I agree it's all very human and common. I just don't get off on looking at it and/or remembering it. Sure it's good to be wise and avoid future repetitions, but I don't see that a problem at this time.
The unusual concentrations I was referring to were not so much along the lines of numbers of people, or numbers of acts, or 5-senses intensity of the acts.
I was thinking of the smartness of the devils needed for the takedown, and this manifested itself in how QUICKLY good decent men became pretty not so good and decent. All this happened rather abruptly in the early 80's, in that critical period where great changes came down but we didn't see them, from 1982-85.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 17, 2003 at 15:41.]
Wierwille was up to some pretty strange antics way before the early 80's. Ask Plotinus about the time Wierwille called him possessed, when he wasn't. Ask Jim Doop and Steve Heefner about how loving he was. Take a look at early versions of the Christian Family and Sex class. Ask me about his misogyny. Ask his victims about sexual improprieties, and assault.
Sorry, but I will not let you rewrite history, and call it the "devils [sic] need for a takedown." The devil, if you will, was already having a mighty fine time at The Way.
The corruption was set in the 50s when vpw started taking others' works and presenting them as his own.
When he rejectd the good seed for the doctrine of devils he was already corrupt. His penchant for lies (snow on the gas pumps, storm in Tulsa and inventing the hook shot) proves who his real father was.
I join the growing throng which rejects all that you stand for and the god (lower case g intentional) you serve.
To presume the incoherent ramblings of a defrocked (he did get kicked out of his denomination) minister has equal footing as Scripture is blasphemous.
I am sorry that I wrote such a harsh post, but your recent thread habits have prompted this. I still stand by what I said, but perhaps I said it in a way to deliberately hurt your feelings. As a form of reparations for this I will tell you why I came to my conclusions.
Your posting here is dishonest for two major reasons:
1. You claim special spiritual knowledge, yet you evade, tangentially answer and appear to delight in agitating people on this site.
2. Your arguments do not follow the rules of logic, grammar or the bible.
It is spiritually dishonest to claim special knowledge and then when people ask legitimate questions you ignore or evade their queries. Sometimes when people point out reasonable inconsistencies you often change the subject or engage in name calling. At times you appear to deliberately antagonize people to encourage their participation in this forum. This is disgraceful because many people come here as a place to heal from their Way experience. Remember the old Way saying that each person is worth one? It is not right for you to trample on people's feelings because you are on a special mission.
The Word of God is supposed to be simple enough for a child to understand it. Yet many of your explanations require us to ignore the rules of grammar, logic or other plainly written scriptures on the same subject. This is in direct violation of the PFAL class that you so highly regard!
Because of these inconsistencies it is very easy to discount many of the things that you say.
EWB
P.S. Thank you for your gracious invitation to answer my question privately. In fact it was that offer that prompted this less harsh reply. Unfortunately I do not think that you have the answer. If you did you would have already answered me months ago.
Just as an aside, and in a humorous vein, please look up yonder, right above your post, at how harsh that one ends and then your post begins with ?Dear Mike, I am sorry that I wrote such a harsh post...?
To me, that sudden juxtaposition from def59?s rant (or was that a rave?) to your gentlemanly firm sorting through the particulars was quite a jolt. Sometimes I get a bunch of rantings and ravings in a row and it can wear me out.
When I hit it just now it made me laugh out as loud as Oakspear?s recent ?How To...? post on another thread. Anyway, I don?t delight in agitating people, I delight in my right to righteously dodge anything I want. I?m not here primarily to win points ala the rules of a college debating team.
I?m not trying to earn the logical upper hand by proving my product and the soundness of my stand.
I?ve been given the right to post data and I?m taking advantage of it, just like every one of the other posters here. I ALSO engage in discussion, sometimes studded with portions of logical argumentation at my discretion. I reserve the right to not be distracted any more than I will to from posting my data. I don?t owe anyone here any answers at all, but I do try some. That?s all anyone does, you included. You suspend the rules of FORMAL logic for guts feel jumps whenever you want to.
When I do it, it gets noticed, because my data is SO HOT, my posts are getting much more attention. My jumps, my dodges, my refusing to be deterred by distractions ARE noticed because of the hotness of that data. If you had hot data, all your jumps, dodges, and refusals would get more scrutinized, and you?d be hearing about it a lot. Trust me, I know.
I visualize this place more like a cocktail party with many rooms and freedom of motion. I think some others here have the image of a courtroom where all people are forced to participate in a synchronized linear progression. It?s when I run face to face with such a courtroom paradigm driven poster that I delight in pulling the rug out from under them with any number of PURELY literary techniques involving the hot data. I do enjoy the freedom of this forum I have to shake them off of ME (maybe not off my thread) quite efficiently. I think it humorous of God to have given me all this data that was lost and hidden, so I have a HUGE element of surprise that seems to flummox the resistance better than anything I ever saw in my long witnessing and debating career.
I think if you were to EXAUSTIVELY search my posts here, you?d find that the abundance of data and answers God has given me and I?ve had the privilege to post is beyond the norm. If you were to re-read all the correspondence I had with you it may mean more to you now that you?ve had a chance to see a few more months of posting data. What I?m saying is don?t give up, I think there?s more good going on here than you know just yet.
MUCH more, if you ever undertake to even SOMEWHAT obey Dr?s final instructions, and systematically embrace these writings in a focused and concentrated way (i.e. put away all your other reading material for a while), then I think you?ll have a MUCH better appreciation for what I?ve been posting.
Actually, I recommend starting with PFAL reading, and skip the reading of my posts. That?ll save a lot of time.
On the other thread, your history is a bit abbreviated on what happened here. I jumped the fences between all the splinter groups here plus the stump the best I could or was allowed until 1998. I gathered data from 1987 to 1998 from all sources of grads I could both here in SD and nationally. BTW, do I know you? Do you know me?
If I were promoting anything other than the printed texts and some tapes, if I were trying to preserve any of the TVT stuff, any of the bad stuff of anyone?s, THEN your characterization of me may fit. If you look hard at the books and forget about the past, you?ll see MORE goodness in them than you did the first time, and you DID genuinely see some genuine goodness the first time.
We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on, but the books are pure. That?s a reality your accusations of me wont wither.
quote: I?m not trying to earn the logical upper hand by proving my product and the soundness of my stand....
You suspend the rules of FORMAL logic for guts feel jumps whenever you want to.
When I do it, it gets noticed, because my data is SO HOT, my posts are getting much more attention. My jumps, my dodges, my refusing to be deterred by distractions ARE noticed because of the hotness of that data. If you had hot data, all your jumps, dodges, and refusals would get more scrutinized, and you?d be hearing about it a lot. Trust me, I know.
No, you get noticed because of the error of your "data," and the lack of integrity in your presentation.
WordWolf - You posted, "Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of 'God's Word' extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."
I can see that I didn't state my question as well as I should have. I've grown accustomed to so many evasions, godawful twists and/or blanked recognitions from Mike, that I don't get really useful feedback from most of his responses. When I see that an honest and perceptive poster such as yourself hasn't gotten my question, I know that I have failed to communicate. So I'm going to restate my question later in this post.
I'm really interested in seeing how you develop your thoughts on Mike's quote highlighted in point "C" of your own recent post.
Thanks, WordWolf.
Mike - We agree that the adversary operates by distorting the meanings of written material, whether that material is the Word of God or PFAL, and that the 5-senses meanings provide the basis for building protection against him.
Here is my question:
*****
On page 83 of PFAL this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings, or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the Scriptures...' because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Say I am working this passage from PFAL when two different spiritual voices begin whispering to me. Spiritual voice "A" whispers, "Wierwille meant exactly what Wierwille wrote."
Spiritual voice "B" whispers, "We just don't KNOW exactly what Wierwille wrote. The spiritual meaning of this passage is that SOME that Wierwille wrote will NECESSARILY be God-breathed."
According to your own stated criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" the voice of God, or of the adversary?
*****
WordWolf - I hope I've stated the question clearly enough now. "According to your own stated criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" the voice of God, or of the adversary?" This is the question that is not going to go away, no matter how much Mike pretends that he's already answered it.
Love,
Steve
Oh... just one more thing... here's a hint for the potentially clueless:
In his post of June 9, '03, 00:35, a little over 1/2 way down page 20, Mike wrote these things...
"To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand [sic]. One word twisted here in the text... all adding up to a text that can't help the reader..."
and
"We were taught that just ONE word added, subtracted or changed and the results be [sic] catastrophic. Change just ONE word and you no longer have God's Word."
Now consider the following sentence:
SOME that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
Thank you for your recent efforts at refuting the "Mikean Heresy" :D-->
Since Mike claims that the only infallible piece of writing is PFAL, appeals to other sources, even versions of the bible, are ignored if they disagree with PFAL. You guys have done a great job of refuting Mike using Wierwille's own words in the "holy writ" itself: the PFAL book!
I almost wish that I kept my copy of PFAL so that I could join in the "fun".
You guys rock!
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
It?s late and I?m tired from a long day of manual labor.
I?ll try an abbreviated response now, and the next time I?ll have will be tomorrow afternoon.
WordWolf
1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT
examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At
NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR
OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books
vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER,
and had papal infallibility. As such, his books
were "infallible", and any errors in them were
to be ignored. That was the case then, and
that's the case you're making now.
I?m not so sure that was the case or supposed to be the case THEN.
I know that?s the case I?m making now.
I think THEN we WERE supposed to be ?examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye.? Dr challenged us to not take his word for it. We were supposed to see it in our KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger... or as far as we could go in that ?Received Text? chain. When I say ?see it? I mean the verification of the points Dr was making in the class.
I think prior to 1982, prior to the completion of the basic set of PFAL books we were supposed to see as much as possible of the revealed Word of God, the abstract, unwritten, un-purchasable ORIGINAL Bible, though the application of PFAL principles to that abstractly ending ?Received Text? chain of KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger...
All the while, prior to 1982, we were ?studying to show ourselves approved before God? with PFAL in one hand to guide and the ?Received Text? chain in the other, the writing of the PFAL set of books was being completed.
