VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Tzaia]

What if I showed you documentation where he claimed NOT to be a scholar?

That would mean all dashed expectations that he WERE a scholar must be based on lack of attention, right?

Well you haven't. But just so you know, the term research has an implication of some level of scholarship. He didn't claim, like Jim Jones or other cult leaders, to receive direct revelation from God on all points he was teaching. He invoked research and scholarship as a way of giving credibility to what he was doing.

VPW's claim was that he would be able to teach scripture with a first century understanding from the scriptures themselves. He claimed to use certain rules of engagement to do so, which implies an academic standard. Then he invoked Greek and Hebrew, which again implies some level of demonstration of scholarship or mastery of a subject.

You say he made no claims about being a scholar. Perhaps it was in a self-deprecating way. I don't know. But I do know he wanted to be THE credible person to teach "the accuracy of the word" "as it had not been done since the first century."

Here's my pick:

1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us.

2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material.

3. God showed him some few and much needed original things.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Now there's no contradiction.

While telling us all that we could not pick and choose by invoking the "all scripture" clause. Then he told us that everything prior to Acts 2 was "for our learning." Then he backpedaled by going back into a previous administration and invoking tithing and taking it to a new level (abundant sharing), which in turn broke his own rule about adhering to God's standard as opposed to man's under-reaching and over-reaching tendencies.

So, what I believe is that VPW did and said whatever was expedient and fit with his particular goals and desires. He wanted people to believe he was a farm-boy who had received a doctorate, but he wasn't a scholar. However he (supposedly) had a grasp of Greek and Hebrew and an understanding of scripture not seen since the first century, while simply receiving revelation. He was pretty sure he could get what he wanted by simply believing for it, but it took a miracle of snow on the pumps from God to get his attention.

The scriptures themselves state there is nothing new under the sun. The best he might have done is put a new spin on old ideas.

[Mike]

If "a lot of the stuff"he taught was not original, the logical conclusion would be that someone knew it before him. It was not material that hadn't been known since the first century as he led us to believe. Spin that however you like, the contradiction is still there.

We were led to believe that much of the material WAS known, but it was not collected together.

From the TW:LIV p. 209 quote in Post #252 we were told:

"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could,"

We were told that much of it WAS known, but it was just not all in one place. If we didn't pay attention to exactly what was published, THEN we could spin our the wrong story that it was totally unknown.

We often lead ourselves into the wrong understanding, doing the spin ourselves. Going back to the source is the only way to avoid that. It we just heard it in the wind, or from some person, or picked it up from the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and didn't seek better knowledge, they we were stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings.

We have two more quotes on this matter that may have been neglected by inattentive spinners in the past:

From "Light Began to Dawn" found here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871 in the older thread :

"That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody [sINGULAR] since the first generation."

From Elena's book we have:

"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

We were clearly NOT led to believe that it was "material that hadn't been known since the first century" as you spinned it and would have readers of your post led to believe.

We were plainly told that most of it was known BUT that it was not all in one place and it was mixed with error. It was not known LIKE it was in the first century, not known AS it was in the first century. Those are important words that shouldn't have been dropped.

Those grads who paid good attention to him have known these things all along. All this may cause you and others to wonder HOW MANY OTHER THINGS DID YOU SPIN and thus get the wrong message on?

Edited January 13, 2009 by Mike

[Mark Clarke]

Just wondering if the *gas pumps* that he (docvic) saw the snow on looked anything like this:

Interesting parallel. He actually didn't say he saw "snow on the gas pumps." He said, "The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." Continuing the parallel with the above stone tablets, we might say his theology was so thick with snow he couldn't see the commandments of the Lord.

[waysider]

"Just write THE TEACHER."

He held himself out to be THE TEACHER, not simply ANY teacher, but THE teacher.

This implies he had attained a level of mastery that the students lacked.

Is that the same as a scholar?

No---- not if you want to pick at nits and discount any tees that aren't crossed.

