Mike

WordWolf, You wrote: "Based on that post and previous posts, you were saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation, our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now (officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class and its collaterals. Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant. (Albeit posted in a convoluted way.) It was not official. Dr was no longer president, no longer in the office to make it official. It was more a revelation that was partially revealed, but NOT at all heeded officially. I wouldn?t say ?CLASS and its collaterals? but more the written materials that come with the class, in ?book and magazine form? as Dr puts it. The film class was more an introduction to the books. Otherwise I?d say you did pretty well. ******************** B) ...Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in class after class of PFAL, session after session, I was able to quote extensively from the taped version. Many people did this kind of memorization, me included. I?m not talking about the tapes though. There?s MUCH more in the written materials, like the chapters in the Volumes and the detail of RHST. I know of no one who extended their memorization all the way into the written class like we did retemorization and had flash cards for the KJV. We memorized the books of the Bible but not the chapter titles in the Volumes. Beyond mere memorization, we never did word studies in the PFAL writings, only KJV. We never compared text chapters with similar-but-not-identical magazine articles, like we did with ?Points of View? type chapters in the OT or the Gospels. We never would all have our Blue Books open as a chapter would be taught; even the teacher would not have the Blue Book opened in front of the same fellowship, as all would have KJVs opened. I always saw a double standard of handling between PFAL writings and KJV or Greek writings, for reading, memorizing, organizing, teaching, and sticking with over the years. After our initial exposure to the books of 6 months to 18 months, the books were set aside most of the time. If you did a lot more than this with the written PFAL materials, then you?re going to have an easier time coming back. You?ll see the goodies quicker than if you had not studied the material. I do maintain that the attitude a reader has will influence what is absorbable and even visible to this reader. Not only attitude, but spiritual maturity as well, AND the timing of this study with God?s plan. God has made more available now, after 1982, so if your study was before this date (like mine) then what was available to absorb was different, because it just wasn?t time. It?s now time. Prior to 1982 God?s major thrust with us (best I can see) was more on the lines of outreach, while after 1982, and especially by Dr?s last teaching, it was NOT on outreach but on personal growth. This pattern is evident in Dr?s teachings after 1982. ******************* YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike. We've discussed this at the GSC. He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the office of an apostle specifically in a way that all but names him the only living one. Even now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet), and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of 5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an ELITE position above others who might possibly claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet". This has already been hashed out on other threads. Like any company president (and there was 5-senses business to do) Dr was ?infallable? in that it was not a democracy. He said often that TWI was not a democracy but a benign dictatorship. In the COMPANY he was the boss and what he said FOR the company employees was law. In the Body of Christ he was appointed by God to do a job, but not all he said, not all that Wierwille wrote was necessarily God-breathed, as he wrote on page 82 of PFAL. I saw that by 1989, when Craig sent out his demands, that all had blurred this distinction between the 5-senses company and the Body of Christ. Craig was demanding back (after having thrown it to Geer for a while) that position of benign dictator OVER THE COMPANY, but confused it in his letter. The readers of the letter also blurred this line and the result was the firing/resignations. ******************* You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW. Have you READ your posts here? Besides all your claims of his special status, you've also posted that he was an intellectual genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and stated that you firmly believe he was of excellent athletic ability, and was at least of pro-college level in college. A veritable paragon, one might say, since you've claimed both his mind and body were exceptional. Did you see where when it came to genetics, I could have said the same about Mickey Mantle? I kept my admiration of both men?s gifts to an acceptable, non-idolatrous, level. Paragons of efficient genetics exist in our culture. They are the tails of various bell curves. Recognizing this is not idolatry. Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status. Why is this hard for you to see? *************** I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S why we keep butting heads. You claim certain events never happened, you claim other events DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is. Ditto. ************ D) You asked why I didn't include comments about the "David" thing under my comments about the "ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary. You characterized me as ignoring it, and I spent a lot of time on it. Plus I had my own solution, but it was unacceptable to others. ************** The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of YOUR position, nor your position's ability to withstand scrutiny. The ONLY demonstration of the soundness of my position can be found in obedience to the man of God and mastering the material, AGAIN. *********** Out of a tall stack of errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it should have been expected that at least ONE would be found. As you interpret that, it means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid. That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like watching someone reach into a refrigerator, take out a can of soda, and generalizing that the entire contents of the refrigerator was cans of soda. If that can popped out all by itself, AGAINST the wishes of those stashing them into the frig, then one might conclude the collection was rashly thrown together and AT LEAST one definitely didn?t belong there. I say let?s obey Dr, master PFAL, and see how many other cans pop out all by themselves. I?ve seen such can popping many times before in my private studies over the decades. *************** The others can clearly read the thread for themselves. Your posts can be largely characterized by evasions... I sometimes righteously evade wasting my time in areas I know to be fruitless. I sometimes righteously evade the unrighteous demands placed on me by others. I sometimes righteously obfuscate the things that hurt people. ************** If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you would have been able to make a MUCH better showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD have been very impressive, and earned you much respect. Primarily, I?m not trying to impress or persuade, only present. PFAL is impressive enough. ************* E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remants." You also said that it can be used by some people. You STILL don't see the logical contradiction between the two statements. I don?t see your point at all. Using a car analogy myself: Suppose you have a set of problems with your car. You read the owners manual and it?s helpful for some but not others. You buy a more detailed shop manual and it?s more useful. There?s LOTS of value in reading a KJV, but less to an OLG because those benefits the KJV has to offer have been exhausted for an OLG. If you for a minute tried believing that PFAL was God-breathed you?d see my logic. Like trinitarians fear even tentative acceptance of One God, I think you?ve given this idea VERY little thinking through, because it looks like scary blasphemy or idolatry. Experimentally believing my message will open up more logic and detail than an adversarial examiner can spot. Try it, you?ll like it. ************** Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials? No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted written in PFAL and distributed around the world and mastered. What they wrote or taught long ago may have been totally accurate at times, but revelation can change as circumstances change. I also see those wonderful men as sometimes getting a point right and sometimes (bless their hearts) not getting it right, but close, and therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT ONE POINT. **************** In all fairness, THAT question was answered. Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO disbelieves it. I can learn as you earn. I can learn to recognize that honesty as you earn my respect. I think you're doing better now, than protesting recursive definitions. ************* [This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:06.] [This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:07.]