All the while God had Dr place ?signposts? and ?keys? in the PFAL writings, just like He did with all Biblical writers, signs like Green pages 34, 116, to guide us after the big changes in 1982.
In 1982 Dr?s announcements of the big changeover dramatically increased (so far few posted), culminating in a revelation that it was time to switch over from the abstract ?only rule? to the concrete, freshly written ?only rule.?
For the rest of his days Dr deposited many items into the record (some covert hints, some overt sledgehammers) for us to eventually find (because we weren't listening then) confirming this changeover. The last such confirmation, which was way out of the covert hint category, was in his last teaching where he twice says outright to master the PFAL writings.
His prior useage of the word ?master? (heavily posted on here) leaves no doubt that he was saying that to master God?s Word we had to master PFAL, and in a way deeper than we ever did before.
****************
I?ll bet that the degree of memorization you did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV retemorization.
I?ll bet your degree of mastering the points of PFAl was less than how you looked for points in KJV.
Prior to 1982 this was proper and what we were taught.
Something happened in 1982.
Many contradictions melt when this change is taken into account.
I DID see some people idolize Dr and if you were one, then I?d say this led you to an inefficient learning mode. I don?t think he taught we should think of him as infallible, so you may have been led wrong. I know this happened, and in spite of all my other failures in life, I didn?t get sucked into hero worship of VPW ever. Even now I see a HUGE difference between my memory of him and my appreciation for what God did with him in PFAL. When I hear and somewhat believe a story of his slimy side (we all have one) I think to myself how much MORE he could have done if only he hadn?t blown it there. I never think (any more) that his sin prevented God from completing the 1942 project with him.
I see a rough pattern that the ones who seemed to idolize him the most, now hate him the most.
My appreciation of Dr?s success with God grew very slowly but steadily, with several major challenges at times. One such challenge was all the slimy stories. The appreciation I have is SO GREAT that the slimy stories just don?t command the same priority of focus from me.
I think the way you describe your introduction to these books may be an unfortunate, but overcomable handicap.
*******************
2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a
reality your accusations of me won't wither."
For those posters arriving late to the game,
several months back, an extensive list of
ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL
OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts,
Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away.
I've forgotten how many were on the list when
we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something
around there.
The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were
listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them
all-we weren't going for completion).
That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of
Mike's ignoring of them won't wither.
This is not accurate to what happened. I didn?t ignore them. I simply refused to devote the AMOUNT of time to it demanded of me.
I was content with the number of Apparent Errors (AEs) that had melted under my scrutiny in the 70?s and 80?s and another batch since 1998. I was content FOR MY LIFE to relegate AEs to a low priority status, and I think other mastering grads should do the same. I taught by example on the AE thread how to work with AEs a little. I taught there how to be selective in the environment of when, and where, and with whom, grads should work on AEs. I taught by example that with hostile researchers it's ok with God to righteously dodge or avoid their distractions and challenges unless it seems to be an exceptional situation where a good answer will do some good.
As we dickered there, on and off, one of the AEs that I had selected for LIMITED discussion was suddenly solved by someone else. This person just happened to stumble on a ?David? verse with the answer, and posted it to the acceptance of many.
This showed a couple of things.
One was that the background research of the challengers was spotty at best. No one had done a thorough collection of the pertinent verses. This reminds me how quick Steve L. was to pounce on one passage of the Blue Book and not care much about a thorough collection of pertinent passages.
Another thing it showed was a DIRECT confirmation of my many times predicted ?best method? of solving AEs, namely keep reading and they solve themselves.
Now, WordWolf, why didn?t you include all this in your summary of that AE thread?
*************
D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup
statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in
modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original
position, much discussed, that the modern versions are
"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either
they are useless or they can be used. Either they are
profitless, or they can profit.
Remember time. Profitability can change with time.
If all there is are the tattered remnants, then go for it, they?re the most profitable source of knowledge.
If God finishes a 40 year project to reissue His Word, then the tattered remnants RELATIVE profitability drops.
I reject you limited allowance.
***********************
That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of
your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it.
For example, you keep alternating between claiming a
scientific background and claiming you don't have one.
Background yes.
Degree no.
Now that wasn?t hard.
************
I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your
positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to
have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own
background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions
about pfal are correct?
If you see inconsistencies here there are none, why should I spend a lot of time giving you more material to see them in?
************
(No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of
the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".)
My message is God?s Word and nothing hurts it.
**************
E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to
Steve as follows:
"Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can
tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by
studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is
the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his
answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."
That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I
quoted in this very post.
Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly
claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE
and WILLING to present your statements and positions
FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates
I am capable of understanding and explaining your
positions in my own words.
I agree. You got this one right.
Which makes you all the more guilty of sloppiness or something for your errors further above.
********************
On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's
last post completely, since your objection to it in no way
addressed what he/she said.
I didn?t think it was worthy of a direct response. It wasn?t on topic and just a rehash of oft talked about things. I?ve addressed those topics many times, and didn?t think it was best to allow the distraction. Still don?t.
******************
If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian
who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of
pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's
book, but never heard of pfal?
Let me make sure my question is specific enough....
Would you say that the material they learned, despite
paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because
it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class?
Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual
matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers
nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from
vpw?
This is very similar to what do I think or what would I tell splinter class grads. Lots of splinter classes are similar to PFAL in roughly the same way BGLeonord?s classes are similar, it?s just a directionality that some might get hung up on.
The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the genuine.
The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr only. It was completed.
I would NOT try to convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this.
I would not be confused by the correct knowledge a BGLeonard student has any more than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter group puts into their clone classes.
I?m sure that in the first century Paul?s epistles were compared to Barnabus? epistles (some still exist) by many and thought to be equivalent, even though Barnabus was dead wrong.
******************
Also, just for fun,
I'm curious
Some other time. I?m tired and this was supposed to be abbreviated.
I know Dr made mistakes in some things, but I know WE made more in not taking his written materials more seriously. It?s not too late to do this. When we do, all the other old history will fade in the glory.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 2:58.]
quote:I think THEN we WERE supposed to be ?examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye.? Dr challenged us to not take his word for it. We were supposed to see it in our KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger... or as far as we could go in that ?Received Text? chain. When I say ?see it? I mean the verification of the points Dr was making in the class.
I think prior to 1982, prior to the completion of the basic set of PFAL books we were supposed to see as much as the revealed Word of God, the abstract, unwritten, un-purchasable ORIGINAL Bible, though the application of PFAL principles to that abstractly ending ?Received Text? chain of KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger...
All the while we were ?studying to show ourselves approved before God? with PFAL in one hand to guide and the ?Received Text? chain in the other, the PFAL set was being completed.
Mike, Do you just make this stuff as you go along?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a huge number of inconsistencies.
I'd never be able to keep a straight story if I ad libed it. All this was painstakingly thought through for 5 years, and also much thinking went into it prior to 1998. I spend decades working on pieces of the body of knowledge that goes into this.
I simply stepped into a beam of high energy information when I started working the tapes and books very carefully. Prior to that I was in preparation unknowingly.
There are things I don?t know or understand yet, but when I post I?m either sure of very close, or I say so that I?m guessing.
I disagree that all laws of logic or grammar insist on your interpretation of PFAL page 83.
I stand by my analysis.
I see a difference in how the name Wierwille is handled in that one sentence.
The difference sets up a tiny IMPLIED island of contracontextual information. Because it?s implied, at the end of your post your substitution of my paraphrasing was incomplete, not reflecting that the ?some? is hidden.
If God wanted Dr?s name to be homogeneously associated with the other names on that page He would have had it written homogeneously.
Here?s how I would have written it, with ALL-CAPS to indicate difference, if I didn?t want some special and exceptional focus placed on the Wierwille name:
"Not WHAT Wierwille writes will be God-breathed, nor what Calvin WROTE, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Notice the necessary omission of ?necessarily.?
Note Calvin WROTE instead of said.
Note semicolon changed to comma.
Note omission of ?all.?
If I wanted to indicate that there was something exceptional about Dr?s writings, but ONLY SOME writings, then I?d have to alter the above sentence.
If I wanted to BOTH emphasize the untrustworthiness of the OTHER Wierwille writings, and leave a minor indicator of the exceptional SOME that are God-breathed, and have it blend in with the context of the non-God_breathedness of the other names, THEN I?d write it:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
It was not official. Dr was no longer president, no longer in the office to make it official.
It was more a revelation that was partially revealed, but NOT at all heeded officially.
I wouldn?t say ?CLASS and its collaterals? but more the written materials that come with the class, in ?book and magazine form? as Dr puts it. The film class was more an introduction to the books.
Otherwise I?d say you did pretty well.
********************
B) ...Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with
EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in
class after class of PFAL, session after
session, I was able to quote extensively from
the taped version.
Many people did this kind of memorization, me included. I?m not talking about the tapes though. There?s MUCH more in the written materials, like the chapters in the Volumes and the detail of RHST. I know of no one who extended their memorization all the way into the written class like we did retemorization and had flash cards for the KJV. We memorized the books of the Bible but not the chapter titles in the Volumes. Beyond mere memorization, we never did word studies in the PFAL writings, only KJV. We never compared text chapters with similar-but-not-identical magazine articles, like we did with ?Points of View? type chapters in the OT or the Gospels. We never would all have our Blue Books open as a chapter would be taught; even the teacher would not have the Blue Book opened in front of the same fellowship, as all would have KJVs opened.
I always saw a double standard of handling between PFAL writings and KJV or Greek writings, for reading, memorizing, organizing, teaching, and sticking with over the years. After our initial exposure to the books of 6 months to 18 months, the books were set aside most of the time.
If you did a lot more than this with the written PFAL materials, then you?re going to have an easier time coming back. You?ll see the goodies quicker than if you had not studied the material.
