an antique store a few years ago looking in the old books they had for sale for copies of PFAL series books. Every so often I find one this way. Used bookstores and thrift shops are also good places. In this antique store I spotted a large box, monopoly game size. It was something I instantly recognized from my childhood in the 50?s. It was a ?John Gnagy ? Learn To Draw? set. John Gnagy was an artist who did a ?How To? national TV show on drawing and sketching. I ALWAYS wanted one of these sets, which included pastels, and charcoal, and sketch pads, and several instruction books. You?ll never guess what I saw inside the main instruction manual! Right in the middle of art lessons was an amazing paragraph. and what I saw astounded me. It was words, or VERY similar words, that I recognized instantly as words I heard from Dr in some class. I just quickly looked through the art set for the exact words and couldn?t find this paragraph, but if anyone wants to know them I?ll search again. This blessed me to see how far and wide Dr combed the culture for information that would bless us. It never ceases to amaze me how desperate disgruntled grads are to find dirt on Dr and the plagarism charge is the MOST desperate of them all. If Dr had not TOLD us many times and in many ways that God had guided him in selecting material from others teachers, then these charges may carry a little weight, but he did tell us and often. He even had the bookstore carry some of them, including the supposed grand daddy of the supposed rip offs, Bullinger?s ?How To Enjoy the Bible.? But because he DID tell us, those who now charge that this violates their sense of justice have NOT one iota of veracity in their charges. Those of you with head-up-butt over this are admitting that you?ve were either totally asleep when Dr told us of his data gathering techniques, or you?re really good at forgetting. Either way, your sudden shock at plagiarism is unimpressive at best. Actually the plagiarism moaners and groaners very efficiently identify themselves as non-thinking band wagon hangers on. Now their bandwagon is moaning and groaning about Dr, and 25 years ago it was probably extolling the virtues of the class. So where were all you when Dr told us he didn?t originate the material, but got it from others or God directly? If you missed that then, how many other things did you miss? Plagiarism moaners and groaners seem to be unaware that there is no such thing as originality, and that all truly new ideas come spiritually to a person, it?s not generated from within with no help. Truly new ideas come spiritually. (Steve that was your cue) All artists borrow and blend, and if their honest and alert to this they?ll admit it. You people who insist on strict APPEARANCES of originality are fooling yourselves. Those of you with ruffled feathers and outrage over Dr's data collection and representation seem to have grown this taste fairly recently. Those of you who worship "originality" had your chance to speak up years ago whan Dr TOLD us that he did not originate much of the material. WHY didn't you think it was bad then? Because it wasn't. THAT'S why. You only THINK it's bad now out of desparation over trouncing Dr in your minds. What's the matter, sex scandals aren't enough? Worried those charges wont bury PFAL? Intellectual ownership is a crock just as much as property ownership, when viewed from within God's family. We steward things (and ideas) but we NEVER own them. God does. I?m GLAD Dr followed orders and collected all that material for me. He deserves a lot of credit for collecting it, sorting it, adjusting and fine tuning it, and then GETTING IT TO ME! If you plagiarism moaners and groaners ever wake up from your mob mentality, you?ll be thankful and give Dr credit for a wonderful job done. Plagiarism and copyrights have meaning ONLY in academia and the marketplace, NEVER in God?s family. We share everything in God?s family, EVERYTHING! [This message was edited by Mike on June 21, 2003 at 12:14.]

Steve, Do you mean an "official" theologian or grammarian? Like youself for instance?

vickles, I?m not leaning on Chris Geer?s word at all like the entire POP demands of its readers and believers. I got the tape of Dr?s last teaching. Plus it was published in the Way Magazine, but in a number of ways it was hidden. I?ve posted much on how it got hidden. It didn?t resurface until the late 90?s. Your criticism of the ricketyness of leaning on Chris Geer?s word from the POP is accurate when aimed at the people who run his class for a large part, but not accurate when aimed at me. But I only lean on the tape. The magazine article was edited poorly. I?ve posted tons on all this, so if you want more details it?s searchable. Now I realize that this only addresses a portion of you post, but I?m short on time right now. It may be you need to re-asses your position on me, now that you know I?m not a Geer-leaner, because there may be other areas where you didn?t get my take on things accurate. I did talk about POP a few times, but with big warnings and caveats.

WordWolf, F) When I asked "Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?" May I back off on these guys. Here?s why. I?m relatively ignorant in this area, having not read them in years. The so called plagiarized passages I?ve NEVER read. If anyone knows how to find Thomas Heller, he once told me that ?The Love Way? (posted on this thread) was from Kenyon. I?d love to see the differences, where Dr changed a few words here and there. Those changes excite my interest. But I?m not so interested in the permutations of who was right where and to what degree. Did a revelation change occur or did one of the earlier guys get it wrong doesn?t interest me so much. I?ve speculated on some of those possible permutations, but it?s only speculation, and I think I said so at the time. I?m a little surprised at how sure I sound in that quote you supplied, but maybe the context softens it. If not, I should have stated it less mater-of-factly. I don?t always run with the ?evil intent? nuance when I use the word counterfeit, so when I applied it to these teachers of Dr?s please allow me this slack. I see much room for accidental counterfeits to occur. That?s just the way I use that word. I?m not thinking evil of them at all; I?m thankful for them. I recognize that they all had limitations in doctrine, and in another area as well. This is an area Dr rarely gets credit for above the likes of Bulinger, Kenyon etc. Those men certainly did good in their teaching, but none of them moved it around the world like Dr did. It?s in THIS area of moving the doctrine, that lots of the horror stories come up. With everyone?s flesh involved, including Dr?s, the coordination effort to move this as far as it got moved was impressive. Bullinger was way to academic to reach out far to the masses. Kenyon would have never made it with the hippies. My only dealings with these men in my message is that they did good, and were part of God?s plan for teaching Dr and passing on material for him to re-work with God. I see God at work within those men to a great extent. My only point is that Dr did RIGHT in bringing their contributions to us in a perfect context and with perfect ?adjustments? to fit us grads. Otherwise, let?s agree they were good guys, and not counterfeits. ************* Oops. I must be getting tired. I just found this in your post: Or, on the other hand, are you saying their work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word "counterfeit", you merely misspoke? I kuda saved all that typing! I merely mis-spoke.

WW and Steve, I need to take a break. It's raining here so I've been posting for hours. I just finished too, until your two posts appeared. I was just ready to post my last response to WW's last big post, completely adderessing every point. I would have been caught up if I had posted a minute soner.