Mike

Goey, How can my thesis be washed up if it isn?t all presented yet? ******** You wrote: ?Your thesis is riddled with logical fallacy. You have simply declared VPW's works to be God- breathed by fiat. Then based upon this presumption you attempt to build your case for mastery. The argument you present is circular and therefore invailid.? No, that?s NOT my thesis. First I build my case for mastery from the record and out obedience to Dr, and recognition that these final instructions were very well squelched by strong spiritual forces. Forces NOT strong enough to last, though. If God had squelched it, there?s no way I?D be overturning his hiding job. Second, from within the material BEING mastered, and addressed to those doing the mastering, the proofs flow. So, you got me backwards! I?m NOT ADDRESSING the unbeliever, just like the Bible is not addressed to the unbeliever. I therefore don?t expect it to be first proved on cyber paper to you, and then you?ll do the mastery. I only expect those who take me up on this challenge of obedience to Dr will see this proof. ****** You again mischaracterized my stand with: ?You have simply declared VPW's works to be God- breathed by fiat.? I have declared that I found 90 ?thus saith the lord? statements that Dr makes by fiat, really by God?s fiat. ****** You?re right in asserting that ?it offers us no more than the simple "possibility" that God could have given PFAL by revealtion through VPW ( a modern Balaam of sorts) This proves nothing? To this I totally agree. That?s all I was TRYING to say. I was shooting down the arguments that said engaging in nefarious activity disqualifies a man from operating manifestations of holy spirit so accurately that they BRING FORTH THE WORDS OF GOD. They said Dr couldn?t; I said he could. Now, even if all the worst stories about Dr are accurate to the letter, he STILL doesn?t rate as bad as the many bad boys (much worse evil doers) who STILL got ample revelations in the OT. Dr?s misdeeds surely diminished his effectiveness, like David?s diminished his. David?s believing was so shot he got hit pretty hard and paid through the nose for his evil. You?re right about the proof part. But I am not trying to prove it, just show where the proof is. ******* You then wrote: ?Your whole thesis rests upon the presumption that VPW was telling the truth in most everything he said and wrote, yet there is much evidence that VPW was less than honest in many areas.? When you say ?much? that?s a relative term. You actually mean: ???relative to evidence you have seen to the contrary, there is much evidence that VPW was......??? Well, relative to the evidence I MYSELF have, there?s a vastly more impressive amount of evidence that he successfully blessed a lot of us OLGs beyond any measure TWI-2 people can imagine. Here?s my logic: 1 obey Dr to master PFAL based on 70?s evidence of God?s blessing to OLGs by PFAL. 2 see more evidence accumulate as we come back to PFAL purified from TVT. 3 finally put all the pieces together logically as mastery continues unhampered by religious supervision. 4 finally get our act together to fix what went wrong and see what plans God has for us. Obviously, step one is pretty hard for nonOLGs but not impossible. **** Now, one last thing. I need to repeat this for some readers, but many haven?t quite got this one yet. You said above: ?Your whole thesis rests upon the presumption that VPW was telling the truth in most everything he said and wrote...? Not only is the order wrong, as I pointed out above, but another inaccurate portrayal of my stand comes up in the phrase ?in most everything he said and wrote...? I do NOT promote that at all. Everything he WROTE to us grads is true. TNDC page 34 NOT everything he wrote is God-breathed. PFFAL page 83 As for ?most everything he said? VERBALLY, I have laid out here a priority scale, where his class tapes and most publicly taped teachings come first. Then in descending order are the not so public tapes, the non-taped teachings, the small gatherings, the private conversations. The last entry is a real killer. Entire splinter groups (plural) are based on this lowest of surety levels in what Dr said in private conversations. I?m very distant with these lower entries. [This message was edited by Mike on April 22, 2003 at 18:15.]