I do maintain that the attitude a reader has will influence what is absorbable and even visible to this reader. Not only attitude, but spiritual maturity as well, AND the timing of this study with God?s plan. God has made more available now, after 1982, so if your study was before this date (like mine) then what was available to absorb was different, because it just wasn?t time. It?s now time. Prior to 1982 God?s major thrust with us (best I can see) was more on the lines of outreach, while after 1982, and especially by Dr?s last teaching, it was NOT on outreach but on personal growth. This pattern is evident in Dr?s teachings after 1982.
*******************
YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as
infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike.
We've discussed this at the GSC.
He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY
ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the
office of an apostle specifically in a way that
all but names him the only living one. Even
now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet),
and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of
5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an
ELITE position above others who might possibly
claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet".
This has already been hashed out on other
threads.
Like any company president (and there was 5-senses business to do) Dr was ?infallable? in that it was not a democracy. He said often that TWI was not a democracy but a benign dictatorship. In the COMPANY he was the boss and what he said FOR the company employees was law. In the Body of Christ he was appointed by God to do a job, but not all he said, not all that Wierwille wrote was necessarily God-breathed, as he wrote on page 82 of PFAL.
I saw that by 1989, when Craig sent out his demands, that all had blurred this distinction between the 5-senses company and the Body of Christ. Craig was demanding back (after having thrown it to Geer for a while) that position of benign dictator OVER THE COMPANY, but confused it in his letter. The readers of the letter also blurred this line and the result was the firing/resignations.
*******************
You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW.
Have you READ your posts here?
Besides all your claims of his special status,
you've also posted that he was an intellectual
genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and
stated that you firmly believe he was of
excellent athletic ability, and was at least
of pro-college level in college. A veritable
paragon, one might say, since you've claimed
both his mind and body were exceptional.
Did you see where when it came to genetics, I could have said the same about Mickey Mantle? I kept my admiration of both men?s gifts to an acceptable, non-idolatrous, level. Paragons of efficient genetics exist in our culture. They are the tails of various bell curves. Recognizing this is not idolatry.
Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status. Why is this hard for you to see?
***************
I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S
why we keep butting heads. You claim certain
events never happened, you claim other events
DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the
truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is.
Ditto.
************
D) You asked why I didn't include comments about
the "David" thing under my comments about the
"ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary.
You characterized me as ignoring it, and I spent a lot of time on it.
Plus I had my own solution, but it was unacceptable to others.
**************
The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any
stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of
YOUR position, nor your position's ability to
withstand scrutiny.
The ONLY demonstration of the soundness of my position can be found in obedience to the man of God and mastering the material, AGAIN.
***********
Out of a tall stack of
errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it
should have been expected that at least ONE
would be found. As you interpret that, it
means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid.
That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like
watching someone reach into a refrigerator,
take out a can of soda, and generalizing that
the entire contents of the refrigerator was
cans of soda.
If that can popped out all by itself, AGAINST the wishes of those stashing them into the frig, then one might conclude the collection was rashly thrown together and AT LEAST one definitely didn?t belong there. I say let?s obey Dr, master PFAL, and see how many other cans pop out all by themselves. I?ve seen such can popping many times before in my private studies over the decades.
***************
The others can clearly read the thread for
themselves. Your posts can be largely
characterized by evasions...
I sometimes righteously evade wasting my time in areas I know to be fruitless.
I sometimes righteously evade the unrighteous demands placed on me by others.
I sometimes righteously obfuscate the things that hurt people.
**************
If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you
would have been able to make a MUCH better
showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions
and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD
have been very impressive, and earned you much
respect.
Primarily, I?m not trying to impress or persuade, only present.
PFAL is impressive enough.
*************
E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments"
and "tattered remants." You also said that it
can be used by some people. You STILL don't
see the logical contradiction between the two
statements.
I don?t see your point at all.
Using a car analogy myself: Suppose you have a set of problems with your car. You read the owners manual and it?s helpful for some but not others. You buy a more detailed shop manual and it?s more useful.
There?s LOTS of value in reading a KJV, but less to an OLG because those benefits the KJV has to offer have been exhausted for an OLG.
If you for a minute tried believing that PFAL was God-breathed you?d see my logic. Like trinitarians fear even tentative acceptance of One God, I think you?ve given this idea VERY little thinking through, because it looks like scary blasphemy or idolatry.
Experimentally believing my message will open up more logic and detail than an adversarial examiner can spot. Try it, you?ll like it.
**************
Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE
Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones"
of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter
groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?
No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted written in PFAL and distributed around the world and mastered. What they wrote or taught long ago may have been totally accurate at times, but revelation can change as circumstances change.
I also see those wonderful men as sometimes getting a point right and sometimes (bless their hearts) not getting it right, but close, and therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT ONE POINT.
****************
In all fairness, THAT question was answered.
Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require
intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO
disbelieves it.
I can learn as you earn.
I can learn to recognize that honesty as you earn my respect. I think you're doing better now, than protesting recursive definitions.
*************
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:06.]
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:07.]
Your analysis presumes the wording on P83 to be gramatically perfect and absolutely literal. In other words you are approaching and analyzing these words in PFAL with the presumumption that they are the Word of God in order to show that they are the Word of God. The approach assumes the conculsion. A classic circular argument.
'Said' and 'write' are many times synonymous. It is a common usage. I could write that Jefferson said, "yada yada yada" in regards to one of his letters. Most anyone would understand that I was talking about something he wrote. How would Wierwille know what Calvin 'said' (out loud)? What we know of Calvin's theology is by what he wrote. Calvinsits adhere to what Calvin "wrote". Wierwille was just simply using a synonym to keep from being redundant or boring. He was not using 'said' to separate himself from the others. It is a perfectly common and acceptable usage to write, "the scriptures 'say' yada yada yada ", yet no one should interpret that any other way than "it is written".
Mike, you are conjuring up and fabricating hidden meanings that simply aren't there.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
*confused nd blurred* my a-- Mike. Lcm`s *loyalty oath* letter stated emphatically...You write back with an oath of allegiance to me...or you are or you are *salt that has lost it`s savor* you are worthey to bethrown out into the street and trodden under the feet of the beasts.
He also said in the same letter,*nd don`t give me any of this loyalty to God garbage*.
No blurring about that Mike....Did YOU get a letter? it was perfectly clear...We didn`t write back and swear a *loyalty to Craig* letter
boom corps status gone no longer permitted to run a fellowship... worthey of contempt...
I wonder when your delusional twisting of ministry history will quit suprising me mike. Mike.
Rascalrescued (even without a loyalty oath to craig)
Yes, they CAN be used as synonyms, and they CAN be used to slightly distinguish one similar-but-not-identical object from another, as I would if I were trying to say what I demonstrated above that you object to.
I see Dr saying his situation (1942 promise) is a little different from the others on THAT page, and then I see him elaborating in OTHER pages (Green 34, 116) on that ?little? difference being not so little, depending on the context it?s viewed. If it weren?t for the slight differences of punctuation, slightly different synonym useage, inclusion of ?necessary? and ?not all,? then this page 82 would definitely contradict the others. But the differences are there, and they all add up to it agreeing with the other pages if you remember the 1942 promise and what it necessitates.
People are not beings of formal logic, and when they pretend to be, they may fooling themselves but not me. I just mentioned to EWBulinger how we all jump out of formal logical systems to embrace guts feels. Godel did this and is celebrated for it in the field of formal logic for his genius. We were taught in Witnessing and Undershepherding that people are not always logical. We?re not.
Formal logic is useful in many endeavors, but if it?s thought of as the only way to introduce light, then it?s resting on the arm of flesh. Proverbs 3: 5.6 warns us not LEAN on our understanding.
None of the prophets came forth with God?s formal proof of their credentials. Sometimes there was miraculous proof afterwards, sometimes not. But even miracles aren?t formal proof, because of the possibility of counterfeit powers.
I?m not trying to prove it to you that you should come back and master PFAL.
I?m simply telling you, or presenting it to you.
If I had been trying to formally prove it, and thus force you to accept it, I?d have failed at both.
Now you are correct that I assume Dr handled the words carefully there on page 82 of PFAL. Handling words accurately and precisely is possible for humans at times, especially in their fields of expertise and practice. I talked to one of Dr?s editors of the PFAL about this very same sentence. When I first quoted it to him on the phone a few years ago he IMMEDIATELY said ?Oh yeah! I remember THAT sentence.? Dr worked that sentence well before filming the class because it slides out so smoothly when he says it on the tape, and he then worked it with his editors. Those words were carefully chosen on the tape, and hardly changed at all in the book after much thought.
Often I pray, ?Almighty God, unto whom every heart is opened....? I do not use these words haphazardly. Why should I? I study God?s Word so that I know what the words ?Almighty God? stand for. I want to know what they mean Biblically, and then I endeavor to use them accurately.
?. . . I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.? The text literally says ?walk before me and you are complete.? ?Walk and be complete.? Walk upon what? ?The revelation I have given you. Don?t walk by your reasoning or your opinions, but by the revelation that I have given you.?
It was my impression that the line had been blurred for so many years that by the time Craig issued that letter it was gone.
I could be wrong about this, but it's the best guess I have and not thinking evil. I think Craig was very confused on this by then (1999), as opposed to delibverately eliminating the line.
I KNOW that many other clergy were confused about this line because I asked them.
In his post of June 19, '03, 02:37, Goey asked, "Mike, do you just make this stuff up as you go along?"
A short time later, Mike responded, "You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a huge number of inconsistencies."
The picture this exchange brings to mind is one of Mike, coming out of the restroom, without realizing he is trailing a long streamer of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.
Goey sez, "Hey, Mike, do you ignore your shoes when you come out of the restroom?"
Mike sez, "You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a long streamer of toilet paper stuck to my shoe."
Firesign Theater couldn't have done it better.
Mike's overblown sense of self-importance has blinded him to the truth that nearly every one of his posts generates huge numbers of inconsistencies.
Mike - Your recent (June 19, '03, 03:06) foray into the realm of "make it up as you go along" weasel-grammar was breath-taking, to say the least. As I read that piece of work, I was reminded of Richard Gere's tap number in the movie "Chicago". Spectacular to watch, but deceitful, and totally contrary to truth.