He presented himself as having special knowledge of the subject and camouflaged the reality of his abysmal lack of scholarship with his "aw shucks" farm boy act.

[Mike]

...just so you know, the term research has an implication of some level of scholarship.

What if I showed you that we were told that when he used the term "research" me meant some different and far more simple, like simply REsearching something?

We were clearly told to NOT think of research that way. We weren't scholars and we weren't told to try and become like them (a few of us did attempt it.)

We were urged to think of the way of a Father with His family and to develop a relationship with Him by enjoying simple materials to assist in our KJV work.

I'm so glad the Blue Book and others are not cluttered with distracting pointy headed footnotes and such. I simply enjoy it.

*****

Here is where he published his scholarship disclaimer (one of them) AND his explanation (one of them) of that we weren’t to get too carried away on the term “research.” This is from the Our Times Editorial titled "How the Word Works" in the May/June 1979 The Way Magazine. I’ve posted this in the past here.

“I have had the opportunity over the years to see much of how God’s Word works. When I speak of research among our believers, I do not mean, primarily, discovering something new in the Bible. I mean establishing in your heart the wonderful truths of God’s Word--to the end that these truths are your own; you can understand them, you have mastered them. Someone who has been exposed to the Word for only a short while (such as a new grad of the foundational class on Power for Abundant Living) perhaps could not do as much with it as I could, but this is simply because of time. Any individual can work the Word of God and understand it. I have never said that I am a Bible scholar; all I know is that I love God, I love His Word and I want to help people.”

Edited January 13, 2009 by Mike

[cman]

"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could,"

sorry mike, vpw is not tht holy spirit

[oldiesman]

We were led to believe that much of the material WAS known, but it was not collected together.

From the TW:LIV p. 209 quote in Post #252 we were told:

"Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could,"

We were told that much of it WAS known, but it was just not all in one place. If we didn't pay attention to exactly what was published, THEN we could spin our the wrong story that it was totally unknown.

We often lead ourselves into the wrong understanding, doing the spin ourselves. Going back to the source is the only way to avoid that. It we just heard it in the wind, or from some person, or picked it up from the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and didn't seek better knowledge, they we were stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings.

We have two more quotes on this matter that may have been neglected by inattentive spinners in the past:

From "Light Began to Dawn" found here http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=1871 in the older thread :

"That if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to teach it to anybody [sINGULAR] since the first generation."

From Elena's book we have:

"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

We were clearly NOT led to believe that it was "material that hadn't been known since the first century" as you spinned it and would have readers of your post led to believe.

We were plainly told that most of it was known BUT that it was not all in one place and it was mixed with error. It was not known LIKE it was in the first century, not know AS it was in the first century. Those are important words that shouldn't have been dropped.

Those grads who paid good attention to him have known these things all along. All this may cause you and others to wonder HOW MANY OTHER THINGS DID YOU SPIN and thus get the wrong message on?

I agree Mike. Perhaps if there were no clear statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" and there were no bookstore items proving in plain english that lots of his stuff came from elsewhere, along with all the verbal statements throughout the years, I would have had the impression way back then that he was receiving his knowledge directly from God Himself without assistance, thereby possibly feeling duped today. But such was not the case, which is why I find these arguments weak.

Edited January 13, 2009 by oldiesman

[waysider]

I would have had the impression way back then that he was receiving his knowledge directly from God Himself without assistance, thereby feeling duped today.

Maybe people had that impression way back then because that's what he claimed.

(Took all his books to the dump. God showed him things that hadn't been known for 2,000 years.)

[Mike]

Maybe people had that impression way back then because that's what he claimed.

(Took all his books to the dump. God showed him things that hadn't been known for 2,000 years.)

Can you tell us where he claimed this? Can it be you got this from secondary sources that were inaccurate?

If you got it straight and direct, can you remember where you heard it or read it? And if so, why didn't you recognize back then that such a claim would contradict the printed and taped published accounts we have displayed?