I?m cracking my knuckles and getting ready to go back to some substantial posting. Not that this give and take isn?t substantial, but I mean substance of the PFAL record that got lost. I?m willing to answer questions and absorb punches here, sometimes, because I feel many of you were robbed of the chance to confront the actual persons who did you harm. I sometimes feel like a surrogate punching bag for Dr, or Craig, or other villains in the TVT. If it helps, I?ll handle it to get the real message across. I want to post soon some material that is SURE to set off some knee jerk responses, and some of these responses are called for and some are not, I?ll never know. I?m asking to see if you all are ready for an exercise in associative resistance. I want to post something that will SURELY provoke the normal protestations on the sex issues. I don?t WANT this next material to provoke these negative responses, but it surely will. Here?s what I?m asking: Can everyone TRY to temporarily suspend their watchfulness for the sex angle to trip me up on, when I post this next material??? Here?s why: It?s so that the much more subtle issue, which I want to point out in the following discussion, isn?t drowned in the flood of the usual sex comments. This much more subtle issue is right in line with this thread?s long lost topic in it?s latest form: our SPIRITULAL relationship with Jesus Christ, and what we were taught about it, but didn?t pick up on in our first exposure to this Word, even though it was in print or on tape. So, is everyone up to this challenge, to hold your horses on the sex angle? JUST TEMPORARILY! And focus ONLY on the Jesus Christ connection? We may need to discuss it a little.

Zixar, Several times here at GS I have reminded us that there are three forms of satanic attack. I was not talking about possession, but oppression. Jesus had ds oppression in the desert and at other times. WHY, when devil spirits are mentioned, do people ALWAYS think of possession? What about OPPRESSION? Did you know Jesus Christ was oppressed by spirits? In the desert he saw a vision and heard a voice and was abducted. He successfully resisted this oppression. "HAVING a devil spirit..." can happen in two ways, and even a third. 1) - possession - this is what most think whenever a ds is mentioned. It's pretty extreme. 2) - oppression - this is FAR more common, and even Jesus had to deal with these. The more spiritual a man is the more spirits he'll have whispering revelations in his ear, and the more necessary exact mastery of Father's words is. All the top leadership had to deal with a host of these ds whisperings we've never seen. Mastering the genuine is a must in recognizing the counterfeit nature of these whisperings. 3) - Satan - the indirect 5-senses transmission of ds whisperings, pressures, pleasures, etc.

Karmnicdebt, IT was YOU who first contacted me, and MANY times! When you asked me to stop calling (or returning your calls) I did. And there are those who have asked me to stay here. Go derail their threads why don't you?

