Mike

Which "them" do you mean? When was the last time you had coffee or a long phone call with a TWI-4 person? You seem to be convinced that TWI-4 is the same as the previous administrations. Do you take it on faith, or old TWI-3 or TWI-2 memories, or reports from other people? As for me, I check these things out myself and face-to-face. There were years with TWI-2 and -3 where this is impossible. They were behind closed doors for fear of the grads, whenever I tried to contact them, which was once every few years. But that started changing a few years ago.

Yes. What's the advantage to dispensing with that common figure of speech or symbol for the entire sensory system of a human. This is not neuroscience so "5-senses" communicates just fine. Getting the number of senses accurate is not necessary. Do you realize that?

I am looking for simple quick symbols to eliminate frequent referral to long phrases. It's JUST and abbreviation to same time in typing and take less visual space. This is a common tactic in complicated science discussions all the time.

No just tinkering for discussion clarity.

What I try to imagine, as a mental exercise, is how would we tell the friends and relatives of Uriah and Bathsheba that David was a good guy? To perform this mental exercise, you must still have the ability to put VPW off to the side. Do you still have that mental skill, or has the habit of invoking the usual anti-idol convinced you that a closed mind is appropriate here. Whenever I bring up the damage David caused here, the knee-jerk response is to shove that damage under the rug and to proclaim all anti-praise to the anti-idol. Thinking about this is threatening to the anti-idol that is so loved. It is the damage from David that I think of, and how did some of them recover from that damage. Do you think David repenting was very soothing to them? If you were one of them, what would convince you that David's repenting was genuine. How does David's genuine repenting help the people who were damaged by David? Nowadays WE know David's repenting was genuine, because it is written in God's Word that he repented. But I am asking HOW did any of those damaged people recognize it was genuine? Have you ever pondered this, or does the anti-idol forbid it? Do you think the devil interfered with them recognizing the validity of David's actions that were involved in his repenting? How might that be done? Just some un-thunk thoughts to think about. How sure are you that VPW never repented? How can evidence ever prove a negative like that? Negative evidence can certainly generate negative feelings, but do feelings prove anything? I think my idea of looking for evidence of blessings can prove a lot. Did Solomon ever repent?

I am tinkering with terminology for simplification in discussions. This is a standard trick in science, to invent differing symbols for distinguishing very similar items from each other. It is just a shorthand system for clarity. In texting with an science "innie" friend, I proposed my TWI-x symbols, and found out he did the same thing in discussions with other innies, except he used Roman Numerals where I used dash numbers. Necessity is the mother of invention.

My whole business revolves around repeat business, so I understand you. So far, I have a policy of not tithing in the direction of the legal corporation. I give cash at times to individuals, but not if I think they feel an obligation to turn it over to HQ. I pay attention to HQ, and I give advice to HQ, because I see good potential in TWI-4. I have purposely shed my TWI-2 and TWI-3 suspicions, when I saw the performance of TWI-4 people on the field here and face-to-face for a few years now. You are correct about the business model of the legal T.W.I. legal corporation. I use the periods in T.W.I. to distinguish the legal corporation that does not change over time when the spiritual side does, as in TWI-1, -2, -3, -4. I think of the periods in T.W.I. as grounding anchors, locking it into the 5-senses Earth, while the dash numbered TWIs are the spiritual gift ministries (if any) that are in charge. An earthly ministry, according to the newly forged Mike Dictionary, is a 5-senses extension of a person's gift ministry from God. I learned long ago to look in a leader person's wake to see who is getting blessed as they pass by. If I want to know whether a person has a spiritual gift ministry from God or not, I do not go by the nametag. If there are a lot of extremely blessed people in their wake, I take note and suspect a gift ministry is functioning. I never look to Reverend titles any more for any kind of guarantee. I see those titles as for the less PFAL informed non-grads. I was taught in the 70s that the Reverend titles were only for people outside the ministry to see, like the family of grads. The Reverend title was useful in assuring the families of marrying grads that the marriage ceremony is "official" in both God's eyes and the government's eyes. A Reverend presiding over a grad funeral is comforting to family in our culture. So the Reverend stuff was only supposed to be for outsiders, but it got changed over time. I haven't heard a single person bringing this "only for show" aspect of Reverend titles up for discussion in TWI in 40 years. Eventually the Reverend titles got merged with the notion of gift ministries, and now everyone looks at name tags to I.D. the gift ministries. Which gift ministry a person got was usually left a mystery. These are loose ends that demand their own E.C.N. in my opinion. */*/*/* The business model of T.W.I. is certainly in conflict with the gift ministries in TWI. The other day I proposed that some brainstorming is appropriate to think through dissolving, and split T.W.I. into 2 corporations, one for the maintaining of real estate, marketing of materials, and distribution of classes, and another minimal corporation for communications in the spiritual fellowship end. The Way Tree was supposed to be temporary, but that was totally forgotten. Resurrecting this notion of a finite lifetime to the Way Tree should accompany corporate brainstorming.

