Mike

I read you whole post, and want to thank you for this discussion. */*/*/*/* We're talking past each other, again. When you say greatest commandment, I think of Jesus's explaining of the greatest commandment: love God; and like it, love your neighbor as yourself. We are close here. I differ only in that loving your neighbor is the second great commandment, I think. I’m typing fast finish soon, and will look it up later. */*/*/*/* What you are talking about, I understand, but please know, your word choice can be confusing for those of us keeping it simple. Please consider an alternate wording of the greatest commandment simplification. Because, what you are talking about is NOT the greatest commandment as revealed by Christ. Maybe sin simplification would be more throughly effectual. You could be right, so let’s look it up later. I type many of my posts fast and on the fly and off to the next one, almost always with proofreading, but often no time for style considerations. I’m not at all committed to the title of how I started this topic. I would be happy to consider alternate wording next time I write on this topic. The sin simplification I see is located in the PFAL teaching on “the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment,” or possibly the first half of the greatest commandment if I understood you correct, above. */*/*/*/*/* I never, ever, believed there were any saint goodydoody types to be found. I surely did believe in them. All Catholics believe in their “saints” as strongly as they believe in God and Jesus. Saint Mary is really the hidden Goddess for most RCs, who calls the shots on forgiveness when God and Jesus are ....ed at us for sinning after Jesus went and died for our sins, we were taught in Catlick School. This was the scene when I graduated 8th Grade in 1963. I understand this was pretty universal in that church until the around 1967 or so, when the Folk Mass happened with guitarists on the alter with the priest. Then things changed, but I was pretty much gone by then. */*/*/*/*/* And I never heard nor considered the guilt trip of being habitually guilty of the greatest sin. Here we totally mis-communicated. Knowing that everyone else ALSO habitually commits the greatest sin (not loving God first), was a great RELIEF of guilt for me. My reaction was now I don’t have to worry that maybe I am in the lower percentiles of who qualifies for heaven, and thereby not make it in. We’ve ALL blown it for deserving heaven by ALL committing the greatest sin. Sorting through the smaller sins was no longer meaningful, if we all were already guilty of the greatest sin. */*/*/*/*/* That guilt trip was first taught to me and laid on me in the class. Hmmm? Can you explain “That guilt trip…” because I thought I just nullified the big guilt trip with my explanation above. Or at least it was nullified for me, and I am unaware of any other guilt trip emanating from this early Session One section on the greatest sin. */*/*/*/* My heart isn't desperately evil. Paul wasn't accurate about EVERYTHING. Well that is to be expected after you are born again, and learn to distance yourself from your old man nature, which is where Paul was saying the desperately evil heart is. Later, in Romans 7, he magnifies this idea, by applying it to himself, where he sees his old man nature as “oh wretched man that I am.” But in the same chapter he also says that his new man nature is not like that at all. */*/*/*/*/* I never heard the guilt trip of falling short of the glory of God, and was never taught I was dead in sins until I took the class. Had you read Romans before the class you’d have been taught you (before born again) were dead in sins. And First John re-iterates this a few times as it opens up. I never heard of a guilt trip associated with “falling short of the glory of God” either. When that phrase is written there is a context that plainly says this falling short happens before the new birth. */*/*/* You can't tell me I live my life focused only on my pleasure and not focused on God. Right, and I wouldn’t try to tell you that. But I know we all occasionally get caught up in loving something more than God, someone or some thing, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, the pride of life” etc…. Some of our missing the mark in loving God first is subtle, in the way we neglect the proper focus on God, like the pride in our life’s accomplishments forgetting God’s grace, or improper anger at someone, forgetting God’s attitudes towards forgiveness. We are commanded to be anxious for nothing, so allowing anxious thinking to grow can be missing the mark. If we are actively loving God first, trusting this Loved One to always be looking out for us is a duty and simply logical. I can see situations where chemical imbalances can make anxiety a bit out of the reach of our free will to snuff out, but given a healthy brain, we have a duty to “think on these things” that are listed after the Paul’s commandment to not allow anxiety, and to shift into thankfulness mode to snuff it out when it starts. All these subtle things emanate from not having God as our top priority as Jesus did: “…nevertheless, not my will, but Thy will…” was his attitude to the death. */*/*/*/*/* You, nor victor, nor the priestly class, nor the clergy, nor Saul of Tarsus, knows anything about me. This is religious, gaslighting dogma that I reject. My take is that it is that God, knows you well, even better than you know yourself. My chosen belief system sees God giving revelations to His writers that sometimes are a “one size fits all” piece of knowledge from our manufacturer, that we all can employ for our benefit. I see the universality of all humans dying in span of a small bunch of decades as testifying that we universally commit this greatest sin of not loving God and not loving His Word. First John is clear that loving God means keeping His commandments, and to know what His commandments are means knowing His Word. */*/*/*/* We can agree to disagree on your religious, doctrinal dogmatism. Oky Doky. I never know what a person’s definition of “dogma” is. I don’t think it’s a Bible word, but there are a lot of translations, and it may be there. It sounds harsh and is usually used in our culture to indicate unwise and harmful restrictions. For me, believing the Bible is God’s Word has none of that flavor of the word dogma. Laws of Physics, in a sense, should be called “dogma” in the literal sense, but that violates the common usage of dogma. Knowing and respecting the Laws of Physics means opportunities for great freedom and flexibility, and avoidance of calamity. The same should be true for knowing and respecting the Laws of God and His Word. Our culture allows the ugly word “dogma” to be attached to the Bible, but “The Dogma of Physics” is not allowed. */*/*/*/* We had a few communications glitches there, IMO, but I think they were minor and I hope they are straightened out now. I would more celebrate what we can agree on here, and not say we were totally talking past each other.