Steve, I disagree that all laws of logic or grammar insist on your interpretation of PFAL page 83. I stand by my analysis. I see a difference in how the name Wierwille is handled in that one sentence. The difference sets up a tiny IMPLIED island of contracontextual information. Because it?s implied, at the end of your post your substitution of my paraphrasing was incomplete, not reflecting that the ?some? is hidden. If God wanted Dr?s name to be homogeneously associated with the other names on that page He would have had it written homogeneously. Here?s how I would have written it, with ALL-CAPS to indicate difference, if I didn?t want some special and exceptional focus placed on the Wierwille name: "Not WHAT Wierwille writes will be God-breathed, nor what Calvin WROTE, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Notice the necessary omission of ?necessarily.? Note Calvin WROTE instead of said. Note semicolon changed to comma. Note omission of ?all.? If I wanted to indicate that there was something exceptional about Dr?s writings, but ONLY SOME writings, then I?d have to alter the above sentence. If I wanted to BOTH emphasize the untrustworthiness of the OTHER Wierwille writings, and leave a minor indicator of the exceptional SOME that are God-breathed, and have it blend in with the context of the non-God_breathedness of the other names, THEN I?d write it: ?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed." Just the way it?s in the book.

You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a huge number of inconsistencies. I'd never be able to keep a straight story if I ad libed it. All this was painstakingly thought through for 5 years, and also much thinking went into it prior to 1998. I spend decades working on pieces of the body of knowledge that goes into this. I simply stepped into a beam of high energy information when I started working the tapes and books very carefully. Prior to that I was in preparation unknowingly. There are things I don?t know or understand yet, but when I post I?m either sure of very close, or I say so that I?m guessing. I?m not making up anything.