Goey, I wrote to you: ?Your disapproval of God's sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh's pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam's prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.? First of all, a little more background info. Balaam?s right-on prophecy, that made it into written form, was very short. Here it is in Numbers 22:7-10 And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel. How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? or how shall I defy, whom the LORD hath not defied? For from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. Who can count the dust of Jacob, and the number of the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his! Now, to relate this to standards. God injected His Word into the world in these later years in a way that would not alert the adversary or the adversary?s programmed religious systems of thought. This injected Word got, the pure revelation, got put into a printed form that was perfect enough to pass God?s standards of what was needed to do the job. This implanted Word, planted right under our noses, was distributed to bookcases around the world before the adversary knew it. God utilized the services of a man who, according to the adversary?s programmed religious systems of thought of the day, was NOT qualified to bring forth this Word. I have never used the phrase MOGFOT, with any great deliberation. I don't see it yet in the books at all. I don?t try to argue for Dr qualifying to that in any of my posts. I simply argue that he qualifies, IN GOD?S EYES, to receive this perfect revelation, and to bring this Word into written form. Just like Balaam would be THOUGHT by most people today to be INCAPABLE of getting a revelation correct, worthy of Biblical status, VPW is THOUGHT by most people today to be INCAPABLE of getting a revelation correct. The adversary?s programmed religious systems of thought of the day, dictate that people disqualify Balaam, yet scripture sustains him. His prophecy was right-on, and beautiful to lovers of the God of Isreal, and insulting to God?s enemies. Balaam was right-on, in spite of his obvious moral character flaws. Not only did he have character flaws, he was in the act of committing them to the adversary?s use. YET he still got it right. So the standard of the scriptures, applied to Balaam, says that Balaam is NOT disqualified to bring forth the Word, in spite of the disapproval of the religious readers of the Bible. And the standard of the scriptures, applied to VPW, says that he is NOT disqualified to bring forth the Word, in spite of the disapproval of the religious readers of the his life. However you switch standards when this issue of possibly disqualifying VPW comes up. You don?t use the standard of the scriptures, you use the to the adversary?s programmed religious systems of thought. There?s your double standard. BTW your exposition of Balaam was well done. *************************** I think if you realize I?m NOT trying to prop up some formal MOGFOT doctrine, with all the succession trappings, then it?ll be easier to see what I AM saying. I never thought that Dr was placed in charge of the world. In a practical sense he was the ONLY guy with kind of solid answers I wanted, and that?s still pretty much the case. Sure God has other men doing other jobs. I?ve always believed that. Getting the Word into written form is a big enough job for Dr to have been given. Running the world was far from his duties. Duke C once wrote a short Way Magazine article to this effect, that I am searching for. All my argumentation here is to the objections that God gave the perfect revelations to Dr so that it could be put into near perfect written form. God did that before, and Balaam is just one example. I would never argue that Balaam was even close to being the practical mogfot. There?s nothing in what I?m exposing that would give anyone an RC like right to succession to Dr?s fictitious ?mogfot? throne. ******** P.S. There?s a short reference to Balaam in the Book of Revelation. It?s not referring to Balaam?s right-on prophecy, but to his lust for riches. ******** You asked: ?BTW , why are you appealing to OT scripture which according to you are "unreliable remnants." Now that does appear to be somewhat of a double standard.? There is a different standard of reliability enjoyed by the OT over the NT. I believe that the OT was comparatively protected by lots of things. The OT people didn't have spirit so they NEEDED more help. The did have an entire culture built on the revelations to Moses. That culture was designed by God to be good at transmitting the texts to Jesus. If there were big text problems, John the Baptist would have fixed it in his preparing the way. IN CONTRAST, the culture of the NT church and its written records was chaotic. They were fallen spiritually and under great persecution. I still use my KJV for lots of things, especially in my memory. I see KJV verses every day in studying PFAL. I try my best to keep track of the differing surety levels involved. [This message was edited by Mike on April 22, 2003 at 14:53.]

karmicdebt, Why would you even TRY to guess the details of someone?s personal life from so few clues? Even if your accuracy were better (it?s bad) what profit would it do you to see the inner motivations of my heart? Or of anyone else?s heart? Your judgmentalism is what what makes all religion stinky, and it doesn?t do anything flattering for you either. Why don?t you address the details of gospel more than gossip?

Oakspear, No, I have no reason, nor intention of pi$$ing you off. I have simply stated that this particular issue has no sway with me. You?re NOT just raising the question, you?re raising it over, and over, and over, along with others who bring up the same thing over, and over, and over. The reason you?re insulted is I have STRONGLY stated my stand, and you can be satisfied ONLY with me rolling over and saying ?Uncle.? Prepare for the frustration of no satisfaction, because it ain?t coming from me. If my being intractable to all you can conjure makes you insulted, prepare for more, because I?m not going to consider this issue any more, than I did ten years ago. I?m settled on it. You wrote: ?Since (as I documented above) obeying man's laws IS obeying God's law (as long as they don't conflict), then we ARE NOT talking about two realms of activity? I?m unimpressed with your documentation and with your argument. The ?(as long as they don't conflict)? that you so casually dismiss is the whole point. They conflict. God wins. Period. Commerce was not a part of the heart of the ministry. You are looking at the outward form. Same with the status trappings. Open your eyes to the greater reality of God intervening to give us His Word. Your protests are useless. Money and status are what the world worships, and I learned how to not regard them under Dr?s ministry. I reject your judgement on these items. I have an access to his motives which you reject: his written words. You attempt to recall them, I re-read them. I see his heart and you don?t. Come and see.

Zixar, Please feel free to answer any of the questions I've asked the others here. It's very instructive to examine fundamental assumptions and beliefs. Our belief in the original Bible is about the most basic belief we have. Strengthening it by close examination is spiritually profitable. However this forum may not be the best place for everyone to do it. The adversarial atmosphere is not the most conducive to successfully answering that question. I somewhat understand why no one wants to answer it here, and with me. However, it?s good to think about on one?s own, at the very least. I?ve been adversarial about presenting this question, but upon discussion, I?d be a strong proponent of the original Bible being the perfect, pure God-breathed Word.