Can you come to grips with the idea the you simply got it wrong?

[waysider]

Can you tell us where he claimed this? Can it be you got this from secondary sources that were inaccurate?

If you got it straight and direct, can you remember where you heard it or read it? And if so, why didn't you recognize back then that such a claim would contradict the printed and taped published accounts we have displayed?

Can you come to grips with the idea the you simply got it wrong?

So, then, are you saying he DIDN'T get his information directly from God?

[Mark Clarke]

We often lead ourselves into the wrong understanding, doing the spin ourselves. Going back to the source is the only way to avoid that. It we just heard it in the wind, or from some person, or picked it up from the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and didn't seek better knowledge, they we were stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings.

You're right about whether or not the material was known before. His claim, and the official claim of TWI as an organization was not that NOBODY else taught anything VPW taught. It was how he put it together. But based on that, he still was dishonest. He didn't demonstrate which of the doctrines or teachings were his own and which were lifted from someone else. So anyone seeking answers would not be able to judge for himself whether the teachings were true.

But more importantly, while he made statements like "I never claimed to be a Bible scholar" he still taught "principles" by which anyone could study the Bible. Remember the keys to "how the Word interprets itself"? That does not imply that the true meaning of the Scriptures has been so hopelessly lost that only the divine guidance VPW received would enable us to understand it, as you seem to think. He nearly always backed up his conclusions with Scripture, albeit misquoted, twisted, and out of context. He never claimed that he came by his understanding of the Bible by any means other than natural study methods and the keys which he taught, contrary to your claim that understanding from the manuscripts and texts was "irretrievably lost" before VPW. The admission that he learned things from other people who had studied the texts further establishes this. If God led him to select the writings of, say, E. W. Bullinger, then Bullinger's understanding of the Bible and its languages must have been valid (at least in VP's view); therefore the knowledge was not "irretrievably lost."

VPW taught keys to studying and learning from the Bible. The only reason many of us didn't see the error of his doctrines is because we were studying the Bible to "work" VP's ideas, and not letting the Bible speak for itself. And we did that because of ideas like what he said in that Our Times article, "When I speak of research...I mean establishing in your heart the wonderful truths of God’s Word--to the end that these truths are your own." That's another way of saying, just master the "truths" I teach you and don't question the truthfulness of it. Those of us who have gone beyond that and really applied established principles of Biblical interpretation have seen the many doctrinal errors in PFAL and VP's books.

You say you want to get back to "the source." Well, if the source of something VP taught was from someone else, wouldn't getting back to the source that he took it from be more desirable? And since he didn't document his sources in many, if not most, cases, there is no way someone picking up the sacred Studies in Abundant Living books could know the source of much of the material. VP himself said on more than one occasion, words to the effect of "don't take my word for it, read the Bible for yourself." Your statement above about seeking better knowledge, so we don't get "stuck with partial understanding and many misunderstandings" is as true, or even more true, with regard to the writings of VPW. If you really want to avoid misunderstanding, you should go back to the source, which is not VP's writings but The Bible.

When you make statements like, "I'm so glad the Blue Book and others are not cluttered with distracting pointy headed footnotes and such. I simply enjoy it," it sounds disturbingly like people who say, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me witht he truth." That is exactly how wrong doctrines have taken hold throughout history. We are told to "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (I Thes. 5:21) and to "...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). By studying only VP's writings you are actually disobeying these commands of the Lord. But hey, it's a free country!

[sirguessalot]

"...I learned wherever I could"

which was obviously not much

...or he would have taught something a bit more practical and useful

and instead of a sinner grasping for a future heaven

he would have been a saint marching into our present day hells

scholar or not...this distinction is like night and day

he drowned in the very waters that the real teachers swim in

[JeffSjo]

Hi guys,

In case I haven't been clear already, I prefer to stay away from the original question of this thread in this one respect: I am not going to touch on anything God did or didn't do and claim that I know FOR SURE.