Their business model has an internal conflict, best I can see, and that means it is a difficult and messy process to resolve lots of these matters. On one hand it is a love based spiritual family, and family matters like this MUST be resolved. When the parents have dirty secrets in their past, telling their very young children about them may not be good for the children's welfare. But SURELY as the the children age and mature, those secrets better be told in a calm, loving atmosphere at home by a certain time. Neglecting disclosure at that time would VERY BAD for the older children's welfare, because they will probably find disclosure out in the cold cruel world sooner or later. On the other hand, and in great opposition to the loving family hand, TWI is a marketing corporation. In marketing, ugly secrets of the company or product are NEVER willingly disclosed, and ALWAYS shoved under the rug, if possible. It is also the case that personal ego slows down the process for those who are even remotely connected to (like by having first-hand knowledge of) the ugly secrets. Loss of stature is a fear that ruins many men's ministries. I am seriously considering the possibility that the solution to this is to dissolve the corporation, and split up the two opposing functions into two new, separate corporations. This is a new idea and I'd appreciate help brainstorming this. Also in the works is an essay that the Way Tree is over. It was only supposed to be temporary, the great centralization of everything it teaches. Especially egregious is the notion of God's revelation exclusively going through the Way Tree from the roots up. The centralized money thing is puny in my eyes compared to this major doctrinal abomination. But this too is in the brainstorming stages, and (who knows?) I may want to eat those words someday. I am thinking out loud, searching for solutions. I need help here.

WHO are you to even have the most minute awareness of anyone's ability to accurately spot hardness of heart?"

BRAVO !!! On a lesser topic, but similarly, I'm sure glad they didn't put distracting footnotes and citations in the early collaterals. I was in the class to learn about God, not take a University class.

I am writing an essay on "what is a ministry" and I get into how I have seen "the ministry" become an idol to some people, just like VPW became an idol for many. This essay is being written to be read by TWI leadership, so it has a gentle tone. I have sent early rough drafts of the beginning to a few already, and we are slowly discussing it.