You wrote: This is all a sadistic, ridiculous joke. And the ridiculous has earned the ridicule. I can’t blame you. My hunch is you haven’t seen my stuff before this year? Do you mind telling me when you first took PFAL’68, if ever? Do you mind telling me when you first started reading GreaseSpot? You profile says you started posting here just this year, but you could have been here before under another name. You are reacting very similar to a certain large percentage of the posters here 20 years ago when I first showed up. Some thought I was joking, many thought I was a WayGB spy, one thought a spy for someone’s lawyer, or for the police, others a simple troll. If I had not had the peculiar introduction to this message I preach (that the 1942 promise was real, and the fulfillment of it was real, and in print) I’d a have thought similarly. It is definitely not sadistic, but it is very odd. It is like God and VPW snuck it in under our noses. Pawtucket checked me out in person, here in San Diego, to be sure I wasn’t a nutcase. I was good friends with a good friend of his who lived here. We met, and talked, and shook hands, and he gave me a GreaseSpot T-shirt. I imagine he was well aware of how I was sort of kidnapped into posting here, as I mentioned the other day. Sometimes I can hardly believe it myself, that all the route I took really happened. It has been a long strange trip. But definitely not sadistic. I am often thinking of the families of Uriah and of Bathsheba, and how they lived their lives after David’s sin, to help me empathize with the many who got hurt in various ways. I know someday every tear will be wiped away. Christmas Day is my 20 year anniversary posting here. I’m trying to decide if I should wrap it up, say mission accomplished, I delivered my message, and move on to the next short strange trip. Or stay here and do a Phase 2 of some sort. Reading Charlene’s book has been a huge nostalgia trip for me, a 50 year anniversary one for me at Rye and later at HQ. I am reliving a lot of that time, and a lot of the time I first posted here voluntarily. I was a groupie for the Research Dept when Charlene was there. I talked to a few other people associated with that Department or in it, but I was too shy to talk to her. My landlady in the town of New Knoxville was a researcher for VPW, and her husband was an editor of the PFAL book, with VPW and Karen Martin. I look back on all this and wonder how it all fell into place the way it did. I never would have dreamed I’d be spending huge amounts of time and focus this way. One of the big things I need to decide is whether or not I should post on Charlene's thread, about her book. I think I refrained doing that, but did address her or something like that on another thread she posted on. At least I hope I refrained from posting on her thread announcing her book. I wouldn’t want to drag you guys in there with me, tracking mud on her nice clean floors, and rough housing. With my vision challenges I have posted on the wrong threads before. I’m pretty sure I know how Charlene thinks the Research Department was cheating, because I got that same hunch just from some SNT tapes, about 4 times. Then I mentioned here the two research guys who told me the same at HQ around 1976, 77. This is not a new revelation. I have posted this here, but long ago. */*/*/* So Nathan_Jr, how can I prove to you that I’m not being sadistic? Wanna come to San Diego and have coffee?

That is complicated, and explaining it all is too wordy. I am swamped with Christmas stuff, family, etc. TWI-4 is close to doing what you suggest, except the show the film class under very restricted conditions. I have all kinds of suggestions for them on this. One is that they sell a nice boxed set of the PFAL on dvd format. They could include a nice hard-bound transcript and sell the whole thing for $200. I'll bet all the many grads with crumby VHS copies would be happy to get a high quality version of what they already have. How could TWI object to that? They pretty much have moth-balled it now. Less than under TWI-2 and TWI-3 moth-balled it, but close, by restricting it to a remote location, once or twice a year. I have suggested this to a few already.