Fortunately, your post was brief enough that we can go through it word for word. Will the number of inconsistencies be huge? Probably not... it's such a brief post for you... but I'm certain the number will be sufficiently large.
You wrote, "Steve, I disagree that all laws of logic or grammar insist on your interpretation of PFAL page 83."
Unfortunately for your case, Mike, it doesn't make diddly-squat difference whether YOU agree or not. What matters is that the interpretation I presented agrees with the rules of grammar applied to exactly what Wierwille wrote. Before proceeding, let's review the written material and its 5-senses meaning.
On page 83 of PFAL, this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the scriptures...' because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Let's start with the context and work inward. Chapter 6 of PFAL (pp 81-92), titled "That Man May Be Perfect", is about the function of God's Word. The chapter begins with a citation of II Timothy 3:16, and ends with a citation of II Timothy 3:16&17. The over-arching context of the paragraph on page 83 is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The first part of the paragraph on page 83 reads, "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..."
The first sentence of the paragraph contrasts the written Bible ("All scripture" according to the over-arching context, II Timothy 3:16) with "every wind of doctrine or theory or theology."
The second, third and forth sentences contrast "This Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") with men, ideologies and opinions. Men, ideologies and opinions change, according to Wierwille, while "this Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") does not.
So the context within the first part of the paragraph sets up a series of contrasts between the written Word of God ("All scripture") and the products of men; winds of doctrine, theories, theologies, men, ideologies, opinions.
With the fifth and sixth sentences, Wierwille introduces a new citation, "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...'".
So the "this" of the fifth sentence refers to the contrast between the written Word and the writings of men. Wierwille is introducing John 5:39 to point up that contrast.
As we have seen above, in the rest of the paragraph under consideration, Wierwille continues the series of contrasts: the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Wierwille and denominations; the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Wierwille, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts.
The "Not all" that begins the last sentence of the paragraph is a contrasting allusion to the "All" that begins II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed..." ALL scripture is God-breathed, but NOT ALL that men write is God-breathed.
In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places his own writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.
I have to pack it in for the night. I will continue parsing Mike's highly entertaining, though not highly meaningful, adventure in speculative grammar tomorrow morning.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Mike
shaz,
I agree it's all very human and common. I just don't get off on looking at it and/or remembering it. Sure it's good to be wise and avoid future repetitions, but I don't see that a problem at this time.
The unusual concentrations I was referring to were not so much along the lines of numbers of people, or numbers of acts, or 5-senses intensity of the acts.
I was thinking of the smartness of the devils needed for the takedown, and this manifested itself in how QUICKLY good decent men became pretty not so good and decent. All this happened rather abruptly in the early 80's, in that critical period where great changes came down but we didn't see them, from 1982-85.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 17, 2003 at 15:41.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
"Good, decent men?" Like who, VP?
Wierwille was up to some pretty strange antics way before the early 80's. Ask Plotinus about the time Wierwille called him possessed, when he wasn't. Ask Jim Doop and Steve Heefner about how loving he was. Take a look at early versions of the Christian Family and Sex class. Ask me about his misogyny. Ask his victims about sexual improprieties, and assault.
Sorry, but I will not let you rewrite history, and call it the "devils [sic] need for a takedown." The devil, if you will, was already having a mighty fine time at The Way.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hey GC
The corruption was set in the 50s when vpw started taking others' works and presenting them as his own.
When he rejectd the good seed for the doctrine of devils he was already corrupt. His penchant for lies (snow on the gas pumps, storm in Tulsa and inventing the hook shot) proves who his real father was.
I join the growing throng which rejects all that you stand for and the god (lower case g intentional) you serve.
To presume the incoherent ramblings of a defrocked (he did get kicked out of his denomination) minister has equal footing as Scripture is blasphemous.
You son of vipers get thee behind me Satan!v
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Mike:
I am sorry that I wrote such a harsh post, but your recent thread habits have prompted this. I still stand by what I said, but perhaps I said it in a way to deliberately hurt your feelings. As a form of reparations for this I will tell you why I came to my conclusions.
Your posting here is dishonest for two major reasons:
1. You claim special spiritual knowledge, yet you evade, tangentially answer and appear to delight in agitating people on this site.
2. Your arguments do not follow the rules of logic, grammar or the bible.
It is spiritually dishonest to claim special knowledge and then when people ask legitimate questions you ignore or evade their queries. Sometimes when people point out reasonable inconsistencies you often change the subject or engage in name calling. At times you appear to deliberately antagonize people to encourage their participation in this forum. This is disgraceful because many people come here as a place to heal from their Way experience. Remember the old Way saying that each person is worth one? It is not right for you to trample on people's feelings because you are on a special mission.
The Word of God is supposed to be simple enough for a child to understand it. Yet many of your explanations require us to ignore the rules of grammar, logic or other plainly written scriptures on the same subject. This is in direct violation of the PFAL class that you so highly regard!
Because of these inconsistencies it is very easy to discount many of the things that you say.
EWB
P.S. Thank you for your gracious invitation to answer my question privately. In fact it was that offer that prompted this less harsh reply. Unfortunately I do not think that you have the answer. If you did you would have already answered me months ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
EWB,
Just as an aside, and in a humorous vein, please look up yonder, right above your post, at how harsh that one ends and then your post begins with ?Dear Mike, I am sorry that I wrote such a harsh post...?
To me, that sudden juxtaposition from def59?s rant (or was that a rave?) to your gentlemanly firm sorting through the particulars was quite a jolt. Sometimes I get a bunch of rantings and ravings in a row and it can wear me out.
When I hit it just now it made me laugh out as loud as Oakspear?s recent ?How To...? post on another thread. Anyway, I don?t delight in agitating people, I delight in my right to righteously dodge anything I want. I?m not here primarily to win points ala the rules of a college debating team.
I?m not trying to earn the logical upper hand by proving my product and the soundness of my stand.
I?ve been given the right to post data and I?m taking advantage of it, just like every one of the other posters here. I ALSO engage in discussion, sometimes studded with portions of logical argumentation at my discretion. I reserve the right to not be distracted any more than I will to from posting my data. I don?t owe anyone here any answers at all, but I do try some. That?s all anyone does, you included. You suspend the rules of FORMAL logic for guts feel jumps whenever you want to.
When I do it, it gets noticed, because my data is SO HOT, my posts are getting much more attention. My jumps, my dodges, my refusing to be deterred by distractions ARE noticed because of the hotness of that data. If you had hot data, all your jumps, dodges, and refusals would get more scrutinized, and you?d be hearing about it a lot. Trust me, I know.
I visualize this place more like a cocktail party with many rooms and freedom of motion. I think some others here have the image of a courtroom where all people are forced to participate in a synchronized linear progression. It?s when I run face to face with such a courtroom paradigm driven poster that I delight in pulling the rug out from under them with any number of PURELY literary techniques involving the hot data. I do enjoy the freedom of this forum I have to shake them off of ME (maybe not off my thread) quite efficiently. I think it humorous of God to have given me all this data that was lost and hidden, so I have a HUGE element of surprise that seems to flummox the resistance better than anything I ever saw in my long witnessing and debating career.
I think if you were to EXAUSTIVELY search my posts here, you?d find that the abundance of data and answers God has given me and I?ve had the privilege to post is beyond the norm. If you were to re-read all the correspondence I had with you it may mean more to you now that you?ve had a chance to see a few more months of posting data. What I?m saying is don?t give up, I think there?s more good going on here than you know just yet.
MUCH more, if you ever undertake to even SOMEWHAT obey Dr?s final instructions, and systematically embrace these writings in a focused and concentrated way (i.e. put away all your other reading material for a while), then I think you?ll have a MUCH better appreciation for what I?ve been posting.
Actually, I recommend starting with PFAL reading, and skip the reading of my posts. That?ll save a lot of time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
karmicdebt,
On the other thread, your history is a bit abbreviated on what happened here. I jumped the fences between all the splinter groups here plus the stump the best I could or was allowed until 1998. I gathered data from 1987 to 1998 from all sources of grads I could both here in SD and nationally. BTW, do I know you? Do you know me?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
If I were promoting anything other than the printed texts and some tapes, if I were trying to preserve any of the TVT stuff, any of the bad stuff of anyone?s, THEN your characterization of me may fit. If you look hard at the books and forget about the past, you?ll see MORE goodness in them than you did the first time, and you DID genuinely see some genuine goodness the first time.
We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on, but the books are pure. That?s a reality your accusations of me wont wither.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
A) Thank you for using somewhat shorter, more
straightforward posts. Now I can go back to
being annoyed only on the content, since the
form of the posts is easier on the eyes, and
the language is direct.
(Yes, that makes a BIG difference, all joking
aside.)
B) You just said that
"If you look hard at the books and forget about
the past, you'll see MORE goodness in them than
you did the first time, and you DID genuinely
see some genuine goodness the first time.
We can ALL agree that mucho stinkyness went on,
but the books are pure. That's a reality your
accusations of me won't wither."
Ok, let me address this a little.
1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT
examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At
NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR
OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books
vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER,
and had papal infallibility. As such, his books
were "infallible", and any errors in them were
to be ignored. That was the case then, and
that's the case you're making now.
Further, I knew that I knew a LOT less then than
I do now, and was not in a strong position to
evaluate much. Since then, my knowledge,
experience and ability to evaluate have all
increased dramatically (or not so dramatically,
since that was over many years). Therefore,
more recent evaluations of said material pack
more punch than that of a new student of pfal,
taught to accept everything without question.
Back then, I-and virtually EVERY SINGLE NEW PFAL
student-would have seen much goodness in the
class, no matter WHAT the content was. That's
NOT an honest evaluation. We may have "seen"
goodness, but that's hardly "genuine" goodness.
Further, most of us-including me-have NOT made
any claims that the content of pfal was
useless. Our main objection-as always-is your
characterization of the contents as PERFECT and
WITHOUT ERROR. Like anything else, it can be of
benefit without being divinely authored or
divinely inspired. I learned many things in
college that were useful, and THEY were rarely
perfect or divinely inspired. I can say the same
of books, television, radio or the internet.