Thanks. That helps. "Present truth" is a term pretty new to me, and knowing it is connected with the wineskins definitely helps. */*/*/* You wrote: "In my experience 'truth' only changes that much when someone is fibbing a lot." I agree that truth changing like that is crazy. Now the APPLICATIONS of some eternal truths may change some.... I guess. The big thing that said "red flag" to me, was that if truth itself changes with the calendar, what does say about the VERY old truths in the Bible ??? I wonder if others had that suspicion? From what I see so far, TWI-4 has gone back to the original class, just in abbreviated form, never contradicting PFAL'68, and adding nothing that I noticed. Because some of the missing parts are crucial for more mature students, I look at it as a good introduction to PFAL'68. The parts missing in PFAL-T are still in the PFAL book and RHST. I had heard several times that the PFAL book was declared old wineskin at one time, but I don't know by whom or when.

Here is a specific example of the GREAT simplification PFAL gave us in the first 12 minutes of the class, that I witnessed first hand. In the early 70s I was the A.V. man for our branch. I’d drive to Rye to get the film class, projector, and screen for each class we ran. One time I was there they gave me, along with those materials, a special 16 mm film-loop projector, fitted into a standard size suitcase. A film-loop is just like an 8-Track tape, in that you never have to re-wind it; it just plays over and over. But one limitation is they are real short. This suitcase had a screen when opened up, and a short piece of PFAL Session One on it's film-loop cartridge. I was like an old fashioned VHS or Beta player with a screen. They told me there at Limb that I could borrow it for the 3 weeks we had the big-reel class. Boy oh BOY! I had a lot of fun with that. I took it to friends and family whenever I could. One time I set it up in a Duncan Donuts I often witnessed at, for the waitresses. One day I took the machine to the house of a girl in our twig who wanted to take the class, but whose parents were super Roman Catholic, and were very suspicious of this young people’s Protestant fellowship. I played the first 12 minutes of the class for her father to see what she wanted to sign up for. I watched the dad's face as it approached the end, so I could jump in and explain things. But it finished with the greatest commandment teaching, and he beat me to the punch. He jumped up and was VERY impressed. He said that sure settles the whole mortal sin versus venial sin debates we Catholics get dragged into so often! He was actually happy about it, and did all the expounding before I had the chance. She took the class. I had the exact same impression of this GRAND SIMPLIFICATION when I read the PFAL book the first time, months before my first class. */*/*/*/*/* It means in God's eyes there are no Saint Goodygoody types of humans anywhere to be found. We all are habitually guilty of the greatest sin, so there is no spiritual elite among us. WE humans strongly recognize many grades of sin, though, but why? Thinking through the answer to that is best done remembering we have hearts that are desperately evil; evil above all things, according to Paul in Romans. It simplifies the processing we must go through, as we sort out who the bad guys are and who the good guys are. In that process, we try to sort things out in ways that PLEASE US, and not so we can please God. In God's eyes we all fall short of the glory of God, and are dead in sins. It's good to keep in mind, that our grading of sins is for practical, 5-senses, natural reasons, and not for spiritual reasons. That is why godless judicial systems, flawed as they are, are still valid institutions for sorting out the grades of "sin" and the appropriate punishments.

Is that an attempt at sarcasm?

Jesus looked on them with ANGER for the hardness of their hearts.

Why don't you mind your own Christian walk? But just to teach you a little beyond your horizons: I want to know as many details on the BOGUS old wineskins doctrine (plus the genuine from Jesus) so that I can minister to our brothers and sisters still caught up in it, like maybe here or in TWI or in the splinter groups. I hear that old wineskin baloney still to this day, thrown at me like it's true. I want to write up an E.C.N. that has details of what the bogus doctrine was and what the genuine doctrine was. If you would read my posts, instead of for gotcha points, but for what I am actually saying, then you would have to ask me such a stupid question. That's all you were doing by asking this, wasn't it? Get a little deeper. You haven't quit your Corps Nazi tactics, still, to this day.

Ohhh. Pardon me. That must be some other mike you mentioned that under TWI in the same post?

Yes. It was Jesus who ultimately simplified the Sin Rating System. But then again, he got it from his Father. "Classic way international bullying tactics here. Put out a couple mis-guided statements then quote a scripture out of context and just like that BAM! We are all running to not offend mike by telling him the truth or disagreeing with him becuase that would be un-loving."