But this one thing I've faced in my splinter group and I am certain that Wierwille did the same thing.

Wierwille stole people's teachings and then took all the credit. He did what Paul chided the Corinthians for doing. He gloried like the teachings came from him, when in fact he took them. The fact that in certain circumstances he gave lip-service to having collected various teachings is far outweighed by the well known fact that he later put down everybody that was the source of his teachings.

I remember that he called Lamsa and Oral Roberts sell-outs. But a lot of his teaching on the Aramaic he took from Lamsa, and the Red Thread he took from Roberts.

I guess if the stories of his little tantrums when folks didn't give him the glory are false that is one thing. But I remember his little tantrums being presented as his attempt to teach people how to give glory to God by leadership that believed Wierwille and were thinking that they were presenting the truth to me back in the day.

According to Wierwillian theology, Wierwille had the right to totally trash his scources but made people honor him exactly like many tin-pot dictators and cult-of-personality figureheads have done.

As far as the supposed quality of his bible teachings go, they were ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT.... that is if anybody had to construct a theology that totally insulated a pervert like Wierwille from any of the criticism that his actions deserved while simultaneously ensuring the adoration of the ignorant faithful.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

Can you come to grips with the idea the you simply got it wrong?

After reading many of your posts, I would ask you the same question. Wierwille's behavior disqualified him as a true Christian minister with his alcoholism and his predatory sexual escapades...The fact that he "cut and pasted" entire sections out of other people's books...and then put it "all together" indicates not only plagiarism...but an inability to express himself as real authors do. Wierwille was not an author...he was a con man...

[waysider]

QUOTE (waysider @ Jan 13 2009, 08:05 AM) *

Maybe people had that impression way back then because that's what he claimed.

(Took all his books to the dump. God showed him things that hadn't been known for 2,000 years.)

Can you tell us where he claimed this? Can it be you got this from secondary sources that were inaccurate?

If you got it straight and direct, can you remember where you heard it or read it? And if so, why didn't you recognize back then that such a claim would contradict the printed and taped published accounts we have displayed?

Can you come to grips with the idea the you simply got it wrong?

From Elena's book we have:

"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others."

[Mike]

So, then, are you saying he DIDN'T get his information directly from God?

Did you not see my Post #275 where I wrote what I think he got directly and indirectly from God?

Here's my pick:

indirect 1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us.

indirect2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material.

direct3. God showed him some few and much needed original things.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Mike

[JeffSjo]

1 Co 5:11, (Lamsa version)

Now what I have written to you is this: you are not to associate with any person who is known as a brother and yet is immoral or fraudulent or an idolater......

GEE MIKE, IF ONLY HE HAD ADDED THIS ONE VERSE AND NOT LIED ABOUT HIS OWN HABITS, THEN MAYBE I'D GIVE HIM A LITTLE CREDIT. But as things went, it looks to me like Wierwille might get your praise but he won't get any from the Lord.

[sirguessalot]

reliance on phenomenon from a merely magical mythical view of God...

loathing and avoidance of suffering and darkness...

lack of practical spiritual practices and disciplines...

juvenile christian metaphysics...

20th century flight from death...

again...how can he say "...since the first century..." if he left out the wisdom and experiences of the "desert fathers" of christianity, for example

or most all of the christian and jewish contributions in the fields of dream WORK, or caregiving, or monastic devotion...

there is a huge difference between crafting and conceptualizing clever maps and models of one's novel iconoclastic theology

...and demonstrating actual living practices that live up to the claim of "since the first century"

and justifying vpws lifestyle by comparing him to david seems silly..

especially when the teachings of countless people whose lives (and deaths) were/are obviously more like Christ than even David himself

...are outright dismissed, constantly ignored, and generally left out of "the ultimate truth equation"

imo, he was not only oblivious to, but FEARED and ENVIED 2000 years of actual practices in christian experience

like someone who will not look at what he wishes he understood

...and even tries to get others to stop participating in them because he cant bring himself to

for someone who has "been to parts of chicago"...its quite evident when someone has never been to "chicago"

...talks about being "The expert on chicago"

[oldiesman]

Maybe people had that impression way back then because that's what he claimed.