It?s late and I?m tired from a long day of manual labor. I?ll try an abbreviated response now, and the next time I?ll have will be tomorrow afternoon. WordWolf 1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT examining them with a "critical" (discerning) eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER, and had papal infallibility. As such, his books were "infallible", and any errors in them were to be ignored. That was the case then, and that's the case you're making now. I?m not so sure that was the case or supposed to be the case THEN. I know that?s the case I?m making now. I think THEN we WERE supposed to be ?examining them with a "critical" (discerning) eye.? Dr challenged us to not take his word for it. We were supposed to see it in our KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger... or as far as we could go in that ?Received Text? chain. When I say ?see it? I mean the verification of the points Dr was making in the class. I think prior to 1982, prior to the completion of the basic set of PFAL books we were supposed to see as much as possible of the revealed Word of God, the abstract, unwritten, un-purchasable ORIGINAL Bible, though the application of PFAL principles to that abstractly ending ?Received Text? chain of KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger... All the while, prior to 1982, we were ?studying to show ourselves approved before God? with PFAL in one hand to guide and the ?Received Text? chain in the other, the writing of the PFAL set of books was being completed. All the while God had Dr place ?signposts? and ?keys? in the PFAL writings, just like He did with all Biblical writers, signs like Green pages 34, 116, to guide us after the big changes in 1982. In 1982 Dr?s announcements of the big changeover dramatically increased (so far few posted), culminating in a revelation that it was time to switch over from the abstract ?only rule? to the concrete, freshly written ?only rule.? For the rest of his days Dr deposited many items into the record (some covert hints, some overt sledgehammers) for us to eventually find (because we weren't listening then) confirming this changeover. The last such confirmation, which was way out of the covert hint category, was in his last teaching where he twice says outright to master the PFAL writings. His prior useage of the word ?master? (heavily posted on here) leaves no doubt that he was saying that to master God?s Word we had to master PFAL, and in a way deeper than we ever did before. **************** I?ll bet that the degree of memorization you did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV retemorization. I?ll bet your degree of mastering the points of PFAl was less than how you looked for points in KJV. Prior to 1982 this was proper and what we were taught. Something happened in 1982. Many contradictions melt when this change is taken into account. I DID see some people idolize Dr and if you were one, then I?d say this led you to an inefficient learning mode. I don?t think he taught we should think of him as infallible, so you may have been led wrong. I know this happened, and in spite of all my other failures in life, I didn?t get sucked into hero worship of VPW ever. Even now I see a HUGE difference between my memory of him and my appreciation for what God did with him in PFAL. When I hear and somewhat believe a story of his slimy side (we all have one) I think to myself how much MORE he could have done if only he hadn?t blown it there. I never think (any more) that his sin prevented God from completing the 1942 project with him. I see a rough pattern that the ones who seemed to idolize him the most, now hate him the most. My appreciation of Dr?s success with God grew very slowly but steadily, with several major challenges at times. One such challenge was all the slimy stories. The appreciation I have is SO GREAT that the slimy stories just don?t command the same priority of focus from me. I think the way you describe your introduction to these books may be an unfortunate, but overcomable handicap. ******************* 2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a reality your accusations of me won't wither." For those posters arriving late to the game, several months back, an extensive list of ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts, Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away. I've forgotten how many were on the list when we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something around there. The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them all-we weren't going for completion). That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of Mike's ignoring of them won't wither. This is not accurate to what happened. I didn?t ignore them. I simply refused to devote the AMOUNT of time to it demanded of me. I was content with the number of Apparent Errors (AEs) that had melted under my scrutiny in the 70?s and 80?s and another batch since 1998. I was content FOR MY LIFE to relegate AEs to a low priority status, and I think other mastering grads should do the same. I taught by example on the AE thread how to work with AEs a little. I taught there how to be selective in the environment of when, and where, and with whom, grads should work on AEs. I taught by example that with hostile researchers it's ok with God to righteously dodge or avoid their distractions and challenges unless it seems to be an exceptional situation where a good answer will do some good. As we dickered there, on and off, one of the AEs that I had selected for LIMITED discussion was suddenly solved by someone else. This person just happened to stumble on a ?David? verse with the answer, and posted it to the acceptance of many. This showed a couple of things. One was that the background research of the challengers was spotty at best. No one had done a thorough collection of the pertinent verses. This reminds me how quick Steve L. was to pounce on one passage of the Blue Book and not care much about a thorough collection of pertinent passages. Another thing it showed was a DIRECT confirmation of my many times predicted ?best method? of solving AEs, namely keep reading and they solve themselves. Now, WordWolf, why didn?t you include all this in your summary of that AE thread? ************* D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original position, much discussed, that the modern versions are "tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either they are useless or they can be used. Either they are profitless, or they can profit. Remember time. Profitability can change with time. If all there is are the tattered remnants, then go for it, they?re the most profitable source of knowledge. If God finishes a 40 year project to reissue His Word, then the tattered remnants RELATIVE profitability drops. I reject you limited allowance. *********************** That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it. For example, you keep alternating between claiming a scientific background and claiming you don't have one. Background yes. Degree no. Now that wasn?t hard. ************ I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions about pfal are correct? If you see inconsistencies here there are none, why should I spend a lot of time giving you more material to see them in? ************ (No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".) My message is God?s Word and nothing hurts it. ************** E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to Steve as follows: "Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials." That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I quoted in this very post. Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE and WILLING to present your statements and positions FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates I am capable of understanding and explaining your positions in my own words. I agree. You got this one right. Which makes you all the more guilty of sloppiness or something for your errors further above. ******************** On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's last post completely, since your objection to it in no way addressed what he/she said. I didn?t think it was worthy of a direct response. It wasn?t on topic and just a rehash of oft talked about things. I?ve addressed those topics many times, and didn?t think it was best to allow the distraction. Still don?t. ****************** If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's book, but never heard of pfal? Let me make sure my question is specific enough.... Would you say that the material they learned, despite paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class? Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from vpw? This is very similar to what do I think or what would I tell splinter class grads. Lots of splinter classes are similar to PFAL in roughly the same way BGLeonord?s classes are similar, it?s just a directionality that some might get hung up on. The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the genuine. The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr only. It was completed. I would NOT try to convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this. I would not be confused by the correct knowledge a BGLeonard student has any more than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter group puts into their clone classes. I?m sure that in the first century Paul?s epistles were compared to Barnabus? epistles (some still exist) by many and thought to be equivalent, even though Barnabus was dead wrong. ****************** Also, just for fun, I'm curious Some other time. I?m tired and this was supposed to be abbreviated. I know Dr made mistakes in some things, but I know WE made more in not taking his written materials more seriously. It?s not too late to do this. When we do, all the other old history will fade in the glory. [This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 2:58.]

def59, If I were promoting anything other than the printed texts and some tapes, if I were trying to preserve any of the TVT stuff, any of the bad stuff of anyone?s, THEN your characterization of me may fit. If you look hard at the books and forget about the past, you?ll see MORE goodness in them than you did the first time, and you DID genuinely see some genuine goodness the first time. We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on, but the books are pure. That?s a reality your accusations of me wont wither.

karmicdebt, On the other thread, your history is a bit abbreviated on what happened here. I jumped the fences between all the splinter groups here plus the stump the best I could or was allowed until 1998. I gathered data from 1987 to 1998 from all sources of grads I could both here in SD and nationally. BTW, do I know you? Do you know me?