The book pages are 221 to 223. You can borrow the book from Internet Archive dot org for an hour, so I hear. Just type "wierwille texts" in the search bar. I already posted the transcript under "fair use" but l thought I ought to minimize quotes to that. I don't want to rock the boat too much for Pawtucket or for my new relationships with TWI.

I found the both posts and to them. The WW post was easy and fun and is here: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/10/#comment-624968 I was in general agreement with him and my response flowed in harmony here: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/13/#comment-625100 */*/*/*/* T-Bone’s post went entirely different. He started it out with a major error here: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/9/#comment-624957 I was in completer disagreement with T-Bone’s opening paragraphs about “Jesus reducing.” That whole section was deleted from thePFAL book, so T-Bones base of operations for the rest of the thread was faulty. I plan to read the rest to see if there is anything useful to me or others. Here was how I responded to him and proved it was not in the book: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/14/#comment-625132

That was a scrap you quoted, I thought I had discarded in an earlier draft. It accidentally appeared on my post, but I deleted it just now. Please disregard it. The post I did about an hour ago was more clear that that quoted text. That's why I tried to discard the part you quoted/

I terminated the quote where I did, because it switched to a totally different topic, and one where surety terminates, the kind of surety that stems from rightly dividing the Word. Just as my personal experiences, or yours, are never to be used to determine doctrine, nether are the personal experiences of another (like VPW) going to enter my working the Word to rightly divide it and determine doctrine. That’s what VPW meant when he said things like sincerity, experiences, and feelings are never a guarantee for truth. In fact, they can often lead away from the truth. */*/*/* You wrote: "In PFAL wierwille taught it WRONG! He simplified it - he said Jesus reduced all the law down to just 2 commandments.” Here is the section in segment 30 of the film class in which the word “reduced” appears: You start at the bottom and you rip it up. This one ripped down from|the top to the bottom. It separated out the people from the priest and made the whole territory open so that whosoever will may come. This is that great period of law which terminated with Christ. So, when Jesus Christ was here upon earth he terminated this Administration and with all those over 900 laws that are in the Old Testament Jesus Christ reduced them in practice to two and they are set forth in Matthew 22. You've heard me quote it a number of times but here today I want to read it to you again. Matthew 22:36-40: Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. On those two commandments Jesus Christ put all the Old Testament, all the law and the prophets. Someone was speaking at a meeting of the barristers, lawyers, and he just casually remarked that the Word of God said, "all the lawyers should be hanged." They said to him, "well now where did you get that idea." And he said, "well from Matthew 22 because it says 'hang the law'." Well, I don't know about that. But the Word says that Jesus Christ put all the Old Testament laws under two: love God and love your neighbor. And as I say many times "do as you fool please." Because if you love God with all of your heart, soul and strength and love your neighbor what you do will not be foolish but it will please you and it will please God because you will be doing what God wants you to do. All the green text above was totally cut out of the PFAL book, except for traces of the veil being ripped that the green text opens up with. Howq much in your analysis on this word “reduced” is reduced to ashes, because this green text and the word "reduced" was cut from the team. Look through it and see how many OTHER things you and others here lean on in this green text, not knowing that VPW deleted it? Remember how we discovered the same thing with the red drapes so many years ago? They too are not in the book! Lots of people never got the memo that many things in the film class did not make the grade for written PFAL, because most leadership ignored VPW’s call in the later years of his life to master the collaterals. The film class was supposed to be merely an introduction to the collaterals. I must have made this point in the Mike Wars almost 20 years ago a DOZEN TIMES. One of the big mistakes of ALL top leadership is locking onto their audio memory of the film class, while neglecting the more refined written versions in the collaterals. This is just another example of this very unfortunate, but nearly universal, phenomenon. Now, the big question is how many of you bozos will hold onto what VPW discarded, just so you can criticize him? One of my main themes in posting here has been you people criticize what you know not. You never mastered the collaterals, and you are stuck in the film class. Many things in the film class were revised, refined, re-written, and some things were deleted altogether, like the above. This particular, a rundown of all the administrations, is vastly simplified and …REDUCED… in the book. I’d make a quick estimate that only 20% of the film class on administrations made it to the book, and what did make it was heavily revised. I’ll say it again, that for OODLES of things you have in your mind as PFAL, are merely the film class’s introduction to the material in the books PFAL and RHST. You are on thin ice in places, and you have no idea where, because lots of it is solid. You criticize what you know not. */*/*/* Studying the book and the transcript together is VERY revealing, and I have been saying this for 20 years, yet no one listens. There are just so many changes that it is a totally shame on every leader who totally neglected to see these kinds of things. It I had the time, I would make a two column MS Word document with film class on the left and book(s) on the right for comparison. I have done that with comparing magazine articles with corresponding book chapters and the learning from such comparisons is ASTOUNDING !!! I tried once doing this very thing once, and probably have the file I made and gave up on. It was much more complicated a comparison fille than the others. Just for this section on the administrations it took me 2 hours to line up pages 221 to 223 with the exact spots in the film transcript. Like the green text above, most of the film transcript never made the book. */*/*/* Nevertheless, I will read your post again and see if there is anything in your thin ice analysis worth commenting on.