Goey, You seem to have missed the part where I said any and all of the permutations COULD be the case. I don?t care about the exact mechanics or the exact conversations. I offered one possibility. So drop that line of inquiry; it?s a dead end for you. As far as morals, you have completely ignored my often stated observance of GOD?S ultimate ownership of everything in this world, both physical and mental. Since you completely ignore this, I feel very free to completely ignore you pompous moralizing. Your copyrighteous indignation will not deter me from respecting the work that God in injecting His Word into the world. Your disapproval of God?s sneak attack on the adversary is as solid as Lindbergh?s pacifism. I suppose you tore Balaam?s prophecy out of your Bible, because he was dishonest. If not, please explain this double standard.

Oakspear, I see the non-footnoted books as a bigger deal than you. In this view the importance of these books eclipses the kingdom of man. I said long ago in my posting efforts here that I have NO PROBLEM with the issues raised here or elsewhere about plagiarism or copyright infringement. Those two words (plagiarism or copyright infringement) belong to entirely different and distantly separate arenas of activity than the one Dr ministered in. Commerce and Academia were NOT a part of Dr's ministry to us. Dr didn?t do it for the money nor the status. He could have gotten MUCH more elsewhere, so I see him as having given up those motivations. I reject your judgement of his heart?s intentions. I see those two words and all they entail, including all the moral man-made baggage you are capable of conjuring up, as utterly trivial and your preoccupation with them laughable. Now there is another area where I feel some similar sentiments... and some not similar. When people talk of Dr?s so called violations of this ethics area of plagiarism or copyright infringement I REALLY blow off the charges with little thought. Not so in the area of the sex accusations. There I know that more is involved, and damage is much more serious, because people?s hearts are involved. I?m very focused when people hurt in the sex area, but these issues with Dr and other authors bores me silly. People who have benefited greatly don?t give a hoot about the footnotes. Neither do I.

Zixar, Looks like you beat me to the punch on e-books info. I've done a little asking around, but not enough yet. It looks inevitable that those things will be all around in the near future. The ONE hang-up I see are inaccuracies. Have you ever tried proofreading? It?s HARD! The scanning and OCR are very easy, but the formatting is not so easy. I tried a chapter once, and it took much longer than I expected. Then the proofreading got more than tedious. Some people can do that better than others, but I fear some will do a bad job, and there?ll be all sorts of variant readings. Sounds like the first century fragments all over again.

Zixar, Which one should I ask?

MJ, We are supposed to imitate Christ and do the work he did. Do you try? Do you not like it when I try? Who are you being loving to in your life? You can try that here, you know. Dan, Dan, your idea of unsupervised reading of the materials is exactly what I've been proposing. The yellowing of the paper will soon be a thing of the past. I?ve heard a steady stream of rumors for almost ten years now, that there are MANY grads feeding the books into computers all over the globe. Just like the video class was practically driven into the public domain when TWI started stonewalling bigtime in 1988, the closing of the bookstore sent many more people to computer stores for the latest OCR and scanning software and hardware. Just a few months ago, a poster here reported having received an unsolicited CD in the mail with all of Dr?s books on it. I predict that at least ten such CDs will be floating around for the takers in no time. Dizzydog, You wrote: ?The point is that God's Word is available to the one who hungers and thirsts after righteousness. God will feed him. Mike's limited view of God's ability reach the man who wants to know him is telling. As I quoted before there were many writers but one author. I see God as the hero and VPW as a man.? God = the hero VPW= the man I?ll buy that. Hey! I?ve already BOUGHT that, long ago, and post to that effect too. You STOLE my idea!!! Yes, I know God will feed to fill the hunger. Unfortunately the adversary?s got many thinking that there?s ONLY so much available, so they never cultivate their hunger to the maximum. It would seem like sin, if they?re not properly taught. So, God WANTS to feed men even more than they want. This limits God?s ability to deliver. Another thing that limits God here is that HE needs to find a man who can not only teach maximum receiving from God, this teacher must OF COURSE be able to receive the teaching directly from God, with no printed backup, if he?s the first to hear this. God had a hard time getting the mystery through to Peter directly, and HE STILL had a hard time after it got through to Paul and was put into written form. Big ideas are not so easy for God to teach directly. Once God finds one man who is capable of receiving a big revelation into writing, then others can more easily follow by reading it. Paul says this in Ephesians and Colossians, that he was the ONLY one to get it directly, but by reading we can get it now by rising up to it.