EWB, Just as an aside, and in a humorous vein, please look up yonder, right above your post, at how harsh that one ends and then your post begins with ?Dear Mike, I am sorry that I wrote such a harsh post...? To me, that sudden juxtaposition from def59?s rant (or was that a rave?) to your gentlemanly firm sorting through the particulars was quite a jolt. Sometimes I get a bunch of rantings and ravings in a row and it can wear me out. When I hit it just now it made me laugh out as loud as Oakspear?s recent ?How To...? post on another thread. Anyway, I don?t delight in agitating people, I delight in my right to righteously dodge anything I want. I?m not here primarily to win points ala the rules of a college debating team. I?m not trying to earn the logical upper hand by proving my product and the soundness of my stand. I?ve been given the right to post data and I?m taking advantage of it, just like every one of the other posters here. I ALSO engage in discussion, sometimes studded with portions of logical argumentation at my discretion. I reserve the right to not be distracted any more than I will to from posting my data. I don?t owe anyone here any answers at all, but I do try some. That?s all anyone does, you included. You suspend the rules of FORMAL logic for guts feel jumps whenever you want to. When I do it, it gets noticed, because my data is SO HOT, my posts are getting much more attention. My jumps, my dodges, my refusing to be deterred by distractions ARE noticed because of the hotness of that data. If you had hot data, all your jumps, dodges, and refusals would get more scrutinized, and you?d be hearing about it a lot. Trust me, I know. I visualize this place more like a cocktail party with many rooms and freedom of motion. I think some others here have the image of a courtroom where all people are forced to participate in a synchronized linear progression. It?s when I run face to face with such a courtroom paradigm driven poster that I delight in pulling the rug out from under them with any number of PURELY literary techniques involving the hot data. I do enjoy the freedom of this forum I have to shake them off of ME (maybe not off my thread) quite efficiently. I think it humorous of God to have given me all this data that was lost and hidden, so I have a HUGE element of surprise that seems to flummox the resistance better than anything I ever saw in my long witnessing and debating career. I think if you were to EXAUSTIVELY search my posts here, you?d find that the abundance of data and answers God has given me and I?ve had the privilege to post is beyond the norm. If you were to re-read all the correspondence I had with you it may mean more to you now that you?ve had a chance to see a few more months of posting data. What I?m saying is don?t give up, I think there?s more good going on here than you know just yet. MUCH more, if you ever undertake to even SOMEWHAT obey Dr?s final instructions, and systematically embrace these writings in a focused and concentrated way (i.e. put away all your other reading material for a while), then I think you?ll have a MUCH better appreciation for what I?ve been posting. Actually, I recommend starting with PFAL reading, and skip the reading of my posts. That?ll save a lot of time.

shaz, I agree it's all very human and common. I just don't get off on looking at it and/or remembering it. Sure it's good to be wise and avoid future repetitions, but I don't see that a problem at this time. The unusual concentrations I was referring to were not so much along the lines of numbers of people, or numbers of acts, or 5-senses intensity of the acts. I was thinking of the smartness of the devils needed for the takedown, and this manifested itself in how QUICKLY good decent men became pretty not so good and decent. All this happened rather abruptly in the early 80's, in that critical period where great changes came down but we didn't see them, from 1982-85. [This message was edited by Mike on June 17, 2003 at 15:41.]

EWB, Ok, we can get into your question at another time or by e-mail if you so desire. It?s always been my heart to answer anything I can, but sometimes the answer (or the sequencing of the parts to the answer) is not accepted. I think that?s the case between us. I suggest you lighten up and relax a little. If you hadn?t gotten so huffy in our e-mailing I?d have continued answering more to your ?where to fellowship? question. Actually, I think it was you that broke off that communication, not me. Steve?s question about discerning spirits has already enjoyed some answering, but again to be received with dissatisfaction. I?m not done, but here?s another nutshell on how I?ve already answered it here. For a special group of people that God called out for a special job, PFAL grads that is, God has also provided the perfect arena for learning revelation and importation manifestations. This arena is the PFAL writings. As we master those special writings of PFAL with our 5-senses, God will teach us HIS perspective and HE will filter out the adversary?s. So, you might not like this answer, but there it is. Master PFAL and you can hear the TRUE GOD?S direct voice better (and filter out Satan?s) than anyone?s been able to since the first century.

def59, I think you mis-read my post to vickles. You wrote: ?Calling somone untrustworthy because they asked a tough question is so childish.? But I said something different than what you picked up. I wrote: ?Until this very recent change in approach, you?ve come across as a pretty negative and untrustworthy character to me. I don?t want to think evil of people, so just the slightest change in your approach and I?m willing to explore the sincerity behind it.? You see, I softened it with ?come across ... to me? and it was connected to PRIOR postings, and NOT this recent question of hers. I did spend quite a bit of time with her in answering it too. Maybe there are other things like this you?ve missed in the details of what I post. ******** I?m WELL aware of the fact that my MOST powerful storehouse of material will at times make me to appear as powerful, in a 5-senses way. I have pointed out that I am NOT the message, but the message is the message. It wasn?t accepted then, and it looks like it wont now. Maybe later.