2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a
reality your accusations of me won't wither."
For those posters arriving late to the game,
several months back, an extensive list of
ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL
OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts,
Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away.
I've forgotten how many were on the list when
we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something
around there.
The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were
listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them
all-we weren't going for completion).
That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of
Mike's ignoring of them won't wither.
---------------------------------------------
C) Thank you for a clear, concise statement of
your position. (6/17/03, 2:14pm)
"For a special group of people that God called out for a
special job, PFAL grads that is, God has also provided the
perfect arena for learning revelation and importation
manifestations. This arena is the PFAL writings. As we
master those special writings of PFAL with our 5-senses,
God will teach us HIS perspective and HE will filter out
the adversary's.
So, you might not like the answer, but there it is.
Master PFAL and you can hear the TRUE GOD's direct voice
better (and filter out Satan's) than anyone's been able
to do since the first century."
I'm just going to leave that direct quote, and not comment
on it for the time being.
--------------------------------------------------------
D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup
statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in
modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original
position, much discussed, that the modern versions are
"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either
they are useless or they can be used. Either they are
profitless, or they can profit.
That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of
your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it.
For example, you keep alternating between claiming a
scientific background and claiming you don't have one.
Perhaps YOU may not see it that way, but you MAY have
noticed that a variety of posters have commented on it.
It's NOT like we're in communication with each other or
anything.
I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your
positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to
have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own
background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions
about pfal are correct?
(No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of
the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".)
---------------------------------------------------
E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to
Steve as follows:
"Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can
tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by
studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is
the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his
answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."
That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I
quoted in this very post.
Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly
claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE
and WILLING to present your statements and positions
FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates
I am capable of understanding and explaining your
positions in my own words.
So, although I expect you'll NEVER issue me one for it,
it looks to me you owe me an apology for unfairly
characterizing MY posts.
On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's
last post completely, since your objection to it in no way
addressed what he/she said.
-------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiousity, Mike, I'd like to ask something.
Feel free to answer it whenever you get a chance-it WON'T
require research.
If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian
who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of
pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's
book, but never heard of pfal?
Let me make sure my question is specific enough....
Would you say that the material they learned, despite
paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because
it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class?
Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual
matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers
nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from
vpw?
Also, just for fun,
I'm curious how you perceive the events so far.
We saw my summary. You claimed mine was so off-target that
it was incapable of being corrected. Just for fun, how
about posting YOUR quick take on things?
Feel free to label it as not-definitive, and not an
official account, and all that.
Please cover the same timeframe I did. I started in the
1st-century AD, and spent most of my time in the 20th
century. Feel free to use the exact same events I did,
phrasing them how you see them.
I'd be very curious to see how you perceive each.
Keep in mind that I offer NO guarantees that your post
won't anger the posters here, though. For example, if you
spend time on how vpw claimed the holocaust was vastly
overstated and so on, or how the modern Jews are unrelated
to the historical Jews (both positions have been
discredited scientifically, and evidence HAS been posted
and discussed HERE), you WILL anger some people.
I'm very curious, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Mike,
No, you get noticed because of the error of your "data," and the lack of integrity in your presentation.
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf - You posted, "Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is the most accurate version of 'God's Word' extant, his answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."
I can see that I didn't state my question as well as I should have. I've grown accustomed to so many evasions, godawful twists and/or blanked recognitions from Mike, that I don't get really useful feedback from most of his responses. When I see that an honest and perceptive poster such as yourself hasn't gotten my question, I know that I have failed to communicate. So I'm going to restate my question later in this post.
I'm really interested in seeing how you develop your thoughts on Mike's quote highlighted in point "C" of your own recent post.
Thanks, WordWolf.
Mike - We agree that the adversary operates by distorting the meanings of written material, whether that material is the Word of God or PFAL, and that the 5-senses meanings provide the basis for building protection against him.
Here is my question:
*****
On page 83 of PFAL this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings, or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the Scriptures...' because all Scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Say I am working this passage from PFAL when two different spiritual voices begin whispering to me. Spiritual voice "A" whispers, "Wierwille meant exactly what Wierwille wrote."
Spiritual voice "B" whispers, "We just don't KNOW exactly what Wierwille wrote. The spiritual meaning of this passage is that SOME that Wierwille wrote will NECESSARILY be God-breathed."
According to your own stated criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" the voice of God, or of the adversary?
*****
WordWolf - I hope I've stated the question clearly enough now. "According to your own stated criteria, Mike, is whispering spiritual voice "B" the voice of God, or of the adversary?" This is the question that is not going to go away, no matter how much Mike pretends that he's already answered it.
Love,
Steve
Oh... just one more thing... here's a hint for the potentially clueless:
In his post of June 9, '03, 00:35, a little over 1/2 way down page 20, Mike wrote these things...
"To rob us of the power the adversary has employed VERY SUBTLE changes and corruptions in the texts and in our understand [sic]. One word twisted here in the text... all adding up to a text that can't help the reader..."
and
"We were taught that just ONE word added, subtracted or changed and the results be [sic] catastrophic. Change just ONE word and you no longer have God's Word."
Now consider the following sentence:
SOME that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Steve, Mark, Wolf:
Thank you for your recent efforts at refuting the "Mikean Heresy"
:D-->
Since Mike claims that the only infallible piece of writing is PFAL, appeals to other sources, even versions of the bible, are ignored if they disagree with PFAL. You guys have done a great job of refuting Mike using Wierwille's own words in the "holy writ" itself: the PFAL book!
I almost wish that I kept my copy of PFAL so that I could join in the "fun".
You guys rock!
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It?s late and I?m tired from a long day of manual labor.
I?ll try an abbreviated response now, and the next time I?ll have will be tomorrow afternoon.
WordWolf
1) The first time I read the books, I was NOT
examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye. I was trying to MEMORIZE information. At
NO point were we supposed to actually FORM OUR
OWN OPINION on the subject. These were books
vpw wrote, for vpw's class, he was THE TEACHER,
and had papal infallibility. As such, his books
were "infallible", and any errors in them were
to be ignored. That was the case then, and
that's the case you're making now.
I?m not so sure that was the case or supposed to be the case THEN.
I know that?s the case I?m making now.
I think THEN we WERE supposed to be ?examining them with a "critical" (discerning)
eye.? Dr challenged us to not take his word for it. We were supposed to see it in our KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger... or as far as we could go in that ?Received Text? chain. When I say ?see it? I mean the verification of the points Dr was making in the class.
I think prior to 1982, prior to the completion of the basic set of PFAL books we were supposed to see as much as possible of the revealed Word of God, the abstract, unwritten, un-purchasable ORIGINAL Bible, though the application of PFAL principles to that abstractly ending ?Received Text? chain of KJV/Youngs/Interlinear/Bullinger...
All the while, prior to 1982, we were ?studying to show ourselves approved before God? with PFAL in one hand to guide and the ?Received Text? chain in the other, the writing of the PFAL set of books was being completed.
All the while God had Dr place ?signposts? and ?keys? in the PFAL writings, just like He did with all Biblical writers, signs like Green pages 34, 116, to guide us after the big changes in 1982.
In 1982 Dr?s announcements of the big changeover dramatically increased (so far few posted), culminating in a revelation that it was time to switch over from the abstract ?only rule? to the concrete, freshly written ?only rule.?
For the rest of his days Dr deposited many items into the record (some covert hints, some overt sledgehammers) for us to eventually find (because we weren't listening then) confirming this changeover. The last such confirmation, which was way out of the covert hint category, was in his last teaching where he twice says outright to master the PFAL writings.
His prior useage of the word ?master? (heavily posted on here) leaves no doubt that he was saying that to master God?s Word we had to master PFAL, and in a way deeper than we ever did before.
****************
I?ll bet that the degree of memorization you did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV retemorization.
I?ll bet your degree of mastering the points of PFAl was less than how you looked for points in KJV.
Prior to 1982 this was proper and what we were taught.
Something happened in 1982.
Many contradictions melt when this change is taken into account.
I DID see some people idolize Dr and if you were one, then I?d say this led you to an inefficient learning mode. I don?t think he taught we should think of him as infallible, so you may have been led wrong. I know this happened, and in spite of all my other failures in life, I didn?t get sucked into hero worship of VPW ever. Even now I see a HUGE difference between my memory of him and my appreciation for what God did with him in PFAL. When I hear and somewhat believe a story of his slimy side (we all have one) I think to myself how much MORE he could have done if only he hadn?t blown it there. I never think (any more) that his sin prevented God from completing the 1942 project with him.
I see a rough pattern that the ones who seemed to idolize him the most, now hate him the most.
My appreciation of Dr?s success with God grew very slowly but steadily, with several major challenges at times. One such challenge was all the slimy stories. The appreciation I have is SO GREAT that the slimy stories just don?t command the same priority of focus from me.
I think the way you describe your introduction to these books may be an unfortunate, but overcomable handicap.
*******************
2) You claimed "the books are pure. That's a
reality your accusations of me won't wither."
For those posters arriving late to the game,
several months back, an extensive list of
ERRORS taken DIRECTLY FROM THE BODY OF MATERIAL
OF PFAL were posted. Despite his best efforts,
Mike was NOT able to make any of them go away.
I've forgotten how many were on the list when
we stopped discussing it-28? 32? Something
around there.
The Books have ERRORS. A number we CAUGHT were
listed. (That is no guarantee we caught them
all-we weren't going for completion).
That the books have ERRORS is a REALITY all of
Mike's ignoring of them won't wither.
This is not accurate to what happened. I didn?t ignore them. I simply refused to devote the AMOUNT of time to it demanded of me.
