VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Ham]

A RULE is something that we "line up with."

"lining up" one's life with pfal.. is like trying to draw a straight line with a crooked ruler..

If scientists were to use a loosey goosey standard for the meter, the world would fall apart in no time.

actually, it wouldn't. The world got along ok for a long long time, long before anyone even dreamed of the concept of the meter.

the sun still appeared in the morning sky.. tides still went in, and out.. crops still managed to be planted, and harvested.. geese still migrated..

penguins marched.. people still figured out how to reproduce..

[Mark Clarke]

It sounds to me that you don't really have a rule, but you play it loosey goosey, like RumRunner just fully admitted.

A RULE is something that we "line up with."

A rule is someTHING that we "line up with."

A rule is something that we "LINE up with."

(how THAT for use of ALL-CAPS all you English teachers?!)

It seems to me you, Mark, don't have a substantial rule as it was defined in our past, just whatever you presently think is right. It is a rubber ruler that flops around with your latest hot research. It's not something bigger than you that you line up with.

In science, the idea of a "standard" is very similar to this. In fact, for decades the "rule" for linear measure was a bar if iridium located in Paris, and that was the standard for the metric system, the meter. They eventually replaced this with something even better and hard core.

If scientists were to use a loosey goosey standard for the meter, the world would fall apart in no time.

The rule "as it was defined in our past" was that the Bible is the communication of God's Word. It was something that we all endeavored to line up with; some were more successful than others at lining up. I still endeavor to line up with it. Trouble is, the ruler as viewed by VPW was warped. But he still pointed us in the general direction of the standard, even though he misused it.

These days I have a better view of the standard. Far from "my latest hot research," it is a standard that is trustworthy because it's been tested and proven since long before VPW was even born. I spent several years rethinking everything I was taught in TWI, by holding it up to the standard of the Bible. I did so because I wanted to know what the truth was, as opposed to all those years I had spent "studying" the Bible to prove VPW's theology. That has made all the difference.

Some of what he had taught was good, and held together when examined closely against the Scriptures. Much of it did not hold together. But the plain, simple understanding of what the Bible says, without the TWI goggles, is still the same rule that thinking Christians have used for centuries.

Just because I don't claim to have all the answers does not mean I "play it loosey-goosey." The answers that I do have can be verified from the Scriptures, which have stood the test of time. VP claimed the same thing, of course, and so have other teachers. So what "standard" or "rule" do we use to determine which teacher has it right? Can we use a teacher's own words as the standard by which his words are judged? Of course not. That would be circular logic and begging the question.

Obviously we have to use a higher standard to judge those teachings. And he himself claimed to be using the Scriptures as his standard. So it's simply a matter of comparing VP's teachings with what is clear from the Bible. And when that is done, he is weighed in the balances and found wanting. His OWN STANDARDS disprove many of his doctrines. To ignore that fact and hold to his words IN SPITE of that is worse than "loosey-goosey." It's like a warped iridium bar (if that were possible) still being held up as the standard meter.

[Ham]

Now I do happen to be a scientist as well.. and do not find fault with the "benefits" of the meter. But looking at reality.. it is a man-made CONCEPT. And it is very abstract. One can have a meter of yarn, or fabric, or of wire, or of (fill in the blank). Useful? Absolutely. Though the meter is based in the abstract, it has very evident real world usefulness and relevance.

The vicster's snowstorm? It is likewise a man made concept.. a self-proclaimed "rule" from the mouth of the one being "measured".. whether originating from the delusion or outright dishonesty from the mind of the originator of the story..

it measures a crooked life of plagiarism, abuse, alcoholism and sexual immorality with a rather arbitrary ruler..

if we start measuring "men's" "ministries" with snowstorms and such, I think we are beginning to go from the abstract, to the bizarre.

[cman]

Glad I took pfal, because of the amount of bible I became familiar with.

Never did like the Nazi like structure of the whole thing though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

Just change some labels and you have pfal the only rule.

Edited January 15, 2009 by cman

[waysider]

I'm not a scientist------nor do I play one on TV.

However, if one were to use PFAL as some sort of gold standard of Truth, the snowstorm is busted.

There's an axiom in here somewhere, too, but I'm not a mathematician either.

Maybe some math person could show the sequence in formulaic format.