vickles, On re-reading last night?s rounds, I found something I didn?t respond to in your posting. Actually I have discussed the same subject before here, but that?s an old story already. You wrote: ?Mike, I thought you were in or had a fellowship? You know there are plenty of people to get started. There are a lot of people hungry for the Word. Hungry for love. Why would it be diminished? Why do you need a community of believing believers? Of course it would be lot more fun but you can still see the Word and bless people by what your learning and seeing in life. I don't know why it has to be turned into suspicion and worry that people are going to put you down when they already are anyways. Life can be fun and I believe that God wants us to enjoy life not make His word into a prison.? This message I am slowly posting, in an amongst a variety of useful tangents and distracting derailments, is not of my own origin. I was SHOWN Dr?s last teaching in 1998, and that was one of the first in a string of hundreds of other amazing things. I?m doing my best to accurately convey or relay what I?ve been shown. Not all of what I have been shown do I fully understand, but that which I do seem to have a grasp of, I try my best to accurately post. I?m a student in this, and it?s very enjoyable when I?m in the receiving mode, as in ?receive, retain, release.? Yes, life can be fun, and the essence of life is God and His Word and His Son, so at my fellowship I have a lot of fun. Many times at GS, when I?m in a ?release? mode, it?s also fun, although sometimes it?s hard work too, with maybe a little more of the spiritual joy than the natural happiness. My fellowship is an hour?s drive away in rather intense freeway traffic. Most of the people in this well established twig (grads from ?69), live that same hour?s drive away from me. Most of the grads who live nearby me have M&A?d me long before it became a household word, these grads being mostly Geerites, then less in number CES types, and then lastly what were then Craigites. I asked too many questions of the leaders, and even had follow-up questions planned for the few times anyone had the wherewithal to deal with a first question. I'm not well liked. I went against the system, or systemS. So, having no children, no wife, and no nearby grads fellowship with, I have LOTS of time for this ?receive, retain, release? program of mine. Since 1998, I have come to regard, as a RELATIVELY lower priority, the releasing to the unsaved masses, the non-grads, and the denominational type Christians, COMPARED to the situation I see within my own household, the PFAL grad household. Charity begins at home, and that?s where I see the GREATEST need, fixing this ministry meltdown that started in the 1982-85 period. I have been shown massive things about what Dr put in the record during that period that was JUST FOR US NOW! In spite of the resistance, I?m having a sometimes fun time and an always joyous time in presenting those things that slipped by all of us (even you alfakat). I do minimally witness to people ?on the street? but only minimally, having no local trustworthy fellowship to bring them to, and my long distance fellowship being essentially a very special ?grad night? dedicated to mastering PFAL, and not so much to presenting it to new people. I see it as an "emergency grad night" that's been going for 7 years of so. Even when we at this special grad fellowship occasionally DID bring in a few non-grads, there was no national support system for them like the one we had when we first took root. We?ve found that such a support system is quite necessary. I still visit other churches occasionally, as I always have. I?ve reported here how I regularly visited trinitarian churches as part of my verification of Dr in the 70?s. I?ve shopped dozens of churches through the past 30 years. They are still the same lame, crippled, pitiful traps for a lot of decent people they were when I first started shopping. Sure I see some decent and useful things here and there, but none of them are headed for ?all nine all the time? or anything like it. I?d rather hang out with pagans than denominational types, on the whole. Sure there are a few exceptions, but they?re rare and temporary. Churchianity sucks for the EXACT same factors that took TWI down, it was just that an unusually high concentration of these corrupting factors that were necessary to bring down TWI, due to the massive amount of genuine Word there. Vickles, it?s not that I need a community of PFAL grad believers, it?s that GOD NEEDS A COMMUNITY of BELIEVING BELIEVERS. We were taught in the AC about the temperature of believing and ?community believing? as great factors in the power. Corinthians mentions the way the power comes ?IN THE CHURCH? through the worship manifestations. Yes, some manifestations can be operated by the Lone Ranger, but with Tonto & Co. it moves MUCH better. [This message was edited by Mike on June 17, 2003 at 13:18.]

vickles, YES! I'm seeing them.

WordWolf, It?s useful in the early stages of learning, and less useful in the advanced stages. It?s useful for some things and not for others. It?s usefulness is to the USER not the detached observer. It?s usefulness takes time to develop and challenges to overcome. It?s not immediate. It?s proof is reserved for those who come back to it with meekness. It?s contents are what I want to discuss the most. P.S. What I threw out about quantum was for a few I know who like that stuff. I think I properly kept the emphasis on the principle and it?s power, using quantum as a quick example. My posts are going to be irritating to many no matter how enhanced they may be.

vickles, I'm light. I'm also tired. Maybe you are too. I got one post written on my word processor and ready to post and I'm going to sleep. I'm only SUGGESTING that your question could be thought through some. I intend no insult or put down. Honest! Please try reading my recent posts to you tomorrow. Either I failed to write it friendly enough or you didn't take it as friendly as I intended it. I'm tired and it's the best I can do for now.

vickles, It may be that I?m NOT explaining myself the best... yet. I?m trying my best to be nice in these recent posts, because you?ve changed in your approach. Sometimes mere typing is insufficient to communicate attitudes. The pin number analogy goes this way: if someone were to ask you FROM THE SHADOWS near your ATM for your pin number, you might wisely presume that their next request will be for your ATM card and that question #1 was the opening line of a robbery. In other words, I was wondering out loud if your request for miracles info in my life was a trick question Until this very recent change in approach, you?ve come across as a pretty negative and untrustworthy character to me. I don?t want to think evil of people, so just the slightest change in your approach and I?m willing to explore the sincerity behind it. ************ I think that poking around for reports of miracles is a false way to search for the truth. Jesus said signs miracles and wonders would follow BELIEVERS confirming the Word. So AFTER these believers that Jesus was talking about had found the truth, THEN signs miracles and wonders confirmed to them that it was the real truth they had committed themselves to when they believed. It?s NOT that signs miracles and wonders can be used in the SEARCH for the truth to get committed to and believe. It seems to me that maybe your question fits into the later category, where great signs are first discussed and then you move in to get in on the action. I think that when a number of people are committed together and like minded on the truth, THEN they can profitably discuss signs miracles and wonders to confirm their commitment together. But to shop around for OTHER people?s signs miracles and wonders is just asking for trouble. It?s not an efficient way to search for the truth. We need to search WITHIN God?s Word for truth, not in each other?s stories of signs miracles and wonders. Those stories are great for already established likeminded teams, but us grads are the exact opposite of unity at this time. Searching within God?s Word for serious grads of PFAL is far more sophisticated than opening a KJV. The grads who want to really search within God?s Word are going to have to recognize and remember that God did a mighty work with VPW in getting those books written and distributed. OLGs who can?t see that are spiritually asleep. It?s wake up time. *********** The paraphrasing of II Timothy was extreme. I was trying to show you that sometimes GREAT works of God are so heavily hit by the adversary that they LOOK like failures. Paul was in prison and highly shamed when he wrote many epistles. John the Baptist had just successfully prepared the way of the Lord, and then was thrown in prison and executed. All the prophets just about, though they often had the believing to hear from God and proclaim it, they got their heads bashed in for it or worse. If you, vickles, had approached any of these men of God with your question, their answer may have discouraged you, and you might have thought that God was not behind them when He was. Your question is not only a potentially trick question for me, the hearer, like I mentioned at the start, but it may be a trick question for YOU, the poser. The answer you get from questions like that can mis-lead you. Another way it can mis-lead you is when you ask it of someone who had GREAT lying signs and wonders going on. Your answer may sound exciting, and it may BE exciting, in the early stages, when you get hoodwinked by some devil spirits. I think the material surrounding my chosen topic for this thread will be much more valuable to you than me telling you all the personal ways God is working in my life. Come back to PFAL and see all the ways God can work in YOUR life, IN ADDITION TO what you have now.