WordWolf You wrote: ?In the case of storytelling to little children, (or adults), the expectation unless told otherwise is that you are passing along a story that you've heard. I've enjoyed hearing such stories, and enjoyed passing them along. (Having a high-recall is great for reciting entire stories verbatim.) When referring to things anecdotally, however, I always give my source. That's usually considered intellectually honest, and is expected of my by everyone whom I respect. (Including some sharp children.) ? It is the case that Dr was totally up front with us (some will remember) about his ?authorship? and how he went from place to place, person to person to receive the things he taught. He told us that everything he knew he was taught. We assumed God was involved, but we also knew about Adv. Class Key #4, and that he worked the 5-senses approach. We were told that the origination of ideas is not a big deal in the CONTEXT of God?s family, because God was the real originator anyway. He not only told us about his adventures finding things and getting taught things by other men. but he also gave us their names verbally. He also sold some of those authors? books in his bookstore. For us sharp kids who were there, the EXPECTATATION was properly set. Anyone who thinks these many verbal disclaimers were insufficient will have a hard time getting me to pick them on my sandlot team to play baseball. You then wrote: ?Now, unless you're trying to say that vpw's collateral readings were morally and situationally equivalent to bedtime stories to children, that's another strawman.? No, I was trying to say that many grads were (and still are) in the category of spiritual babies. You then wrote: ?B) Technically speaking, I suppose I could dream up dozens of theoretical ways that vpw's sentences could mysteriously duplicate those of other authors that he'd been previously exposed to.? Why not keep it simple then. God said look over at that book. ?Copy this set of paragraphs, but change this and that.? After that scenario, I?m satisfied. You can take your morals and apply them any way you want, but I?m not buying it. He did the right thing. It helped thousands. Still does. I?m glad he did it. Your moralizing on this bores me, and I will not bee moved. You then wrote: ?So, if I NOW understand correctly, you've been exposed to the learnings of OTHER CHristians, and you STILL honestly believe there's no REAL wisdom outside of pfal?? Inncorecto AGAIN! Are you in some kind of contest to see who gets me wrong the most? Think it through with heart logic, not the constricted thoughts you display. Tell me this, HOW could Dr go out there and get all this wisdom (or partial wisdom) from all these different places, and then I come along and say something as stupid as you just described? There?s LOTS of wisdom out there, it?s just partial in one place and mixed with disabling error in another. Dr was the first in 2000 years that got it, BY GOD?S HELP, all together so that we could do it. Tell me this, HOW could there be that entry on the green card about separating truth from error, if there?s no truth out there to do the separating ON? Why don?t you think these things through? Is it because you think I don?t think them through, and that sooner or later you?ll find a contradiction in my story? You still haven?t answered me why you want a ?better? definition of ?master.? Do you think I forgot? I also have been dishing out the questions, and I expect answers. Why do you believe the Bible? Do you believe it? Answers! Answers! Cough ?em up! You wrote: ?Let me know if you really do want to address the whole idea-theft concept. Normally, you evade it whenever possible, but I'm game to supporting my view if you're game.? Like I said, I?m bored with that one. Tell me what you think of Deut.29:29. How can you say ?normally evade? with a clear conscience? We?ll see how many questions you answer.