Somewhere in the PFAL series (don't know where, not inspired to spend my time searching) wierwille states that phenomenon can not be conjured up. In other words, according to the PFAL gold standard being used in this example, one can not tell/ask God for specific phenomenon. Is that Biblically accurate? I don't know. But (and this is crucial) it doesn't matter because PFAL, not the Bible, is being used as the standard of Truth for this argument.

So, here we are in 1942. Wierwille tells God to make it snow. His action contradicts the standard that he, himself, has set forth for verification of truth. But it doesn't end there. Suppose it really did snow. That, by virtue of elementary logic, invalidates the section in the PFAL series that taught you can't control phenomenon. Thus, the gold standard has literally exposed its own fallibility.

What does all that prove? It proves that, either PFAL is invalid as a standard of Truth, it didn't really snow, or both.

I tend to think it proves both.

[Mark Clarke]

Why is it then that for most people the "big picture" turns out to be just another Picasso Dora Maar au Chat when it comes to Christianity? (See post above.)

Sorry, I don't understand the "Picasso Dora Maar au Chat" reference. Could you clarify your question?

[waysider]

Picasso Dora Maar au Chat

[doojable]

You know... let's just cut to the chase.

This argument has happened over and over and over and over...ad nauseum.

Mike, WTH, WD and perhaps a few other cast members not worth mentioning...

You keep moving the goal posts and changing things to suit your moods and shore up your already weak arguments. While it's quite entertaining and has bolstered readership here at the Cafe, it's also a sad testimony to your personal integrity - not only as individuals, but as a group (gorp?)

Why come out in support of a man that raped, pillaged and plundered? Does that do it for you? Does it make you lay awake at night and say to yourselves, "I've finally arrived! Gawd will finally bless me because I gave of myself willingly! Finally the snow will fall on the gaspumps for me and my life will have meaning. I will be loved. I stood up for gawd's pirate... er.... profit... er... prophet ... now I will be blessed."

pfffffffffft!

BTW- at least this thread has had some teeth in the arguments. IMHO - when the ability to speak freely goes south, the integrity of the place goes along with it.

Hopefully someone with the surgical skill of an orangutan won't remove the grit from this thread and replace it with yesterday's old oatmeal.

[Mark Clarke]

I'm not a scientist------nor do I play one on TV.

However, if one were to use PFAL as some sort of gold standard of Truth, the snowstorm is busted.

There's an axiom in here somewhere, too, but I'm not a mathematician either.

Maybe some math person could show the sequence in formulaic format.

Somewhere in the PFAL series (don't know where, not inspired to spend my time searching) wierwille states that phenomenon can not be conjured up. In other words, according to the PFAL gold standard being used in this example, one can not tell/ask God for specific phenomenon. Is that Biblically accurate? I don't know. But (and this is crucial) it doesn't matter because PFAL, not the Bible, is being used as the standard of Truth for this argument.

So, here we are in 1942. Wierwille tells God to make it snow. His action contradicts the standard that he, himself, has set forth for verification of truth. But it doesn't end there. Suppose it really did snow. That, by virtue of elementary logic, invalidates the section in the PFAL series that taught you can't control phenomenon. Thus, the gold standard has literally exposed its own fallibility.

What does all that prove? It proves that, either PFAL is invalid as a standard of Truth, it didn't really snow, or both.

I tend to think it proves both.

As I recall, from some teaching or other (don't remember if it was in the Foundational Class or not) we can pray for something like a sign, but it's still up to God whether He will grant that request. Also, it was said that God would put it on your heart to ask for such-and-such, so when you asked you'd be asking according to His will. (Example: Gideon and the fleece.) This was the logic that was used to explain VP asking/telling God to make it snow. The specifics of things like phenomena and miraculous signs are not that clearly defined in the Bible, so there is enough wiggle room for anyone, including VP, to get around it.

That's why I maintain that since nobody else was there, we can never "prove" or "disprove" whether the snow thing was real. What identifies it as valid or invalid, IMO, is whether or not the "Word" that he taught is accurate, as well as the fruit in his life. (By their fruit you shall know them.)

[Mike]

The rule "as it was defined in our past" was that the Bible Which version? is the communication of God's Word. It was something that we all endeavored to line up with; some were more successful than others at lining up. I still endeavor to line up with it. Trouble is, the ruler as viewed by VPW was warped. But he still pointed us in the general direction of the standard, even though he misused it.