cynic, Are you aware of the MAJOR remote context of all those quotes of mine you posted regarding the ?tattered remnants? categorization of the received scriptures? You may have missed my introduction of the term OLG, but it was to identify a SUBSET of people my message (and hence my remarks about the condition or the received scriptures) is addressed to. When it comes to prePFAL people, the KJV is fine, as it was a requirement of new students and it is referred to on every page of PFAL, and the pages of PFAL encourage thorough reading and checking contexts. It is implied in my proPFAL message that the KJV is useful. It?s just LESS useful to OLGs than it is to new students. For us OLGs, we need more high octane material to advance in our understanding, and the received scriptures have certain drawbacks, some pointed out in PFAL, and some well known academic circles. The deficiencies I pointed out are usually thought of as regrettable but not fatal. I agree. I simply add to regrettable that if advanced PFAL students (OLGs) don?t go beyond the received scriptures, and see and master the better that God has provided in PFAL, then their growth toward "all nine all the time" is in fatal jeopardy. [This message was edited by Mike on June 17, 2003 at 3:04.]

vickles, As for putting others down, I do my best to separate the PERSON from their words, actions, deeds, attitudes, errors. I try to see the person on one side of a line and the error on the other. Sometimes in a fast moving and adversarial atmosphere like this, the line gets blurred from a number of things. Do you get equally offended at all the names and put downs I endure here? Do you even notice them?

vickles, Sharing with people in a casual setting is a lot different that the adversarial posting situation here. I want to post data that I believe people need to make fully informed decisions. I?m not here to be chummy or to win people over to my cause. When I get to know someone via e-mail a little better or by phone, the kinds of questions you asked are very appropriate. But here, if you yourself are not going to pounce on every detail of my answer, someone else will. They do no matter what I post, but with some topics the distraction factor is greater than others. I?m talking about the distraction to other readers and also the distraction to me as a writer here. I have, due to my peculiar past tastes and experiences, have found a lot of data that had been successfully hidden for over a decade. Because God blessed me with all this data, my responsibility is to get it out. The signs, miracles, and wonders in MY life that are meaningful to ME are not going to be as meaningful to others. Dr often taught that his ministry was NOT built on testimonials, and he gave reasons. The ?Heart? newspaper was a major experimental departure from this older policy of minimizing testimonials. Dr similarly taught that it?s not useful to teach personal experiences insofar that they become merged with doctrine. There are massive reasons for these policies as he taught us. Suppose I answered your question with something like: ?Well God is blessing me a lot with information, but unfortunately my health situation could use a little help, and I?m still in jail. Maybe next year I?ll be released. Last year was pretty bad.? Go ahead and analyze. Would a post like that from me HELP or HURT my message? What I was paraphrasing in a highly abbreviated manner above was Paul?s second letter to Timothy. It could be slightly re-written to fit John the Baptist. It could fit MOST of the prophets and the lifestyles they led. There?s another factor to include. Signs miracles and wonders happen when there?s a BODY doing it. Community believing is essential. Seven of the nine manifestations are for blessing OTHERS. If there are no others to bless, or there are very few others, the activity of blessing is diminished when compared to communities of believing believers loving and speaking the Word. Suppose you asked your question of the Apostle Paul in the middle of his 7 year desert study program? Might his honest, factual answer give you cause to think that hooking up with was a loosing venture? I might ask you, putting aside the ulterior motive challenge, to ponder this: what will you do with the answer? I find this a VERY important part of the whole question formulation process. Asking this question of utility about another question is a VERY useful policy. It has proved to be a major key in quantum physics. I still urge you to ask deep questions about the material and not me. That?s where the action is.

vickles, I pointed out EWB's childish behavior because, unlike many others here, I think he has a heart to change. Pointing out an area of needed change to someone can be a loving thing, and that's the heart I put into that. With many others I wouldn't bother. And, once again, the subject is me... Have you had any thoughts on the topic lately?

vickles, Your question is like someone asking me for my pin number from the dark shadows near my ATM machine. You want me to put all MY confirming evidence into your trusted hands? I suppose if my miracles are impressive enough you'll repent of all this negativity and come back to PFAL? Or will it be you will get Steve to sniff out "lying signs and wonders" ? Then you'll try to "counsel" me to quit PFAL. I suppose if they aren't impressive then you'll try to "counsel" me to quit PFAL. Work with me on this, ok vickles, and let's hash out the ulterior reason you have for asking me that. Why do you ask?

Steve, You are getting worked up over nothing. I?ve answered your question before her, and I?ll do it again. The HOW of discerning God?s voice from devil spirits is contained within the quote of mine that you posted. Here?s what you quoted of me: ?As we master and learn the 5-senses messages in those books, with repeated and thorough readings, we can turn our attention to hear God whisper to us the hidden messages HE, GOD, put in there that our 5-senses would never pick up. Also the 5-senses readings help us build protection against devilish doctrines that are all around out there. Our adversary can and will attempt to whisper wrong meanings to us as we work the Word.? 1. ?master and learn the 5-senses messages in those books? 2. ?the 5-senses readings help us build protection against devilish doctrines? Dr told us MANY times that the only way to tell the difference between the counterfeit and the genuine is by MASTERING the genuine. Come back to PFAL and the Voice of God will become more recognizable against the din of error.

alfakat, Those postings of PFAL pages weren't for YOU! I'm well aware of your great mastery. Those posts are to help Steve read with better understanding the enigmatic pages 23 and 24 of the Blue Book. Maybe you could give him a little help with them too. I suggest that whenever you see my name on a post you get ready to hit that saving PgDn key, because I'm getting ready to post many more. If I remember, I'll put up a little warning flag... just for you.