WordWolf, Have you ever read a bedtime story to a little child? Have you ever memorized one so that it could be told in the dark? Do you think it?s immoral if you were the storyteller in such a situation with real children, to tell the story, and not footnote it with references? What if the child thinks that you wrote it, and this becomes apparent to you? Would you think it your duty to inform the child that, no, you didn?t write it? Do you think it would hurt the child? Would the child be interested? ******** As far as the mechanics goes, why do you think it has to be cut and dry? There are many permutations of how things could have gone between Dr and the other authors. Some could have even given him verbal permission. Have you looked into that? With some, it could have been an accurate revelation for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to use it. Or to use only part because the other part is corrupted. Or to use part because the other part is to a different audience. Or to use part, because the revelation changed for the other part. With some it could have been a 5-senses thing they came up with for their audience. Then Dr comes along and sees it with his 5-senses, and God tells him spiritually to re-write it to get it perfect With some it could have been THEY TOO got it from some other author, and all of the above permutations apply. I find your characterizations of these possibilities most disappointing. Think it through better. You wrote: ? Mike, If you spend significant amounts of time among learned Christians who never heard of vpw or twi, you'll make at least one amazing discovery.... They've learned amazing things that somehow were never part of our "education". ? If you had read me better you?d know that I agree with this, and I DID THIS very thing all through my life. It was only five years ago that I started focusing exclusively on PFAL. You ASSUMED I had not done this because MANY people influenced by the TVT DID have this problem. I did not. I frequented other churches and academic institutions. Often TVT leadership would criticize me for ?spreading myself thin.? I would remind them that Dr said all leaders should read the Harvard Classics. That shut them up. I?m all for the rounding of education, and I?m all for mastering PFAL.

Oh Mj! Are you having fun? What do you get out of this? Can you imagine Jesus Christ carrying on like you are?

Oakspear, I like the thread you started on the hippies. Before I was shown Dr?s last teaching I tried many theories on what went right, what went wrong, and what can we do about it. There were MANY things I looked in during this phase from around 1987 to ?98, but one of the biggest projects I had going was a study of the sixties and the hippies. The reason I did this was because of Dr?s home run of going to SF and signing up the hippies. To hear Dr on old SNS tapes from this time trying to prepare the Ohio farmers for what he knew were coming to summer school 1969 is very interesting. My theory was that it was the hippie ?element? that broke Dr?s ministry out of OHIO and nationwide. Dr tried to do this in previous years, but it was the hippie element that moved it fast and far. The jocks helped too, but they couldn?t have done it without the hippies. I know this FOR SURE, that if it weren?t for a bunch of hippies telling me that Dr was cool, in spite of his hayseed looks and redneck accent, I?d have NEVER listened to two minutes of his teaching.

Hi Ginger, It is VERY hard to change the mind when these kind of hurts are raging. I spent two solid years fighting off ds of revenge and other bad things that the terrible soap opera of my life tempted me with. I?m not talking about Dr here, but previous best friends and close leadership in the West here. On some low ebbs in that two years I had to fight off ds attacks like this a hundred times in one day. I did change my mind there, but it?s still weak. I thank God that He protected me so well in how I?ve simply not seen a single one of my tormentors in years. If I had called them up, or gone to their house, or talked with any of their close friends, my irritation would have slowed my healing. When people hurt bad in these areas, like I did once, then it?s important to not tempt God and engage in heavy reminders of what is still troublesome. We all have areas of hurt that are VERY difficult to deal with. Sometimes the hurt is because WE were not so smart about something, sometimes it?s because someone ELSE was malicious, sometimes it?s both. For me it was both. The past can?t be changed, but NOW I can place myself and my thoughts where the hurt isn?t going to get worse. We all must make practical decisions like that. I think as we all come back and get PFAL right, people like Exy will get a big, wonderful, but perfectly gentle push in the right direction of PFAL by God, or some trusted friend, or both. When there is a well functioning support system of PFAL re-believers, then people like her will be much more enabled to walk away from the crap of the past and enjoy the benefits of what DID go right in Dr?s ministry to us.

Oakspear, I finally got to you. Can you tell me WHY Dr needed to clutter up his collaterals with footnotes? I can think of some reasoins why he didn't. I'm glad he didn't. If he had, that'd be ONE more distraction I'd have to have dealt with as a young believer. I'm glad he simplified it for us. Are you saying that the rules of the academy are paramount? Even when one isn't playing their game? Will I have to repeadedly post my questions to you to get them answered? How do you answer the questions I asked dizzydog and Zixar? What do you think of Deut 29:29, that is (thanks to MJ's timely reminder) for our learning? What have you learned from that scripture as it applies to your copyrighteous indignation?