These days I have a better view of the standard. Far from "my latest hot research," it is a standard that is trustworthy because it's been tested and proven since long before VPW was even born. I spent several years rethinking everything I was taught in TWI, by holding it up to the standard of the BibleWhich version?. I did so because I wanted to know what the truth was, as opposed to all those years I had spent "studying" the Bible Which version?to prove VPW's theology. That has made all the difference.

Some of what he had taught was good, and held together when examined closely against the Scriptures. Much of it did not hold together. But the plain, simple understanding of what the Bible Which English version do you mean here, Mark? This is an undefined term in your writing. There are hundreds of versions in English. This is not a standard if you shift around from version to version.says, without the TWI goggles, is still the same rule that thinking Christians have used for centuries.

Just because I don't claim to have all the answers does not mean I "play it loosey-goosey." The answers that I do have can be verified from the Scriptures,Which translation? which have stood the test of time. VP claimed the same thing, of course, and so have other teachers. So what "standard" or "rule" do we use to determine which teacher has it right? Can we use a teacher's own words as the standard by which his words are judged? Of course not. That would be circular logic and begging the question.

Obviously we have to use a higher standard to judge those teachings. And he himself claimed to be using the Scriptures as his standard. This is not accurate. He said it was "The Word" he used as his only rule, in Session 7 of the film class. MUCH later in 1985 he said Bible, which had been finally defined by then as God's Word in written form, the greatest secret in the world, the PFAL writings.It was the direct Word, revelation, that he had as his standard, and he finally got it all into print for us.So it's simply a matter of comparing VP's teachings with what is clear from the Bible.Which version? And when that is done, he is weighed in the balances and found wanting. His OWN STANDARDS disprove many of his doctrines. To ignore that fact and hold to his words IN SPITE of that is worse than "loosey-goosey." It's like a warped iridium bar (if that were possible) still being held up as the standard meter.

Mark, until you settle on one version, and stick with every passage in that one version, your "only rule" is totally loosey goosey in my book. It's not a rule at all. There would be some unstated (and maybe unstable rule) you'd be following in making your decisions as to which version to use for which passage. The same would hold for better renderings/translations of words, and for augmentations like Orientalisms and such.

There was only ONE bar in Paris that was the standard (until they upgraded it to something else involving light waves). If there were hundreds of bars it wouldn't be a standard unless they all were lined up together and had the same length./ The hundreds of versions of "the Bible" in no way all line up and say the same thing(s). In SOME things they so, but not nearly all.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[oldiesman]

Why come out in support of a man that raped, pillaged and plundered?

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

[cman]

the teachings promoted the actions of the teacher

gave it a biblical look to ungodliness

using the bible for self promotion

it's the rule of pfal and it's intent

a hate group

with a class to back it up

[Mike]

On a different thread nowIsee asked where does the phrase “only rule for faith and practice” come from.

In written form, it was the title of Dr’s very last Magazine article in 1985, but it originated (as far as I know) in the film class Session 7.

Here is (with my bold fonts) the 1967 version that we all heard in segment 31 Session 7 of THE CLASS :

Now knowing logically that we have to have a center of reference, every person, and I put it in the singular because this is truth. We have to have at least one center for learning which is outside of the individual. But most of us have had multiple centers; we are confused in a multiple way.

This knowing how the law of learning operates and how this thing works I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me this Word of God, this Bible--not the King James version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit--that this Word of God is my only source for truth outside of the individual seeking.

This is my primary and sole rule for faith and practice. This is why the law of learning operating the way it does and our knowledge of this I have to have some center of reference. For years I read around the Word of God; two, three theological works a week, every week. Because I just love to read and so I read and read and read. Well, these men were all centers of reference for learning and all I got was a hodge-podge of personal conviction but it was basically confusion. Because equally great men regarding the same verse of scripture would contradict each other.

So, when I began to understand the operation of the senses in relationship to learning I finally came to the conclusion that instead of staying in confusion with all of men's opinions a lifetime I was willing to come to one point, one center of reference for truth which was outside of the individual seeking and that was THE Word of God. And I've staked my life on the accuracy and the integrity of God's Word. If this Word is wrong then I'm going to be wrong in what I teach. But I'm willing to take that "chance" as you would call it. As John Paul Jones or someone said "he's willing to go down with the ship." I'm willing to go down with the ship.