EWB, I've been reading our e-mail correspondence to find your question. Are you talking about the question of where to fellowship? That looks like a bigggie to you, and I did try some answering, but I guess, not to your satisfaction. I think another thing you were dissatisfied with me was that I answered something with a pre-written main letter body, and some tailored sentences to fit you. This seemed to insult you, although it wasn?t intended. I sense a bit of immaturity in your manner of questioning, but I can live with that. I asked you if you had observed how busy I was answering questions here, and you didn?t answer me on that. Part of maturity is being able to put yourself in another?s shoes. It?s a difficult mental feat, and additionally requires the willingness to step OUT of your own. I?d be happy to spend LOTS of time with you on honest questions that are received honestly. You seem impressed with those who have the ability to give out honest answers, but are you aware of how dishonestly you?ve received what I have to share? For you to get all huffy over me pasting in something that I thought would bless you, and that I had spent a lot of time on, to me is dishonest. For you to complain to me about a private e-mail matter is immature. I suggest you get over your phobia for pasting and paste your question in a more retrievable place. For you to give hints as to what your big question is and expect me to research it out is immature. You can also always e-mail me with questions, but to publicly accuse me of not paying enough attention to you is childish. If you had done it privately, it?s still be a wrong accusation, but at least it would have been Biblical. You see it?s dishonest of you to come here a with a descriptive handle of maturity, and a show of maturity in your speech, but in your interactions act childish. So, now that we?re done scolding each other, let?s get back to the topics I find MUCH more enjoyable. Instead of talking about me here, why not address the topic. Your private issue will get much higher priority form me if it were e-mailed.