Not a new idea. I could write reams on it, but don't have time for that now. Please remember that I too left TWI, and had my adventures and learning and service far from them, and in a large variety of ways. In a nutshell, I am only now coming back to TWI, after being very absent for about 34 years. My coming back is very loose, though, as their most regular fellowships are too far a driving distance away for regular attendance by me. Arrangements were made to run the PFAL-T class VERY close to where I live last month, though, so I jumped on it. I even signed up (sort of) an old grad friend who was curious like me. Another old grad friend who stayed in was there, so it was lots of fun, and lots of learning. I am still doing all sorts of things with non-grads, just like the majority of grads who left TWI that you reported above, regarding their diaspora, and that I bold fonted. I’ve learned to integrate and work with both Christian and non-Christian groups. Each one requires a vocabulary shift, to avoid making unpleasant waves, and I simply contribute to whatever good is going on in them. Sometimes one of these experiments worked well, and sometimes not, or only for a little while. Details would fill too many scrolls up, and as usual here, too incredulous to most. I did a lot of trinity debating in the 1970s at local churches with elders and pastors, but this time I learned to keep all debate out of my dialog. I’ve met with men’s discussion groups, and learned how to magnify what we agreed on. A few times it was challenging, but I was there to give what I could and not proselytize. I knew that wouldn’t work. I don’t debate with the TWI folks here at all, either. I don’t want to disrupt their working with newer people, and I love celebrating the Word with them. When we were alone, like in a car together, the sky was the limit on talk. I could see they were like 1970s regular grads, and not at all like later 1980s Corps, demanding respect and extending a ring hand to be kissed. They earned my respect, and I theirs. I told them I was writing up my detailed review and suggestions for PFAL-T. Add to all this, I've hade voluminous texting with a couple of TWI leaders in other States. It’s all an evolving situation, much like I’d like to see situation evolve here in how I interact.

Ok, again. I will have lots of time after this week. It's a big one in my business. But like I said, I have lots of reading to do.

Oky Doky.

Pee Wee Herman. "I know you are but what am I?"

Ok, thanks, but it was the synthesis of the two commandments in your analysis that got my attention. I will check them out, though. I am way behind on responding, so I need to take a break, and just read them all to see which are important for my response. I don't think I lack much as far as UNDERSTANDING the practical applications of both commandments, though, in stark contrast to Twinky's gross misrepresentation of me to the contrary. Every day, though, is a set of challenges to me on this, as it is to us all. Love in a God rejecting world is never easy. I am very keen on NOT imitating the Corps Nazi notion that now, in this administration, it's ok and even honorable to hate thy unbelieving neighbor or enemy, sincef they aren't in the household. You got it right, the Homo Haters in the Corps were way over the top and down the drain. Good news there, though. I had a good talk about the Homo Hating people in leadership with one of the local TWI-4 leaders, an older Reverend. Though hating gay people was obviously the last thing on his mind, obvious from my rich interactions with him, he did acknowledge that this was a problem for some leaders in the past, but has been fixed internally.