If the Word of God is wrong I'm going to be wrong in everything that I've taught you in this foundational class on Power for Abundant Living. And everything we are dealing with now I could be wrong on but if the Word of God is right then the law of learning substantiates the truth that we're presenting and that is that this becomes our sole reference, our primary, our only rule of faith and practice outside of the individual seeking. We have to have something to turn to because you must learn, you must learn from something which is outside of you. Man needs a point of contact which is outside of him.

In the PFAL book he words it differently on page 230:

We gather information through our five senses from a source or sources outside ourselves. We come to conclusions from our accumulated knowledge, and thus we believe what we believe. Being aware of the process of learning, I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me the Word of God (not the King James Version, but the Word of God which was given when “... holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”) would be my source for truth. This is my center of reference for learning.

For years I read around the Word of God with the writers of outside works being centers of reference for me. Soon I suffered from a common disease called mental confusion because equally great men regarding the same verse of Scripture would contradict each other. When I began to consider the process of learning, I finally came to the conclusion that instead of spending my life in confusion with men’s opinions I would accept one center of reference for truth which was outside myself, and that was the Word of God.

If the Word of God is wrong, I am going to be wrong; but if the Word of God is right, then I have everything to gain by taking it as my sole center of reference.

I have a feeling this is brand new learning for most grads. Most tuned out this section of the class and book. Because I was into science, and standards are a big deal there, I was on keen alert in this section and never forgot it. In fact, I would teach at my twig that this section, segment 31 in Session 7, was the logical BEGINNING of the class.

Do you see how there has to be only ONE center for learning, and it must be fixed and unchanging?

Do you see how it was not the vague term “the Bible” that he used, but The Word, that’s the revelation God promised him for our benefit? In the class he slips, I think, and does say “the Bible” but then immediately corrects himself. In the book the term “the Bible” is missing altogether.

***

This also solves another long standing mystery. In Session 1 we were taught that “the Bible” is the REVEALED Word of God, but that was prophesy. At that time there was no “the Bible” that was revealed in existance, only tattered remnants of an ancient one. As the PFAL reveltions got put into written form “the Bible” came into existance. That the PFAL writings are “the Bible” is the greatest secret in the world. Not many people, only a few hundred that I’ve contacted over the past ten years and readers of GreasSpot have ever heard it, and far fewer believe it.

This truly IS the greatest secret in the world today that PFAL (book and magazine form) is THE Bible and is the Word of God in written form.

Wasn’t this one of John Jeudes big initial objections with PFAL? I mean when Jeudes heard Dr say that the greatest secret in the world is that “the Bible” is the revealed Wored of God he dismissed the class right away. I think I read that somewhere.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[cman]

Just look at yourselves.

Oldiesman, Mike or whoever holds the class so dear.

You don't trust anyone, not even yourselves!

That is part of the fruit of the class.

So you have to trust a class and the man behind it?

WHY!?

It's part of the class!!

It rules out so much that nothing is left.

You have to go by the class or nothing.

It's designed that way.

The Spirit is not like that.

Or God or Christ or many things that have been blocked out by pfal.

Just basic history has been thrown out, see sirg's posts.

Man, take a good look at what you are not seeing.

[Tzaia]

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

The sins of the teacher should prompt a more critical review of the teaching. VPW's teachings were critically reviewed outside of TWI and people did find fault with those teachings. Those were the known entities. The unwritten teachings were his undoing - the things that didn't leak out until his death. Those unwritten things tainted any "truth" he taught. Since most of what he taught was not his to begin with, there is no problem going back to the original author. Even then I've rejected much of that as being unnecessary in the larger scheme of things.

[Oakspear]

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

Why did I know that you were going to say that? Do you have a special alarm that alerts you to these kinds of posts? She didn't say that the sins negated the truths.

Please do not smoke in this thread: strawman present.

[waysider]

"I have a feeling this is brand new learning for most grads. Most tuned out this section of the class and book."

What is your basis for that assumption?

------------------------------------------------

"This truly IS the greatest secret in the world today that PFAL (book and magazine form) is THE Bible and is the Word of God in written form."

Absolute insanity. Why on Earth would God allow it to be so riddled with errors and inconsistencies if that were the case?