InvisibleDan, Thank you for admitting that yours was a hunch, that PFAL is not as rich as I portray it. And, if it was the case that VPW wrote or pulled together the class by his 5-senses, than everything you said would be how I place my bet also. The difference in our approaches comes here: WHAT IF God really did give Dr revelation to teach it the way he taught it. THEN it could well be the case that there is hidden richness in PFAL that we simply didn?t see the first time through. All through the PFAL writings is the notion of coming back, and doing it again. It was designed to be mined a second time for hidden treasures. How do I know this? I dared to obey Dr?s final instructions to look closely in mastering it. THAT?S when it started to unfold before my very eyes. In Volume V, ?Order My Steps In Thy Word,? Dr?s last book, he says this on page 26: ?Take a microscope, even a low-powered one. Focus under its lens an eyeglass, for example. You would see some imperfections in the glass, although perhaps only a few. Next, focus a high-powered microscope on the same eyeglass. You will find that the more high-powered the microscope, the greater the imperfec- tions that will be seen in the glass. There are imperfections in anything man-made. ?This example of the eyeglass demonstrates a principle. The more high-powered the micro-scope used to observe the works of man, the more imperfect the object appears. On the other hand, the more high-powered the microscope used to look upon something that God formed or made, the more perfect and orderly it appears. The closer the scrutiny of God's Word, the more obvious become its beauty and perfection. It is only a man who uses a poor microscope who never sees the great- ness of God's Word. He does not observe it to see its perfection.? When I set myself down to begin mastering , looking at PFAL with a high-power microscope, when I decided to do this it wasn?t because I already believed it was OF GOD. I already thought it was ?sort of? of God, but it was very vague and waning in recent decades. I simply did it out of obedience. I saw that NO ONE ELSE thought Dr?s last teaching was worth anything or they didn?t know anything about it at all. When told, most reverted to the ?no care? attitude anyway. I thought with such PROFOUND disregard for this last teaching, maybe it was spiritual, and that the adversary didn?t want us to know about it. I couldn?t attribute this synchronized rejection of this last teaching and it?s instructions to master to the true God, because the reasons different people and different splinter groups gave for ignoring it were so disparate. It?s when I came back to PFAL that I discovered that your hunches were wrong. There?s MUCH awaiting us there.

Zixar, You wrote: ?He has admitted that he intentionally dodges any question he doesn't want to answer.? There are MANY questions I don?t want to answer, due to a greater desire to get on with the thread topic, but I do answer them anyway. I have said repeatedly that working AEs in the improper manner deserves dodging. Did you INTENTIONALLY misrepresent me there, or did you not realize the fine distinction? If it?s the latter, I?d suggest reading more carefully. But speaking of unanswered questions, do you practice what you preach, or imply is proper? Do you answer all my questions? How about the ones I asked dizzydog? How about the ?Why Believe the Bible? question I?ve repeated in your presence? Is it ok for you to dodge my questions, and all the while accuse me of some dishonesty because I answer only 60 percent of the many that are thrown my way? Want to give me a dollar for every person here who has dodged my questions? Will the pervious question be dodged? Will this one be dodged?

Exy, Have you read what?s on the ?Open? forum?s ?I LIKE MIKE? thread? I thought we already went through the ?father in the Word? thing. I regard him as MY father in the Word. It hurts me that he hurt you, and that you still hurt. It?s a family thing, and it hurts me to see you not comfortable with what he did right. Your total healing will not go faster by me shutting up on what I believe. Your total healing will go faster as you focus on good. If my posts remind you of bad, you can either avoid them or learn to think differently when you see them. If you want to talk privately, that?s available with me but you?ll need to trust me too. But dealing your issues in public, in a hot public debate, and how to not offend you... it?s much too big a task for me to always do well.