fresh data: Natural-Factual vs. Spiritual-True Significant and explanatory references in PFAL, the Power For Abundant Living book. *************************************************************** page 78 Before we go deeper into this particular verse in II Peter, let's look into the Old Testament and see how those holy men of God spoke who received this revelation. We have seen from John 4:24 that God is Spirit. God being Spirit can only speak to what He is. God cannot speak to the natural human mind. This is why The Word could not come by the will of man because the will of man is in the natural realm. God being Spirit can only speak to what He is - spirit. Things in the natural realm may be known by the five senses - seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. But God is Spirit and, therefore, cannot speak to brain cells; God cannot speak to a person's mind. It is a law and God never oversteps His own laws. The spirit from God had to be upon these men, otherwise they could never have received revelation as Paul declared in Galatians. Numbers 11:17 helps explain revelation. And I [God] will come down and talk with thee [Moses] there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them .... God is Spirit and He could reveal Himself through the spirit from God which was upon Moses. Then Moses, having a mind, used his vocabulary and wrote the revealed Word of God. That is the exact means by which the Word of God came into being. *************************************************************** 106 We have failed to walk in deliverance in this our day and time because The Word is not real, it is not alive, it is not dynamic to or in us. Consequently most people are spiritual cripples, spiritual hitchhikers. They ride along on somebody else's beliefs. Many people today would much rather read and study the literature of the hour than the literature of eternity. Why? Because the word of man has had preeminence over the wonderful Word of God. If what man says contradicts what The Word says, they stick to man's word rather than The Word. If we want deliverance, if we want to tap the resources for the more abundant life, then God's Word demands that we study and live by this matchless Word. *************************************************************** 229 - 230 Before we move into the depth of the new birth, we must realize some fundamental terms. When I speak of the "natural man," I speak of the man of body and soul, the man who is not born again of God's Spirit. This is the accurate Biblical usage of natural man. The five senses are the only avenues of learning that the natural man has to gain knowledge. Everything that ever comes to a natural man's mind must come by one or a combination of these five senses: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching. We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when "... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost") would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning. *************************************************************** 258 Adam's mistake was cataclysmic for God had said, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." What died on the day Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did Adam and Eve still have bodies and souls? Certainly. What they no longer had was their connection with God, spirit. This is why God said, "The day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die." Many times clergy, theologians or commentaries have said, "Well, they didn't really die. It was just the seeds of spiritual death that were planted in them because the Word of God says that Adam lived some 800 years after that." The Word does not agree with this explanation. The Word says, "the day [the very day] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely [absolutely] die. "One must understand the man of body, soul and spirit to be aware of exactly what happened on the day that Adam defied God's one rule. The spirit disappeared. The reason the spirit was called dead is that it was no longer there. Their entire spiritual connection with God was lost. From that very day Adam and Eve were just body and soul - as any other animal. Man, being body and soul, had to rely solely on his five senses. ... *************************************************************** 259 Man, being body and soul, had to rely solely on his five senses. From the day Adam ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil until the day of Pentecost thousands of years later, God came into concretion whenever He wanted to talk to man. He had to come into some form for the man's senses to perceive and thereby understand. Moses, traveling along in the wilderness, saw a burning bush; and from the midst of the burning bush, he heard a voice. Moses' senses perceived God. The children of Israel could see the Ten Commandments. This was the means by which God came into concrete form to tell them what to do. Annually, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered into the Holy of Holies to make sacrifices. He laid his hands on the goat and then sent it into the wilderness to die. God had said that as surely as the Israelites saw the goat go into the wilderness, their sins went with it. They could see the goat, they could see the stone tablet, they could see the burning bush. God had to come into concrete form because men had no means by which to understand spiritual things. But since man still did have the five senses, he could believe. This explains why Jesus Christ was born. Jesus Christ was born so that people could see Him; He had to be manifested in physical form. Jesus said, "... He that hath seen me hath seen the Father ...." God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. Jesus was the concretion. *************************************************************** 260 When a man of body and soul can say to me, "I don't believe in your God. "I say, "I know. "He may look around stunned because he expected to fight for his position, but he gets no fight because I know the accuracy of The Word - he can't know God for he is a natural man who understands only the world of the five senses. I Corinthians 2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Natural man cannot know spiritual matters because they are spiritually discerned. Having summed up the situation in one verse of Scripture, God couldn't have stated Himself more clearly. Because the things of God are spiritual, they must be known by the spirit. That is why The Word says that spiritual things are foolishness to the natural, scientific man. The natural man goes by his reason - by what he can see, hear, smell, taste and touch - and not by the revealed Word of God. I Corinthians 1:21: For after that in the wisdom of God [spiritual wisdom] the world by wisdom [sense-knowledge wisdom] knew not God .... *************************************************************** 261 - 262 For to be carnally minded [sense-knowledge minded] is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: [The brain of many is in conflict with God - senses versus revelation.] for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh [who live by their five senses] cannot please God. The flesh cannot please God because God is Spirit. *************************************************************** 263 Jeremiah 17 also points out the natural man?s inability to know God and matters associated with Him. Jeremiah 17:5-8: Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and [who] maketh flesh [the five senses] his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited. Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought; neither shall cease from yielding fruit. The one man trusts in the arm of the flesh and the other trusts in God. The contrast is obvious. *************************************************************** 270 Ephesians 2:1: And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. What does dead mean? Man appeared to be lively. He had body and soul, but was dead in trespasses and sins because he had no spirit. Psalms says that all men are conceived and born in sin. This does not mean that the parents were sinful in the way in which they had intercourse. Man is conceived and born in sin because he has no spirit. Having only a body and soul, how does a natural man ever again have a connection with the spiritual realm? Spiritual things can only be known by the spirit, even as things in the natural realm can only be known by the five senses. Since natural man cannot know God, what is the bridge that spans the chasm between the natural man and God? The bridge is faith. But natural man does not have faith because faith is a spiritual element. How then does he get faith to span that chasm? *************************************************************** 271 Before going further, let us clarify the difference between the two words "faith" and "believing." These two words are not synonymous though the King James and other translations have used them interchangeably. Faith is an inner spiritual development, while believing is an action of the human mind. The natural man of body and soul can believe; but the natural man cannot have faith. Galatians 3:22: But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. The natural man of body and soul, the unsaved man, does not have faith. Faith is spiritual and the natural man cannot have it. But the man of body and soul can believe. *************************************************************** 284 ? 285 Anything that can be seen is in the category of the senses; and the things of the senses are always temporal. But that which you cannot see - the spirit of God, the faith of Jesus Christ, the righteousness of God, justification, sanctification - all these are the things which are eternal. How can a man of body and soul get the faith of Jesus Christ? How can he get the justification of God, redemption and sanctification? The answer is simple. To receive all this from God we must do one thing - believe. The next question is: what are we to believe? To answer this, we must first see what God wrought in Christ, which in turn Christ works within us as we of body and soul believe. Jesus Christ was God's plan from the beginning to manifest God who is Spirit on the level of the senses so that sense-knowledge man might be redeemed. God in His foreknowledge knew that Adam and Eve would sin and that He would have to send His Son to redeem mankind. God, being consistent and law-abiding, had to work within a legal framework to redeem man. Since by man came sin and death, by man also would have to come the redemption from sin and death. Jesus Christ was a human being who physically had all the fundamental life processes and endured all things. Hebrews 4:15 says that He "... was in all points [things] tempted like as we are, yet without sin. "Jesus Christ was God's plan for manifestation in the senses world. John 14:9 records, "... he that [who] hath seen me hath seen the Father. "Jesus Christ manifested God in the world which understood only what it saw, heard, smelled, tasted or touched. To understand God's manifesting Himself in the flesh through His Son, let us first see how God, Who is Spirit, could have a Son in the flesh. First of all, most people do not understand The Word, nor do they understand God and how He operates. They do not differentiate between the words "formed," "made," and "created," or "body," "soul," and "spirit. "If we do not understand these truths, it is impossible to understand how a woman could conceive by the power of God and bring forth the Lord Jesus Christ. The most enlightening verse on the conception and the bringing forth of the Lord Jesus Christ is in Hebrews. *************************************************************** 366 I and II Thessalonians stand by themselves because they speak about the return of Christ and the gathering together. Read the Epistles in the light which I have just shared and new vistas of understanding will become apparent to you. *************************************************************** 367 Ephesians 6:11, 12: [You] Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles [trickery]of the devil, For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places [from on high]. Our fight, our battle, is not with John Doe or our neighbor or the minister. Our fight is always a spiritual one encountering spiritual powers, wickedness and evil spirits who are trying to counterfeit God. ?We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers.? Ephesians 6:13: Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all ... stand. [This message was edited by Mike on June 16, 2003 at 16:44.]

Oh Steve, there you go again! Not only do you spiritually fart, but you try to get seaspray to sit on your Whoopee Cushion at the same time! I?m going to open a window and let in some AIR.