-------------------------------------------------

"This knowing how the law of learning operates and how this thing works I came to the conclusion many years ago that for me this Word of God, this Bible--not the King James version, but THE Word of God which was given when holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy spirit--that this Word of God is my only source for truth outside of the individual seeking."

You criticized Mark for using the words "Bible" and "Word of God" interchangeably and yet, here you offer a quote that clearly demonstrates that Wierwille had occasion to do the same thing.

------------------------------------------------

"This is my primary and sole rule for faith and practice. This is why the law of learning operating the way it does and our knowledge of this I have to have some center of reference. For years I read around the Word of God; two, three theological works a week, every week. Because I just love to read and so I read and read and read. Well, these men were all centers of reference for learning and all I got was a hodge-podge of personal conviction but it was basically confusion. Because equally great men regarding the same verse of scripture would contradict each other."

Did it ever occur to you that it may have seemed like a "hodge-podge" to him because he kept trying to squeeze things into his narrow frame of acceptance?

-------------------------------------------------------

"On a different thread nowIsee asked where does the phrase “only rule for faith and practice” come from.

In written form, it was the title of Dr’s very last Magazine article in 1985, but it originated (as far as I know) in the film class Session 7.

Here is (with my bold fonts) the 1967 version that we all heard in segment 31 Session 7 of THE CLASS :"

It has long been my personal opinion that session #7 was the crucial turning point at which the bait was taken and the hook was set. That's only my opinion but I think this gives that theory some credence

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, when I began to understand the operation of the senses in relationship to learning I finally came to the conclusion that instead of staying in confusion with all of men's opinions a lifetime I was willing to come to one point, one center of reference for truth which was outside of the individual seeking and that was THE Word of God. And I've staked my life on the accuracy and the integrity of God's Word. If this Word is wrong then I'm going to be wrong in what I teach. But I'm willing to take that "chance" as you would call it. As John Paul Jones or someone said "he's willing to go down with the ship." I'm willing to go down with the ship."

And down he went (in credibility) because he staked his life on what he personally defined as "The Word", ignoring the reality that his take on it was flawed and rife with errors.

[JeffSjo]

According to some...

#1 The snowstorm was and the revalation to Wierwille was real...

#2 Therefore the PFAL class was the fullfillment of that promise...

#3 Therefore the PFAL class is the Word of God...

Anyone can hold to this logic I suppose, but even this logic leads to conclusions that contradict parts of PFAL.

Wierwille taught that the bible should be our only rule of faith and practice, but to say that our rule of faith and practice should be PFAL is a blatant contradiction of PFAL doctrine.

But these views are a logical extension of TWI doctrine as it was practiced. I've heard of many reports where the believers were told to follow leadership even if they were wrong, saying it's o.k., if we're wrong it is on us, not on you.

Mike,

It is clear to me that you won't go any farther than you were led for now. You are fully committed to Wierwille as the MOG and you believe that his mission entitled him to go places that the ignorant masses (many of us that is) are not entitled to go. I intend to go there anyway.

[WhiteDove]

Why come out in support of a man that raped, pillaged and plundered? Does that do it for you? Does it make you lay awake at night and say to yourselves, "I've finally arrived! Gawd will finally bless me because I gave of myself willingly! Finally the snow will fall on the gaspumps for me and my life will have meaning. I will be loved. I stood up for gawd's pirate... er.... profit... er... prophet ... now I will be blessed."

I'll answer your question speaking for myself of course. You see that's where you just still don't get it, maybe you don't wish to I don't know. I have never "come out" in support of a man, VP does not need my support He's dead! I have come out in support of truth, honesty in posting, and of course at least elevating the slope on the playing field a few degrees, never mind leveling it. The gas pump issue is of no interest to me it never mattered to me for 18 years...... doubtful it will start to now, I have my doubts it really matters much to some here anyway either, except just to have a topic to pick to death.

I measure the gas pump issue by the same standards that I do for all the other way events. Can it be documented? We have VP's words ,nice but it falls into the same category as the posts here. I said so! that neither makes it true or false just that someone said so. As for the gas pumps we have no documentable evidence ,we have none, like many other events here. That leaves the choice accept it or not based on whatever means you choose to, other than factual evidence. if you like VP you may accept what he said as true if you don't you will not, you may decide to flip a coin instead to determine the outcome, heads he's right, tails he's not. You may decide that hey I'm angry at the organization so I'll decide he is wrong or some may say hey I like the organization so he's right. In the end none of the arguments are anything more than opinion ,because we have no visual documentation of what occurred on the day in question. In the end you believe what you want to ,you might just as well flip the coin.... it is as reliable.