I was content with the number of Apparent Errors (AEs) that had melted under my scrutiny in the 70?s and 80?s and another batch since 1998. I was content FOR MY LIFE to relegate AEs to a low priority status, and I think other mastering grads should do the same. I taught by example on the AE thread how to work with AEs a little. I taught there how to be selective in the environment of when, and where, and with whom, grads should work on AEs. I taught by example that with hostile researchers it's ok with God to righteously dodge or avoid their distractions and challenges unless it seems to be an exceptional situation where a good answer will do some good.
As we dickered there, on and off, one of the AEs that I had selected for LIMITED discussion was suddenly solved by someone else. This person just happened to stumble on a ?David? verse with the answer, and posted it to the acceptance of many.
This showed a couple of things.
One was that the background research of the challengers was spotty at best. No one had done a thorough collection of the pertinent verses. This reminds me how quick Steve L. was to pounce on one passage of the Blue Book and not care much about a thorough collection of pertinent passages.
Another thing it showed was a DIRECT confirmation of my many times predicted ?best method? of solving AEs, namely keep reading and they solve themselves.
Now, WordWolf, why didn?t you include all this in your summary of that AE thread?
*************
D) This may come as a surprise to you, but your followup
statements about what uses the Bible CAN be put to in
modern times is diammetricall opposed to your original
position, much discussed, that the modern versions are
"tattered remnants" and "unreliable fragments". Either
they are useless or they can be used. Either they are
profitless, or they can profit.
Remember time. Profitability can change with time.
If all there is are the tattered remnants, then go for it, they?re the most profitable source of knowledge.
If God finishes a 40 year project to reissue His Word, then the tattered remnants RELATIVE profitability drops.
I reject you limited allowance.
***********************
That type of inconsistency occasionally surfaces in some of
your posts, and I'd be surprised if you were aware of it.
For example, you keep alternating between claiming a
scientific background and claiming you don't have one.
Background yes.
Degree no.
Now that wasn?t hard.
************
I tend to object MORE to the inconsistency of your
positions than anything else. If we can't trust you to
have a consistent position on either the Bible or your own
background, how can we POSSIBLY trust that your assertions
about pfal are correct?
If you see inconsistencies here there are none, why should I spend a lot of time giving you more material to see them in?
************
(No, I'm not expecting an answer. I'm pointing out some of
the reasons these ARE hurting your "message".)
My message is God?s Word and nothing hurts it.
**************
E) on 6/17/03 , 3:41am, I summarized your answer to
Steve as follows:
"Steve, in case you missed it, Mike's answer to how you can
tell what kind of spirit you're hearing from is by
studying God's Word. Since Mike's stance is that pfal is
the most accurate version of "God's Word" extant, his
answer is you'll know by studying the pfal materials."
That's the SAME message you posted further down-which I
quoted in this very post.
Rather than misrepresent your statements, as you regularly
claim I do, that appears to indicate that I am both ABLE
and WILLING to present your statements and positions
FAIRLY, despite disagreeing with them. It also indicates
I am capable of understanding and explaining your
positions in my own words.
I agree. You got this one right.
Which makes you all the more guilty of sloppiness or something for your errors further above.
********************
On the other hand, it seems you completely missed Def59's
last post completely, since your objection to it in no way
addressed what he/she said.
I didn?t think it was worthy of a direct response. It wasn?t on topic and just a rehash of oft talked about things. I?ve addressed those topics many times, and didn?t think it was best to allow the distraction. Still don?t.
******************
If you encountered one, what would you tell a Christian
who memorized BG Leonard's classes, but never heard of
pfal? What would you tell someone who memorized JE Stile's
book, but never heard of pfal?
Let me make sure my question is specific enough....
Would you say that the material they learned, despite
paralleling the material YOU learned, is LESSER because
it wasn't written by vpw's pen, and taught in vpw's class?
Would you characterize THEIR understanding of spiritual
matters as lesser, despite being able to recite answers
nearly identical to yours, since they didn't learn from
vpw?
This is very similar to what do I think or what would I tell splinter class grads. Lots of splinter classes are similar to PFAL in roughly the same way BGLeonord?s classes are similar, it?s just a directionality that some might get hung up on.
The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the genuine.
The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr only. It was completed.
I would NOT try to convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this.
I would not be confused by the correct knowledge a BGLeonard student has any more than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter group puts into their clone classes.
I?m sure that in the first century Paul?s epistles were compared to Barnabus? epistles (some still exist) by many and thought to be equivalent, even though Barnabus was dead wrong.
******************
Also, just for fun,
I'm curious
Some other time. I?m tired and this was supposed to be abbreviated.
I know Dr made mistakes in some things, but I know WE made more in not taking his written materials more seriously. It?s not too late to do this. When we do, all the other old history will fade in the glory.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 2:58.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Posted by Mike:
Mike, Do you just make this stuff as you go along?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a huge number of inconsistencies.
I'd never be able to keep a straight story if I ad libed it. All this was painstakingly thought through for 5 years, and also much thinking went into it prior to 1998. I spend decades working on pieces of the body of knowledge that goes into this.
I simply stepped into a beam of high energy information when I started working the tapes and books very carefully. Prior to that I was in preparation unknowingly.
There are things I don?t know or understand yet, but when I post I?m either sure of very close, or I say so that I?m guessing.
I?m not making up anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
I disagree that all laws of logic or grammar insist on your interpretation of PFAL page 83.
I stand by my analysis.
I see a difference in how the name Wierwille is handled in that one sentence.
The difference sets up a tiny IMPLIED island of contracontextual information. Because it?s implied, at the end of your post your substitution of my paraphrasing was incomplete, not reflecting that the ?some? is hidden.
If God wanted Dr?s name to be homogeneously associated with the other names on that page He would have had it written homogeneously.
Here?s how I would have written it, with ALL-CAPS to indicate difference, if I didn?t want some special and exceptional focus placed on the Wierwille name:
"Not WHAT Wierwille writes will be God-breathed, nor what Calvin WROTE, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Notice the necessary omission of ?necessarily.?
Note Calvin WROTE instead of said.
Note semicolon changed to comma.
Note omission of ?all.?
If I wanted to indicate that there was something exceptional about Dr?s writings, but ONLY SOME writings, then I?d have to alter the above sentence.
If I wanted to BOTH emphasize the untrustworthiness of the OTHER Wierwille writings, and leave a minor indicator of the exceptional SOME that are God-breathed, and have it blend in with the context of the non-God_breathedness of the other names, THEN I?d write it:
?Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; nor what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
Just the way it?s in the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
A) on 6/19/03, 2:22am (unless otherwise noted,
all quotes date from this post)
you wrote:
"In 1982 Dr's announcements of the big changeover
dramatically increased (so far few posted),
culminating in a revelation that it was time to
switch over from the abstract "only rule" to the
concrete, freshly written "only rule"."
Based on that post and previous posts, you were
saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,
our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now
(officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class
and its collaterals.
Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in
the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant.
(Albeit posted in a convoluted way.)
I'm not going to address that at present.
------------------------------------------
B) You also posted:
"I'll bet that the degree of memorization you
did of PFAL less than the degree of your KJV
retemorization. I'll bet your degree of
mastering the points of PFAL was less than how
you looked for points in KJV."
You'd LOSE BOTH BETS.
Mike, I don't give you a lot of my time and
attention. My INCIDENTAL attention is enough
to quote you extensively.
Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with
EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in
class after class of PFAL, session after
session, I was able to quote extensively from
the taped version. I sat in once on a taped
version missing a segment from Session 6. I
basically recited the missing section, complete
with the verse references. Before taking the
Advanced class, you're supposed to take an exam
and demonstrate your understanding of the
materials of the Foundational and Intermediate
classes. I studied MORE before taking it. As it
turns out, the material I studied was NOT on
the exam. I STILL blazed through the questions
in record time. Section one was on the PFAL
foundational class itself. Allotted time for
this section? Ninety minutes. Time WordWolf
took to complete this section, and check his
answers TWICE? Twenty-seven minutes. The last 6
of them were basically fooling around.
Ever sat in a twig where trivia questions were
thrown from the home studies or the PFAL
materials? I've been asked-repeatedly-to stop
answering for awhile and give the others a
chance. Ever attend a PFAL study group? By
mutual consent of me and the study group leader,
it was agreed that I did not NEED the study
group-I had the material down cold. My memory
is as sharp as it ever was, and if I was handed
a KJV, concordance, and an Advanced class exam
at this moment, I'd bet I'd get the exact same
score I did last time. So, when it comes to
ability to spit back the answers swallowed
whole from PFAL, I'd compare well with anyone
I was stacked against-down to the way vpw
pronounced which words. If I am not CURRENTLY
at the level of "recite it backwards and
forwards", I am not far shy of it.
Your opinion that this level of memorization &
understanding is synonymous with YOUR POV
produces a blind spot. That is, NOBODY can know
the material that well, unless they agree PFAL's
God current Bible. If they did memorize it,
you think, and they STILL didn't hold your POV,
they are an "unjust steward" and an "unfit
student" and all sorts of derogatory things.
---------------------------------------------
C) You also wrote
"I don't think he taught we should think of him
as infallible, so you may have been led wrong.
I know this happened, and in spite of all my
other failures in life, I didn't get sucked into
hero worship of VPW ever."
You also suggested I might have idolized VPW.
I didn't. At the time, I might have been said
to idolize his writings-which is right where you
are NOW, Mike.
However, I'd like to point out a few things
about the quote.
YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as
infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike.
We've discussed this at the GSC.
He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY
ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the
office of an apostle specifically in a way that
all but names him the only living one. Even
now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet),
and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of
5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an
ELITE position above others who might possibly
claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet".
This has already been hashed out on other
threads.
Mike?
You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW.
Have you READ your posts here?
Besides all your claims of his special status,
you've also posted that he was an intellectual
genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and
stated that you firmly believe he was of
excellent athletic ability, and was at least
of pro-college level in college. A veritable
paragon, one might say, since you've claimed
both his mind and body were exceptional.
Do you vaguely recall the discussion on another
thread about this? It came up in TWO threads,
actually. You DEFENDED this position, saying
you didn't think this was an unreasonable
assumption, and concluded by saying you didn't
think this made you a fanatic (I forget the
exact term-you may not have said 'fanatic'.)