STOP making this thread and this sup-topic all about Mike.

I just DID! I said I am willing to discuss anything and not be offended, if the manner is civil, and I did it in a civil way.

It is the manner that matters, not the content, when it comes to discussion.

No !!! It is the rating of sin into degrees that is complicated. The Roman Catholic rating of Mortal Sins versus Venial Sins is just the tip of the iceberg. Individuals each have their own rating system that is far more complicated. Truth is simple, but error can be very complicated, and untangling that error can be complicated, but what we got in the first ten minutes of PFAL on this was EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE !!!

I think the difference is that VPW's claim, which was made earlier than the 1965 tape that has been posted here recently, is that it came true. What was made available in PFAL'68 was far more truth than previous centuries enjoyed. Many false traditions were dispensed with and many lost truths uncovered. After 55 years, lots of these have migrated over to many churches. I was browsing the archive here and found an old thread with Oldiesman posting a list of what benefits came from VPW’s ministry and the fulfillment of the 1942 promise. I started adding to it and organizing it. Please pardon this unfinished project as this is where I left off organizing. Enjoy: water baptism obsolete, Jesus not God but one of us, 3 gods wrong, the dead are not alive now because God is anti-death, only gifted few can SIT wrong, all can SIT, SIT died with the apostles is wrong, God is always in favor of healing, healing in Communion, Romans 10:9 is easy because salvation is a gift, To whom addressed, some in the Gospels doesn't apply to us, God did not abandon Jesus on the cross, Greatest commandment simplification losing salvation impossible, We are heaven bound, Paul’s Gospel is most important, the mystery, saved from the Wrath in the Book of Revelation, Jesus was so forgiving that he invited Judas to Pentecost, we are ambassadors not sheep, keys with which the Bible can sometimes interprets itself, believing = receiving when centered on a promise from God, Christ is coming back, Paul is not anti-woman, we are seated in the heavenlies with all spiritual blessings, there is more than heaven to look forward to in rewards, 1 John 1:9 makes forgiveness easy because Jesus paid the price, I keep in mind that what is known is useless without love. The proper attitude to maintain regarding this list is NOT elitism but THANKFULNESS. “If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”

page 85

I have resumed reading it after hearing more of what is to come. The reason I soured on it was I could see early in the book, with her lament on "the Bible interprets itself." I could see that she had an agenda, that of pushing her shallow, wimpy, lifeless version of the truth about the Bible. So, more recently I find out here that she had a big complaint about the Reseach Department. I had a hunch what her complaint was, since I too had a hair pulling complaint myself, and I suspected they were identical. I got another clue to the same today in a PM that confirms my hunch, At the same time Charlene was at HQ I was there. She was a cutie, and I almost got a schoolboy crush on her, from a distance, until I found out she was married. I think I remember her at Rye also, but that memory is vague. Besides, I had a huge crush (from a distance again) on Kristen Skedgell at Rye, another later whistle blower, and that washes out my memory of Charlene there. I find it amazing how little old me got around. God showed me many things in my life, and led me to meet lots of people who were prominent in some way. I am currently writing down all my many adventures and sightings to remind me of God's grace to me. I didn't know it was happening untill recent years. I noticed lots of people had a hard time believing me, with all the stories I told. Many here have disbelieved my past stories. Funny thing is, when I started writing them down in one plade, I started having a hard time believing myself, that all these things happend to me or around me in my sight. I had to say all that before I write the next lines. Coincidentally, when Charlene and I were at HQ (me 76-78) I met Peter Bernneger, the author of the first Star of Bethlehem thing in the Way Magazine I reported earlier in another thread today. at the same time. We met because I was known to be a big science head, talking some with Earl Burton about improving his AC science gig. I also proposed a Word in Science to VPW, and he had a meeting with me to talk about it. Peter B was a sort of intellectual partner with John Fanning, another big science head, and we three talked about the brain and consciousness. Coincidentally, we all talked about the Research Department also, and they looked over their shoulders first, and then told me they were very unhappy with that department. They said it was cheating. Like the Schoenheit paper, I had a sneak preview of what Charlene talks about in her book, circa 1977. I pondered what Peter and John said and was on the lookout for problems, and I did actually see them a short time later. HOWEVER, unlike most who hear and then jump to concussions, I kept my head down, and just pondered it. Why VPW would cheat at research? I figured then, no one's perfect. But I was sad about it. Then 1998 rolled finally around two decades later and I got my answer. I was stunned at what I found, when I considered the possibly deeply that the 1942 Promise actually happened. I had treated it as an exaggeration, or a figure of speech or something. I figured he was only 26 then, so no big deal. I just didn't know until 1998. Now I understand. I have posted this about the research department before here. I should look for it and see if my story is consistent. Funny thing, how when you tell the truth, you don't have to worry about getting a story straight on multiple occasions many years spaced. Maybe someday I will finish remembering and collecting items and post the list here. I think God raised me up to do jobs with My Odd Life. Watch for it, coming to forums near you. "It's not Bragging if You can Really do it." - Babe Ruth