I don't need a golden fleece to see merit in his teaching, nor do I need to defend the man. I can speak in defense of the result of his teaching based on my personal experience with it in my life ,did one get the desired results or not. Pretty simple. I can do so in spite of any failings the man that taught it had. Teachers teach ,you learn or you don't based on their ability to teach, not their perfection. I have never examined my academic teachers lives to see if some sin is there that should make me discard the Math or English they attempted to teach me. If the football coach was a drunk that does not necessarily disqualify him from teaching the sport and having a winning season despite his personal problems. So I support the teaching * because it has been tried and proved true. I can appreciate the man as a teacher just as I can my academic teachers along the way. I need not judge their lives , nor his not my job, and I can appreciate the good and cast off the bad.

* Those parts that have proved to be truthful in their presentation.

[Mike]

Wierwille taught that the bible should be our only rule of faith and practice, but to say that our rule of faith and practice should be PFAL is a blatant contradiction of PFAL doctrine.

No, I posted above what he taught. It's not "the Bible" but "The Word" that he took as his only rule. That was in 1967, when hardly any of PFAL was in written form. In those days all WE had was our KJV and the spoken class to fix some of it. We went with what we had, which was better than nothing. At that time we were taught to read our KJVs and memorize a few passages.

Then years later as more and more of his rule "The Word" was put into written form as PFAL we were taught more and more to master PFAL, and not our KJVs. At the end of his life in his last teaching when it was all written he twice told us to master written PFAL.

But these views are a logical extension of TWI doctrine as it was practiced. I've heard of many reports where the believers were told to follow leadership even if they were wrong, saying it's o.k., if we're wrong it is on us, not on you.

This was wrong of them to say that. In Volume IV, God's Magnified Word, we were taught in written form to NOT follow leaders where they were wrong. If those believers who were told wrong had been up on their reading they would have refused to follow wrongly and showed leaders where they were wrong in saying it was "on them." After WWII there were many German concentration guards who tried to use this excuse, they were only following orders and that it was on their leadership. This excuse was not accepted by the Nuremberg Trials. Any grads who followed those leaders who were morally wrong and off what was written in GMWD were just as wrong as the Nazi guards, and without excuse.

Mike,

It is clear to me that you won't go any farther than you were led for now. You are fully committed to Wierwille as the MOG and you believe that his mission entitled him to go places that the ignorant masses (many of us that is) are not entitled to go. I intend to go there anyway.

Why don't you go where few grads have gone, BACK to PFAL, and master it. You might learn some more things besides not following idiot leadership.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[JeffSjo]

I think that I probably won't follow your advice either for right now. hehehe

[Mike]

"I have a feeling this is brand new learning for most grads. Most tuned out this section of the class and book."

What is your basis for that assumption?

My basis for this is the observation of the complete inability of anyone to come up with an unchanging SINGLE rule for their faith and practice, and/or the anger some get when challenged to do so.

***

It's so obvious that few are reading my posts in their entirety, but just looking for springboards to knock them down.

For example:

You criticized Mark for using the words "Bible" and "Word of God" interchangeably and yet, here you offer a quote that clearly demonstrates that Wierwille had occasion to do the same thing.

If you had just read on through you'd have seen that I handled this. It was a slip of the tongue and Dr immediately corrected himself, clarifying that he did NOT mean the KJV but something you can't buy in a bookstore anywhere on earth. Go back and read the whole thing.

And then prove me wrong. Give me your printed, unchanging, SINGLE rule for their faith and practice, or tell me you don't have one. If you do have one then give me its Library of Congress number. If it doesn't have a Library of Congress number, then scan it and post it. If it's too long, then scan the first page and post it.

Until you can do this I know this is new learning for you.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Mike

[WordWolf]

The sins of the teacher does not negate the truths in the teaching.

There's two entirely separate issues.

A) The sins of a teacher

B) Whether or not the teachings had merit

Now, it is a tiresome old chestnut that about 3-4 posters consistently claim (suggest, insinuate and imply when not

stating it outright- technically, this was another insinuation) that other posters claim that the 2 issues are only

one issue- that the teachings turn to dust automatically as the result of the teacher being a poor example of

a Christian.