I also don't hate VPW. I didn't have enough of
an emotional attachment to him to hate him.
You'll have to talk to some of the other posters
(rape survivors and others) to find that. They
have much more to say on the subject than I do.
I do NOT have a fanaticism about VPW either
way.
I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S
why we keep butting heads. You claim certain
events never happened, you claim other events
DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the
truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is.
---------------------------------------------
D) You asked why I didn't include comments about
the "David" thing under my comments about the
"ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary. The
discussion of the removal of it as an
indisputable error took up over a page. ANYONE
who reads that thread can EASILY see the issue
was resolved-at least for the rules of that
thread.
What that showed was that the other posters on
that thread were intellectually honest enough to
acknowledge that THEY are not infallible, and
they are diligent enough to find places THEY are
in error, and are capable of improvement.
The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any
stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of
YOUR position, nor your position's ability to
withstand scrutiny. Out of a tall stack of
errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it
should have been expected that at least ONE
would be found. As you interpret that, it
means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid.
That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like
watching someone reach into a refrigerator,
take out a can of soda, and generalizing that
the entire contents of the refrigerator was
cans of soda.
The others can clearly read the thread for
themselves. Your posts can be largely
characterized by evasions and obfuscations-but
let's let THEM read it for themselves and decide
that, shall we?
If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you
would have been able to make a MUCH better
showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions
and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD
have been very impressive, and earned you much
respect.
-----------------------------------------------
E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments"
and "tattered remants." You also said that it
can be used by some people. You STILL don't
see the logical contradiction between the two
statements.
Here's one last try to illustrate it.
We go to a junkyard.
We look over a wrecked car.
There's nothing left of it but fragments, and
those are not intact. The frame is partially
crushed, the interior is gutted, the engine's
completely missing.
A salesman comes over and tries to convince
you that, in its current condition, it can be
of some use to you to travel, even if it's only
a LITTLE use. Not MUCH use, just a little.
---------------------------------------------
F) In answering my question about the contents
of BG Leonard and JE Stiles' work, you gave
the following answer:
"The counterfeit is always CLOSE to the
genuine. The 1942 promise was to Dr and Dr
only. It was completed. I would NOT try to
convince anyone but a PFAL grad of this.
I would not be confused by the correct
knowledge a BG Leonard student has any more
than by the correct knowledge a PFAL splinter
group puts into their clone classes."
Although you didn't say what you'd tell a student of BG Leonard or JE Stiles, that WAS an
attempt at an answer. I'm not 100% sure I got
one point, though, so I want to make sure I'm
not mischaracterizing your position.
Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE
Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones"
of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter
groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?
It appears that's what you're saying, and I want
to be certain that's what you MEANT to say.
---------------------------------------------
BTW, don't feel required to make a summary or a
timeline. I'd like to see it, but I may be the
only one, and it's hardly a critical issue.
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Steve,
I didn't mean to imply that your followup
question, the more IMPORTANT question, was
addressed at all. I don't expect it to be
addressed any more than you do.
You had initially posed a more general question,
to which Mike had posted a more general answer.
In all fairness, THAT question was answered.
Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require
intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO
disbelieves it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
"Based on that post and previous posts, you were
saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,
our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now
(officially or inofficially) VPW's PFAL class
and its collaterals.
Just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost in
the shuffle. That IS what you said and meant.
(Albeit posted in a convoluted way.)
It was not official. Dr was no longer president, no longer in the office to make it official.
It was more a revelation that was partially revealed, but NOT at all heeded officially.
I wouldn?t say ?CLASS and its collaterals? but more the written materials that come with the class, in ?book and magazine form? as Dr puts it. The film class was more an introduction to the books.
Otherwise I?d say you did pretty well.
********************
B) ...Back then, I memorized PFAL AND the KJV with
EQUAL fervor. Due to the ability to sit in
class after class of PFAL, session after
session, I was able to quote extensively from
the taped version.
Many people did this kind of memorization, me included. I?m not talking about the tapes though. There?s MUCH more in the written materials, like the chapters in the Volumes and the detail of RHST. I know of no one who extended their memorization all the way into the written class like we did retemorization and had flash cards for the KJV. We memorized the books of the Bible but not the chapter titles in the Volumes. Beyond mere memorization, we never did word studies in the PFAL writings, only KJV. We never compared text chapters with similar-but-not-identical magazine articles, like we did with ?Points of View? type chapters in the OT or the Gospels. We never would all have our Blue Books open as a chapter would be taught; even the teacher would not have the Blue Book opened in front of the same fellowship, as all would have KJVs opened.
I always saw a double standard of handling between PFAL writings and KJV or Greek writings, for reading, memorizing, organizing, teaching, and sticking with over the years. After our initial exposure to the books of 6 months to 18 months, the books were set aside most of the time.
If you did a lot more than this with the written PFAL materials, then you?re going to have an easier time coming back. You?ll see the goodies quicker than if you had not studied the material.
I do maintain that the attitude a reader has will influence what is absorbable and even visible to this reader. Not only attitude, but spiritual maturity as well, AND the timing of this study with God?s plan. God has made more available now, after 1982, so if your study was before this date (like mine) then what was available to absorb was different, because it just wasn?t time. It?s now time. Prior to 1982 God?s major thrust with us (best I can see) was more on the lines of outreach, while after 1982, and especially by Dr?s last teaching, it was NOT on outreach but on personal growth. This pattern is evident in Dr?s teachings after 1982.
*******************
YOU don't think VPW put forth himself as
infallible. That's a minority opinion, Mike.
We've discussed this at the GSC.
He called HIMSELF "THE TEACHER", AND ACTIVELY
ENCOURAGED OTHERS TO DO SO. He defined the
office of an apostle specifically in a way that
all but names him the only living one. Even
now, you're claiming he spoke for God (prophet),
and claiming HE said the same. That's 3 out of
5 gift ministries, all of them claiming an
ELITE position above others who might possibly
claim "teacher" "apostle" or "prophet".
This has already been hashed out on other
threads.
Like any company president (and there was 5-senses business to do) Dr was ?infallable? in that it was not a democracy. He said often that TWI was not a democracy but a benign dictatorship. In the COMPANY he was the boss and what he said FOR the company employees was law. In the Body of Christ he was appointed by God to do a job, but not all he said, not all that Wierwille wrote was necessarily God-breathed, as he wrote on page 82 of PFAL.
I saw that by 1989, when Craig sent out his demands, that all had blurred this distinction between the 5-senses company and the Body of Christ. Craig was demanding back (after having thrown it to Geer for a while) that position of benign dictator OVER THE COMPANY, but confused it in his letter. The readers of the letter also blurred this line and the result was the firing/resignations.
*******************
You're claiming you've never idoliZed VPW.
Have you READ your posts here?
Besides all your claims of his special status,
you've also posted that he was an intellectual
genius (posted it, not simply implied it), and
stated that you firmly believe he was of
excellent athletic ability, and was at least
of pro-college level in college. A veritable
paragon, one might say, since you've claimed
both his mind and body were exceptional.
Did you see where when it came to genetics, I could have said the same about Mickey Mantle? I kept my admiration of both men?s gifts to an acceptable, non-idolatrous, level. Paragons of efficient genetics exist in our culture. They are the tails of various bell curves. Recognizing this is not idolatry.
Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to a similar status. Why is this hard for you to see?
***************
I DO have a fanaticism about TRUTH, and THAT'S
why we keep butting heads. You claim certain
events never happened, you claim other events
DID happen. For good or ill, I always seek the
truth, no matter HOW ugly or unpleasant it is.
Ditto.
************
D) You asked why I didn't include comments about
the "David" thing under my comments about the
"ERRORS" thread. It was unnecessary.
You characterized me as ignoring it, and I spent a lot of time on it.
Plus I had my own solution, but it was unacceptable to others.
**************
The resolution of that one item was NOT, by any
stretch of the imagination, a demonstration of
YOUR position, nor your position's ability to
withstand scrutiny.
The ONLY demonstration of the soundness of my position can be found in obedience to the man of God and mastering the material, AGAIN.
***********
Out of a tall stack of
errors, ONE was resolved. Statistically, it
should have been expected that at least ONE
would be found. As you interpret that, it
means that the ENTIRE list is also invalid.
That's an unwarranted assumption. It's like
watching someone reach into a refrigerator,
take out a can of soda, and generalizing that
the entire contents of the refrigerator was
cans of soda.
If that can popped out all by itself, AGAINST the wishes of those stashing them into the frig, then one might conclude the collection was rashly thrown together and AT LEAST one definitely didn?t belong there. I say let?s obey Dr, master PFAL, and see how many other cans pop out all by themselves. I?ve seen such can popping many times before in my private studies over the decades.
***************
The others can clearly read the thread for
themselves. Your posts can be largely
characterized by evasions...
I sometimes righteously evade wasting my time in areas I know to be fruitless.
I sometimes righteously evade the unrighteous demands placed on me by others.
I sometimes righteously obfuscate the things that hurt people.
**************
If the thread HAD been "spotty at best", you
would have been able to make a MUCH better
showing, mowing down unwarranted assumptions
and introducing evidence on each item. It WOULD
have been very impressive, and earned you much
respect.
Primarily, I?m not trying to impress or persuade, only present.
PFAL is impressive enough.
*************
E) You called the Bible "unreliable fragments"
and "tattered remants." You also said that it
can be used by some people. You STILL don't
see the logical contradiction between the two
statements.
I don?t see your point at all.
Using a car analogy myself: Suppose you have a set of problems with your car. You read the owners manual and it?s helpful for some but not others. You buy a more detailed shop manual and it?s more useful.
There?s LOTS of value in reading a KJV, but less to an OLG because those benefits the KJV has to offer have been exhausted for an OLG.
If you for a minute tried believing that PFAL was God-breathed you?d see my logic. Like trinitarians fear even tentative acceptance of One God, I think you?ve given this idea VERY little thinking through, because it looks like scary blasphemy or idolatry.