Actually, that is not accurate. The Law of Believing is limited to the promises of God, and that limitation was in PFAL'68 about 18 times. I document the segment numbers and timestams for John L**n in 1989. He had TOTALLY forgotten them. Had you? ANOTHER limitation, that I dont fully understand yet is the man born blind. Neither he nor his parents missed the mark. ANOTHER limitation is that there is a close close counterfeit to believing and that is simple agreement, or mental assent. It is easy for us to miss the mark there ourselves.

It was totally revamped and had no date for Jesus' birth, if my visual scan 5 minutes ago was accurate. Had there been one it would surely be in bold fonts and a main feature. It was a long article, 4.5 full pages of text, no pictures and other stuff. It was in the Nov/Dec 1978 issue. The book JCPS got it's date from Ernest Martin, an independent researcher in Pasadena. . */*/*/* BTW, I left a sentence missing some words there, back in my post. It should read: "Plus it was a 'soft re-formulatio' in the sense that neither VPW nor any of the leadership superstars had written it.

That can happen, that I retire from GSC. But the pollution you speak of come from you and all that chase my posting for the fight. Rocky is SO right. You (plural) are the polluters. If you weren't so obsessed with discrediting me or banning me, then my posts would only tiny in number and all alone as you all just post around mine, ignoring me. You love to hate TWI, and when I show up you love to hate me. Rocky is so right about who the polluters are.

I know that, because spiritually he is not absent for me, but within me, and getting more and more in my actions as I endeavor to help people like him. He is present when I fill his shoes and take his place while absent. Did you get talked out of doing that? Late edit: I forgot to mention I love reading the Gospels.

That wineskin doctrine is something I totally missed, being gone around 1988. I want to find documentation of WHEN it appeared, WHO first taught it, and the text or audio in which it appeared. From what I heard of it in pieces I am amazed at how devilish it was. Can you or anyone else help me with the data on this? Is there a thread on it, or is there anyone who posts on it a lot? I want to get it down what the Bible says about wineskins, and also what TWI-2 and TWI-3 say about it. So far I have not gotten much from TWI folks, but I don't really think they are able to get me the details. It seems to be lost in the dust there. But you folks can help there. This idea of cooperative help is what I wanted to post on that other thread an hour ago here. It is now posted. I started my call there for GreaseSpot to stop warring with me, and help me work on solutions. We can start by nailing this stupid wineskins thing. It is one of the most needed ECNs I want to write up. I just need the data I outlined above. */*/*/*/* ECN stands for Engineering Change Notice, that all big high-tech companies must use if they are to do things decently and in order. The main characteristics of an ECN is it is written and never verbal, and it contains the OLD WAY of doing things, and the NEW Way things are to be done. It also contains NO BLAME, as in high tech companies a completely different department busies itself with why the old way had to change. For us God does that part in His righteous judgement.