Few people IF ANY are saying that.

This has previously been cooked up as a fiction stated

"you're saying wierwille sinned, and therefore did no good."

That's been shown to be an invention of those who never held that position- we had a poll and NOBODY took that

position.

Here's how it is. It's rather simple- for those people who don't want to grossly distort the positions other people hold.

B) Do the teachings have merit?

Whether the teachings have merit is a matter reserved to discussion of the material of the teachings.

We've discussed a number of them.

People have said the following:

"If you put it down and look at Scripture without twi, what's true and reliable will still be true and reliable.

Giving up the intellectual hobbling of oneself by limiting oneself EXCLUSIVELY to the limitations of any ONE teacher

or method is a good thing. So, put it aside for a while and try thinking for yourself a while.

Evaluate the works of other Christians. Spend time among Christians with skills you're unfamiliar with.

Read it for yourself. What is of God will abide."

That's a sensible approach for anyone who's not afraid to think for themself.

"When examined, some of it is worth keeping, and significant portions of it are error. Drop whatever is error,

which is significant." That's fine for anyone who doesn't require any belief system to be 100% free of error as if it

was given by God. (That means only a tiny handful of posters should have a problem with it.)

"I distrust whether any material taught by any person who has dedicated large swaths of his life to sin and lusts

should be trusted at all." That's a sensible precaution when approaching material.

That's a few positions-there are of course others.

=====================

Now, discussing the sins of wierwille, we have a few positions that have been represented as well.

1) "Wierwille hardly ever sinned, and was a fine, upstanding Christian."

Only the most sheltered, mentally-inbred ex-twi'ers still hold that position. As people begin to look at all the

eyewitness testimony, the witness accounts, at the official releases from twi, that position is generally discarded

as completely untrue.

2) "vpw sinned quite a bit, but it didn't affect his doctrine, policies, practices, etc."

That's held by a minority of people. It's the default for people who want to believe the first position,

but reality has prevented them.

3) "vpw sinned quite a bit, and it affected his doctrine, policies, practices, etc, quite a bit."

Last poll, 1 in 5 polled held this position. Why would this position have any merit?

How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices?

Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue

to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching,

that person will speak practical errors, and doctrinal errors.

4) "vpw sinned a lot, and it affected all aspects of his ministry, in greater or lesser ways."

Last poll, 60% of the posters held this position. It differs from the previous position in a matter of

degree in how MUCH sin, and how much effect it had.

How could the sins of a teacher affect his doctrine, his policies, his practices?

Well, to go by what vpw HIMSELF said, someone can practice error. After a while, if they continue

to practice error, then they begin to make a doctrine of it. If that person then begins teaching.

that person will speak practical errors and doctrinal errors.

(I repeated myself because I've had people skip over an explanation stated once, and pretend it wasn't

spoken at all. Now if anyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist, they have to be more overtly dishonest.)

5) "vpw did no good, but that's not because he sinned, it's because he was 100% fraud."

Lat poll, 10% of posters held this one.

If one doesn't believe vpw was anything BUT a fraud, then there's no reason to think his teachings or

practices would be of benefit, except by accident.

=====================

Now then,

Do the sins of the teacher "negate" the truths in a teaching?

NO.

IF there are truths in a teaching, a teacher's sins don't "NEGATE" them.

However, one's BEGGING THE QUESTION in this in the first place- by presupposing that the teaching

had truths, AND one is misrepresenting what others say by using the word "NEGATE" (the Strawman.)

Thus, it's a loaded-and dishonest- reply to legitimate discussion.

Now then,

do the sins of the teacher "AFFECT" a teaching?

According to vpw, they do so.

He said "the Correction Epistles" were designed to correct the doctrinal error found after they made a

doctrine of the practical error they practiced.

Could this have any relevance to vpw's teachings?

Some would point out he soft-pedaled the issue of sin with Scripture many times- like downgrading

sin to "broken fellowship" (a CONSEQUENCE of sin).

Most would point out that comments like "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king"

would be an example of something from the mouth and pen of vpw that specifically was an error that

was the result of the Practical error turned Doctrinal error in vpw's life. He downgraded sins of the flesh

in his own MIND (to legitimize or soften the sinful PRACTICES he practiced) and in the process,

made a DOCTRINE of it, and taught that doctrine.