I put this LATE EDIT notice on my response to your mis-representation of me above: The word “grocery” has not been processed by the GSC search engine. It may do that homework late at night. Until then you can what I actually said with no mis-representation on page 11 at the 60% mark, or at: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/11/#comment-625023

That is a VAST misrepresentation of what I wrote. Was it on purpose? I said I never considered the TWO together as a whole, like Nathan pointed out. Your Gotcha Attitude gotya back. Go back and re-read, or stay ignorant and looking stupid to careful readers. Pay attention this time when I mentioned the grocery store, and my attitude towards people I see there. The word "grocery" should be easy for the GSC search engine for you (and careful readers) to find it. LATE EDIT: The word “grocery” has not been processed by the GSC search engine. It may do that homework late at night. Until then you can what I actually said with no mis-representation on page 11 at the 60% mark, or at: https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/25378-yet-another-take/page/11/#comment-625023

Whatever! But I do believe in free will and always have, so FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, your comments to me assuming I doubt it, disqualify those from my attention on any discussion.

Here you doubt free will exists. WRONG AGAIN ! Here we are drifting fast into the "Determinism vs. Free Will" thread. What I was saying there is that I have never seen the CURRENTLY defined notion if Free Will in the Bible, nor have I seen the phrase "free will" in there with any explanation whatsoever, nor have I seen discussions in there, using synonyms, of any sort about it. If you have seen any of this, I am ALL EARS! I'd love to see it. I absolutely NEVER have doubted the practical idea of free will, starting 5 years before I took the class. That idea of practical free will was strengthened massively by VPW talking about it often, and by him giving me 3 anchors, around which I built my alternate definition and theory of that same practical notion of free will. What I doubted, and soon rejected starting about 9 years ago is the 1,000 year old TECHNICAL definition of it. This is a very complicated topic, so if you weren't taking notes during the Determinism thread, and are not taking notes now, you will NEVER sort it out.... especially if you never took a simple Physics 101 course, no calculus needed. Your Gotcha Attitude has failed you again. UNTIL you incorporate my firm belief in free will into your comments to me about it, it is a waste of my time to read your following comments that incorporate your thinking that I doubt that free will exists. Repeating: I believe in free will, the kind VPW taught, and the kind we intuitively know in practical living. I do not believe in the classical, old, mystical, anti-science, primitive, technical definition of free will. I came up with a better definition that fits with science and with determinism. It fits with everyday life practical free will feelings we have. It is not as strong as classical free will, and not as ubuiquitus. My version of free will is often under-used, and practically gone in some people under heavy attack by the adversary. Now go back to your drawing board and toss your Gotcha Attitude aside, and maybe even re-read the Determinism thread to see that what I am writing here fits with what I wrote there. When you can convince yourself that I do believe in roughly the same type of practical free will I assume (?) you believe in, THEN please re-write your recent posts to me.

No difference to me. In my mind I picture distancing a close synonym for reckoning dead. I figure a dead body smells bad and we want to distance ourself from it. I think your Gotcha Attitude caused you to have a "Complete lack of comprehension as to what is actually written" by me, while we agree on what is written in the Word on this. You need a different "Listening With a Purpose" attitude while reading my posts.

Well, unlike Nathan_Jr's post that I read in its entirety before posting, this one of yours I stopped after the opening 3 sentences. What I "pontificated" weeks ago was that everything in the micro world of atoms, and molecules, and even cells is determined by the Laws of Physics (which encompasses the laws of chemistry and biology) AND the initial conditions those exceedingly small objects are subject to. At these low levels, there is no free will, and everything is determined. But then I further theorized that when you look up to the level of a brain, there can be some free will there. I further theorized that this type of free will is not as strong as the classically defined type of free will, but it does get the job done, just not as fast and not as effortlessly as the classical free will definition promised. So your second sentence is totally wrong, nullifying your first sentence completely. */*/*/* Now this phrase in your third sentence: "...what damage has been done has been done regardless" makes no sense to me at all. I need an explanation of what this means before I can proceed with reading carefully, the rest. I'll glance at it tomorrow when I have sleep and time, but now it's too much for me to try. If you take to heart my correction of your second sentence's missing my position on this, and then re-write the remainder of your post to reflect that, I feel that would be the best way for me to proceed.