(Took all his books to the dump. God showed him things that hadn't been known for 2,000 years.)

That is NOT what he claimed. He claimed the opposite.

Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books, sources and materials later, which he did.

He did not say "I got rid of all my books and never looked at another one again". that was not the message.

God showing him things didn't prohibit men of God being involved in that process.

If the message had been "do not read or listen to any source other than myself" your version would fit and make sense but that was not the message.

Edited January 13, 2009 by oldiesman

[JeffSjo]

1. Number of women that he abused.

2. Number of times that he quoted other teachers without giving them due credit.

3. Number of people that he crushed for not fawning at his feet.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Now there's no contradiction.

:ph34r:

[waysider]

That is NOT what he claimed. He claimed the opposite.

Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books later, which he did.

God showing him things didn't prohibit other men of God being involved in that process.

If the message had been "do not read or listen to any other source other than myself" your version would fit and make sense.

So then how did he manage to plagiarize from these books he supposedly took to the dump?

Do you mean he replaced them and then plagiarized from them?

Just trying to understand the chronology here.

[oldiesman]

Did you read what I wrote above?

Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books, sources and materials later, which he did.

[waysider]

Did you read what I wrote above?

OK---So then the plagiarism must have stemmed from books he acquired AFTER the dump incident.

[sirguessalot]

odd

but i also cant help but agree with both mike and oldiesman

in parts

i sense a deeper truer positive value of pfal that is largely misunderstood and misrepresented by most members and x-members alike

especially IF you put on THIS filter..or take of THAT filter...

duh

join the same with anything else club

sleepwalking through a wilderness of memory and habit

but if god is still some conceptual written it here

spirit is still a conceptual it

christ is still a conceptual it

the word is still a conceptual it

so...where is this it?

it is at least somewhere in our head

our physical head

until we type it

or say it

then it is transformed to paper

or this video hypertext

which is a lot

but also not

what about the rest of the body?

and the universe?

and such

which is a clear majority

where is this way?

method?

technique?

here?

any processes?

efforts?

actions?

practices?

demonstrations?

what does is this truth look like in the book?

outside the book?

outside of mere belief?

or writings about belief?

like a child might ask...

where is it?

who is it?

when is it?

what is IT?

what does it do?

how is it done?

but even as adults, surely its not unreasonable to want to know what is

beyond this belief in the reason for stories of phenomenal snowstorms

where does this, your current map, NOT overlap with other maps

in some supreme relevent useful global universally important way?

you...sitting there/here

thinking, feeling, typing, breathing, farting

like all of us

what experiences have you had that convince you of what you believe?

and associating it so strongly with jesus and paul and such

what did they really really really do?

like John wrote...touched and handled

has anyone else done that?

is anyone else doing that?

are you?

who else do you know is being this Way?

<_<

why are we still telling stories about the truth?

when we are all dying someday?

that clear present nameless truth is right here

right now

simply noticing that big IT

is a lot

amazing how we miss that big IT

along the way

....

the stories are vital, and precious...and a lot ...but not enough

practices, doctrines...are also vital

like fields and streams

but perhaps most vital is presence

whatever this word may or not mean

Edited January 13, 2009 by sirguessalot

[skyrider]

That is NOT what he claimed. He claimed the opposite.

Taking all his books to the dump one year doesn't mean he didn't learn from other books, sources and materials later, which he did.

He did not say "I got rid of all my books and never looked at another one again". that was not the message.

Or......saying he took all his books to the dump does NOT make it so.

After all has been learned about wierwille........am I supposed to BELIEVE IT cause he SAID IT?