alfakat, If Dr and the men who taught him were engaging in commerce, then it wasn?t right for Dr to use what someone else had ?come up with.? The copyright laws are to promote the commerce of intellectual property. But Dr and Kenyon and Styles and the others were NOT doing it for commerce. They were doing it for the glory of God. It was all within the family. If you want to elevate the arena of commerce to a higher level than God?s family, that may be fine for your life, but I reject it. Similarly, if Dr had been engaging in the work of ?the academy? which is now known as academic studies, then for the sake of the learning students, plagiarism would be not cool. He?d be expelled from the university, because both students and faculty are strenuously engaged in furthering knowledge, not shifting it around. Again, not so in God?s family, where sharing things around with all is THE RULE, not the prohibition. Alfakat, you are applying the rules of one game to another. It don?t work. If you want something on the spiritual side of intellectual ownership, here is what I lean on: The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Deut. 29:29

dizzydog, Well you sure have given me a bunch of homework to do! I hope you aren?t the kind of debater who thinks he?s won if he doesn?t get an immediate comeback form his opponent. Because of the immediacy of the medium (Marshall McLuhan where are you?) I?ll take a stab at a few, and then call it a day. Your post may be around longer than you, so I?ll be working on it for the folks out there in TV land (Newton Minnow where are you?) *** You wrote: ?When did VPW tell us to view PFAL with the attitude that it is the authoritative Word of God?? In those 90 ?thus saith the lord? statements. Have you seen the three that are handled in earlier posts? *** Again I?m seeing an assumption in your writing, and when I confront it YOU are the one to ignore and back away. I?ve asked you several ways ?How do you put the Word of God in your hand and read it?? In the class (segment 16, corresponding to page 127 in the book) Dr. says: "No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's all we have today at best are translations. No translation may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!" Then a minute later he repeats: "Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone a version, no translation may properly be called The Word Of God..." Then several minutes later he hits it again: "And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was originally given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Have you incorporated the heart of this into your religion? Or have you forgotten that Dr spoke these words to us? *** Another area of my questioning you is Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching. Why have you avoided my questions about your knowledge or ignorance of it, and your obedience of disobedience of it? If you obey it, do you encourage or discourage others to do it too, or are you just mum on that? If you do obey it, HOW? *** There is great simplicity in truth. In dealing with the error that has crept into your life by responding to your posted errors, I have great complications to deal with. I?m up to the task, even though this task of wading through your encrusted religion is not easily entreating. It?s no treat at all, it?s work. *** You wrote: ?And yes I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God. No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ. Why have you minimized that? I'll tell you why, you dont believe it.? Hold on, here come some surprises. Dr didn?t teach us that the Bible is the Word of God. He taught us the Bible is the REVEALED Word of God. You lost one important word in his teaching. However, for THIS context it?s not critical. This context is what is coming up in your post paragraph above. In the context of this thread, the difference of having the word ?revealed? in there or not is critical. Moving on, I?d agree with the what comes next: ?No seeming to think about it. I can still open the scriptures for someone who is dead in trespasses and sins and show them the way from death unto life, Jesus Christ.? Surprised? I do not minimize this value of this. I thank God it?s true. What you CAN?T do for that person, after successfully getting them to Romans 10:9, is to get them to all nine all the time. God wants TWO things for people, and with an approximate KJV understand augmented with an approximate PFAL mastery, I totally expect you to be able to do a lot good towards the first. God wants all men saved AND to come to a knowledge of the truth, and that?s not ?head knowledge? but utilizing the truth in power and in love. You can help people with what you know with the first part, getting holy spirit into them. But you need more accuracy to get them to go all the way. You, yourself, have to first go all the way with God?s plan, learning the ?other? six manifestations, before you can teach them. That?s what PFAL is for. *** More than once you called me a troll. Would you call Peter a troll for his last epistle, in which he sought to stir up people to see greater things? I?m not pointing at me, I?m pointing at some writings that were bigger than the man who penned them, because God had His hand in them. Why do you hate this?

This is in no way my total response, in that I must leave soon. You seem to have the impression that your KJV is the Word of God. It's not; it's only an approximate tool. You also seem to have the impression that because PFAL is a class on keys, that that's the ONLY thing it can be. I see it as a God-breathed KJV aid. It teaches the keys authoritatively.