Experimentally believing my message will open up more logic and detail than an adversarial examiner can spot. Try it, you?ll like it.
**************
Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE
Stiles' work are "counterfeits" and "clones"
of VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter
groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?
No, they are counterfeits of what God wanted written in PFAL and distributed around the world and mastered. What they wrote or taught long ago may have been totally accurate at times, but revelation can change as circumstances change.
I also see those wonderful men as sometimes getting a point right and sometimes (bless their hearts) not getting it right, but close, and therefore a regrettable counterfeit, ON THAT ONE POINT.
****************
In all fairness, THAT question was answered.
Mike will NEVER believe it of me, but I require
intellectual honesty of myself no matter WHO
disbelieves it.
I can learn as you earn.
I can learn to recognize that honesty as you earn my respect. I think you're doing better now, than protesting recursive definitions.
*************
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:06.]
[This message was edited by Mike on June 19, 2003 at 11:07.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Your analysis presumes the wording on P83 to be gramatically perfect and absolutely literal. In other words you are approaching and analyzing these words in PFAL with the presumumption that they are the Word of God in order to show that they are the Word of God. The approach assumes the conculsion. A classic circular argument.
'Said' and 'write' are many times synonymous. It is a common usage. I could write that Jefferson said, "yada yada yada" in regards to one of his letters. Most anyone would understand that I was talking about something he wrote. How would Wierwille know what Calvin 'said' (out loud)? What we know of Calvin's theology is by what he wrote. Calvinsits adhere to what Calvin "wrote". Wierwille was just simply using a synonym to keep from being redundant or boring. He was not using 'said' to separate himself from the others. It is a perfectly common and acceptable usage to write, "the scriptures 'say' yada yada yada ", yet no one should interpret that any other way than "it is written".
Mike, you are conjuring up and fabricating hidden meanings that simply aren't there.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
*confused nd blurred* my a-- Mike. Lcm`s *loyalty oath* letter stated emphatically...You write back with an oath of allegiance to me...or you are or you are *salt that has lost it`s savor* you are worthey to bethrown out into the street and trodden under the feet of the beasts.
He also said in the same letter,*nd don`t give me any of this loyalty to God garbage*.
No blurring about that Mike....Did YOU get a letter? it was perfectly clear...We didn`t write back and swear a *loyalty to Craig* letter
boom corps status gone no longer permitted to run a fellowship... worthey of contempt...
I wonder when your delusional twisting of ministry history will quit suprising me mike. Mike.
Rascalrescued (even without a loyalty oath to craig)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Yes, they CAN be used as synonyms, and they CAN be used to slightly distinguish one similar-but-not-identical object from another, as I would if I were trying to say what I demonstrated above that you object to.
I see Dr saying his situation (1942 promise) is a little different from the others on THAT page, and then I see him elaborating in OTHER pages (Green 34, 116) on that ?little? difference being not so little, depending on the context it?s viewed. If it weren?t for the slight differences of punctuation, slightly different synonym useage, inclusion of ?necessary? and ?not all,? then this page 82 would definitely contradict the others. But the differences are there, and they all add up to it agreeing with the other pages if you remember the 1942 promise and what it necessitates.
People are not beings of formal logic, and when they pretend to be, they may fooling themselves but not me. I just mentioned to EWBulinger how we all jump out of formal logical systems to embrace guts feels. Godel did this and is celebrated for it in the field of formal logic for his genius. We were taught in Witnessing and Undershepherding that people are not always logical. We?re not.
Formal logic is useful in many endeavors, but if it?s thought of as the only way to introduce light, then it?s resting on the arm of flesh. Proverbs 3: 5.6 warns us not LEAN on our understanding.
None of the prophets came forth with God?s formal proof of their credentials. Sometimes there was miraculous proof afterwards, sometimes not. But even miracles aren?t formal proof, because of the possibility of counterfeit powers.
I?m not trying to prove it to you that you should come back and master PFAL.
I?m simply telling you, or presenting it to you.
If I had been trying to formally prove it, and thus force you to accept it, I?d have failed at both.
Now you are correct that I assume Dr handled the words carefully there on page 82 of PFAL. Handling words accurately and precisely is possible for humans at times, especially in their fields of expertise and practice. I talked to one of Dr?s editors of the PFAL about this very same sentence. When I first quoted it to him on the phone a few years ago he IMMEDIATELY said ?Oh yeah! I remember THAT sentence.? Dr worked that sentence well before filming the class because it slides out so smoothly when he says it on the tape, and he then worked it with his editors. Those words were carefully chosen on the tape, and hardly changed at all in the book after much thought.
****************************************************
Here?s what Dr says in OMSW page 7:
Often I pray, ?Almighty God, unto whom every heart is opened....? I do not use these words haphazardly. Why should I? I study God?s Word so that I know what the words ?Almighty God? stand for. I want to know what they mean Biblically, and then I endeavor to use them accurately.
?. . . I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.? The text literally says ?walk before me and you are complete.? ?Walk and be complete.? Walk upon what? ?The revelation I have given you. Don?t walk by your reasoning or your opinions, but by the revelation that I have given you.?
***************************************************
Don?t walk by your reasoning or your opinions, but by the revelation, PFAL, that I have presented to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
It was my impression that the line had been blurred for so many years that by the time Craig issued that letter it was gone.
I could be wrong about this, but it's the best guess I have and not thinking evil. I think Craig was very confused on this by then (1999), as opposed to delibverately eliminating the line.
I KNOW that many other clergy were confused about this line because I asked them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
In his post of June 19, '03, 02:37, Goey asked, "Mike, do you just make this stuff up as you go along?"
A short time later, Mike responded, "You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a huge number of inconsistencies."
The picture this exchange brings to mind is one of Mike, coming out of the restroom, without realizing he is trailing a long streamer of toilet paper stuck to his shoe.
Goey sez, "Hey, Mike, do you ignore your shoes when you come out of the restroom?"
Mike sez, "You know, Goey, if I did that it would be a sure fire way of guaranteeing a long streamer of toilet paper stuck to my shoe."
Firesign Theater couldn't have done it better.
Mike's overblown sense of self-importance has blinded him to the truth that nearly every one of his posts generates huge numbers of inconsistencies.
Love,
S. Lortz, OLG Extraordinaire by Popular Acclaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Steve,
"...
Firesign Theater couldn't have done it better."
Good one!!
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
www.gapstudioweb.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Your recent (June 19, '03, 03:06) foray into the realm of "make it up as you go along" weasel-grammar was breath-taking, to say the least. As I read that piece of work, I was reminded of Richard Gere's tap number in the movie "Chicago". Spectacular to watch, but deceitful, and totally contrary to truth.
Fortunately, your post was brief enough that we can go through it word for word. Will the number of inconsistencies be huge? Probably not... it's such a brief post for you... but I'm certain the number will be sufficiently large.
You wrote, "Steve, I disagree that all laws of logic or grammar insist on your interpretation of PFAL page 83."
Unfortunately for your case, Mike, it doesn't make diddly-squat difference whether YOU agree or not. What matters is that the interpretation I presented agrees with the rules of grammar applied to exactly what Wierwille wrote. Before proceeding, let's review the written material and its 5-senses meaning.
On page 83 of PFAL, this is exactly what Wierwille wrote, "It does not say search Shakespeare or Kant or Plato or Aristotle or V.P. Wierwille's writings or the writings of a denomination. No, it says, 'Search the scriptures...' because all scripture is God-breathed. Not all that Wierwille writes will necessarily be God-breathed; not what Calvin said, nor Luther, nor Wesley, nor Graham, nor Roberts; but the Scriptures - they are God-breathed."
The 5-senses meaning of this passage, according to all the laws of grammar, is as follows: Wierwille's words fall into the same catagory as the words of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, Roberts and denominational writings; the words in this catagory are different from the words in the catagory called "Scripture" because ALL the words of Scripture are God-breathed, while NOT ALL the words of the other catagory will necessarily be God-breathed.
Let's start with the context and work inward. Chapter 6 of PFAL (pp 81-92), titled "That Man May Be Perfect", is about the function of God's Word. The chapter begins with a citation of II Timothy 3:16, and ends with a citation of II Timothy 3:16&17. The over-arching context of the paragraph on page 83 is "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [God-breathed], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The first part of the paragraph on page 83 reads, "The Bible was written so that you as a believer need not be blown about by every wind of doctrine or theory or ideology. This Word of God does not change. Men change, ideologies change, opinions change; but this Word of God lives and abides forever. It endures, it stands. Let's see this from John 5:39. "Search the scriptures..."
The first sentence of the paragraph contrasts the written Bible ("All scripture" according to the over-arching context, II Timothy 3:16) with "every wind of doctrine or theory or theology."
The second, third and forth sentences contrast "This Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") with men, ideologies and opinions. Men, ideologies and opinions change, according to Wierwille, while "this Word of God" (the written Bible, "All scripture") does not.
So the context within the first part of the paragraph sets up a series of contrasts between the written Word of God ("All scripture") and the products of men; winds of doctrine, theories, theologies, men, ideologies, opinions.
With the fifth and sixth sentences, Wierwille introduces a new citation, "Let's see this from John 5:39. 'Search the scriptures...'".
So the "this" of the fifth sentence refers to the contrast between the written Word and the writings of men. Wierwille is introducing John 5:39 to point up that contrast.
As we have seen above, in the rest of the paragraph under consideration, Wierwille continues the series of contrasts: the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Shakespeare, Kant, Plato, Aristotle, Wierwille and denominations; the writings of the Scriptures with the writings of Wierwille, Calvin, Luther, Wesley, Graham, and Roberts.
The "Not all" that begins the last sentence of the paragraph is a contrasting allusion to the "All" that begins II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is God-breathed..." ALL scripture is God-breathed, but NOT ALL that men write is God-breathed.
In the whole paragraph, Wierwille places his own writings squarely in among the writings of the other men.
I have to pack it in for the night. I will continue parsing Mike's highly entertaining, though not highly meaningful, adventure in speculative grammar tomorrow morning.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.