That's a fast example of one of vpw's sins "AFFECTING" a teaching.

If he says that in passing in 2 hours of material, does that mean the entire 2 hours is useless?

NO- and NOBODY was saying it was.

(If "the sins of the teacher NEGATED the truths of a teaching", then they would say so.

This claim was an invention of those who made up an imaginary contrary position just so they could

object to it and pretend they were being reasonable. Or, in other words, a Strawman.)

==========

So, what do the posters here say?

Generally,

they say

"If we knew the 1942 promise and snowstorm were inventions of vpw, and he was completely fraudulent in his

claims of selection by God, we certainly would have examined his teachings more closely, his practices more

closely, and been MUCH slower to give him 'the benefit of the doubt.' "

A question still remains, however.....

If, as some people seem to want to believe (but seem slow to come right out and say),

that "vpw could sin quite a bit, but that had no effect on his teachings, doctrines, programs, etc",

then why do they engage in lengthy processes of distraction when vpw's sins come up?

Why is it not a matter of "yes, he sinned a lot. That doesn't matter at all"?

Why the efforts to attempt to rehabilitate the reputation of a man who broke the law when he plagiarized

and deceived others, broke the law when he drugged and raped women as well as violated his marriage

vows and his responsibility as a pastor, who drank and smoked DAILY while criticizing the Corps for

lacking discipline, who acquired all sorts of creature comforts at the expense of God's people?

If his sins really mean NOTHING to you, why the smokescreen and pretend they don't exist?

That claim was made in response to THIS post....

You know... let's just cut to the chase.

This argument has happened over and over and over and over...ad nauseum.

Mike, WTH, WD and perhaps a few other cast members not worth mentioning...

You keep moving the goal posts and changing things to suit your moods and shore up your already weak arguments. While it's quite entertaining and has bolstered readership here at the Cafe, it's also a sad testimony to your personal integrity - not only as individuals, but as a group (gorp?)

Why come out in support of a man that raped, pillaged and plundered? Does that do it for you? Does it make you lay awake at night and say to yourselves, "I've finally arrived! Gawd will finally bless me because I gave of myself willingly! Finally the snow will fall on the gaspumps for me and my life will have meaning. I will be loved. I stood up for gawd's pirate... er.... profit... er... prophet ... now I will be blessed."

pfffffffffft!

(snip)

And a concise, honest reply to the attempt to change the subject:

The sins of the teacher should prompt a more critical review of the teaching. VPW's teachings were critically reviewed outside of TWI and people did find fault with those teachings. Those were the known entities. The unwritten teachings were his undoing - the things that didn't leak out until his death. Those unwritten things tainted any "truth" he taught. Since most of what he taught was not his to begin with, there is no problem going back to the original author. Even then I've rejected much of that as being unnecessary in the larger scheme of things.

[Mike]

WordWolf,

What does all that have to do with the topic?

[potato]

<snip>

Paul was given the exclusive DIRECT revelation of the mystery, and then he put it into written form so OTHERS could have it.

I think it's the same way with PFAL. VPW was the only one to get it directly, but now we have it in print.

All through the ages God had to find ONE person to get His revelation into print, and it seems that one person never met the criteria of his contemporaries. God looks at different things than people do. His ways are not our ways. If it were up to me I'd not have chose VPW for the job, but what do I know?

</snip>

you've now place vpw at the same spiritual level as Paul. you argue that none of the writings of a single person from the first century until vpw wrote a single thing by revelation from god. that's a pretty huge claim, and your only proof, which can't be proved, is that god made it snow just for vpw.

btw, following your line of logic, if we reject the writings of vpw which have now attained god-breathed status, we're god-rejectors.

<snip>

I have a feeling this is brand new learning for most grads. Most tuned out this section of the class and book.

</snip>

not at all. this is what attracted me to twi in the first place, that there could be one source of truth, and that I could rely on it as my rule for faith and practice.

#1 The snowstorm was and the revalation to Wierwille was real...

#2 Therefore the PFAL class was the fullfillment of that promise...

#3 Therefore the PFAL class is the Word of God...

thank you Jeff for so succinctly bringing us back to the logic problem in this thread!

Edited January 15, 2009 by potato