VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[potato]

I dunno, Raf. they're cheaper than a drink at the comedy lounge downtown, so it seems like a good deal to me.

Edited January 7, 2009 by potato

[waysider]

My approach is much simpler. I've come to believe that the 1942 incident was true, that God taught vpw what to put into print, and that is GOD'S solution to problem of abstraction that faces traditional Christians.

So then your stance is that "God taught VPW what to put in print".

Kinda makes me wonder why God would have taught him things that have been shown, time and time again, to be inaccurate and then had him commit them to print. One would think it would have been just as easy, or easier, for God to show VPW things that WERE accurate and have him commit them to print. Why would God view promotion of inaccuracies regarding His word as a solution to any sort of problems traditional Christians might be faced with?

[Raf]

Never ask a leper to lend you a hand.

[Mike]

oh, thanks for the laugh! I love your fallacious arguments. they're priceless!

Actually I wasn't making a logical argument there, just a hunchy observation: that you know not what you reject.

I suspect (based on many similar, deeper observations of other grads) that you have only a partial knowledge of some of the materials (note the double incompleteness), AND that it's partially forgotten, unknowingly distorted, and hopelessly mixed with other teachers' comments and writings.

If I'm wrong I'll be delighted to encounter a full-bodied PFAL mind.

But I strongly suspect you DEDUCE from anecdotal memories and others' stories (rather than DIRECTLY OBSERVE) that the contents of the writings are not valuable to you.

Everywhere I go for the past ten years I encounter vast unawareness of the contents of the writings. Those few who do study one or two books do so with a huge chip on their shoulder, and encounter many corresponding distortions. Inaccurate knowledge of the writings seems to be the rule, and the many grads who reject the writings seem to do so based on emotional reactions to all the stories and other peoples reports on the writings.

Like I say, I'll be delighted to encounter any grads who honestly know the materials that so many reject unknowing.

Do you think you are one, and that you knowingly reject the contents of the writings?

[Mike]

So then your stance is that "God taught VPW what to put in print".

Kinda makes me wonder why God would have taught him things that have been shown, time and time again, to be inaccurate and then had him commit them to print. One would think it would have been just as easy, or easier, for God to show VPW things that WERE accurate and have him commit them to print. Why would God view promotion of inaccuracies regarding His word as a solution to any sort of problems traditional Christians might be faced with?

You're assuming that the showing of inaccuracies is valid. I don't assume that; I contend those showings are inaccurate themselves. You seem to think their proof is a done deal. I don't. I find many problems with the techniques used by those doing the showing. I reject their findings. That ought to answer your question totally.

[waysider]

Never ask a leper to lend you a hand.

Especially if they're "giving you the eye".

[Mike]

The bottom line to my position on the question of this thread I've already stated pretty clearly: that I'm very happy with the final end product (the writings) of the 1942 snowstorm story. That makes the story quite acceptable to me. Lifted Up's report of rogue snowstorms added weight that such things happen once in a while without breaking any of the laws of Physics, so the snow wasn't so much a part of the phenomenon, just a useful coincidence for vpw's encouragement.

[potato]

<snip>

Actually I wasn't making a logical argument there, just a hunchy observation: that you know not what you reject.

</snip>

if/then statements are logic statements. you made several that as an argument concluded that I've made inferior choices of focus.

I do know what I reject. I studied PFAL for years, sat through it more times than I can count, and have even looked at some of the material that vpw stole to remodel into PFAL.

it's perfectly valid to wholesale reject PFAL and examine my beliefs from a completely different angle. I might even discover some similar points that vpw found (possibly from the same sources) and end up believing some of the things vpw taught without being under any obligation to credit him, since the ideas didn't originate with him. I simply choose not to drink water from a bitter spring.

[doojable]

It seems to me that searching for "Truth" in PFAL is akin to hunting snipe...

[Oakspear]

I just read his writings, writings that are actually from a large extended team of his prior teachers and his twi editors, not merely from vpw the man.

I just thought this statement deserved to be highlighted.

[Mike]

I just thought this statement deserved to be highlighted.

I agree. Remember how vpw himself emphasized that his material was not at all so original? I think Oldiesman found that quote a few years ago.

Hey! Where IS Oldiesman lately? I miss a lot of the old crowd.

It's been fun, staying home with the sniffles and going over these things with all you folks. My hat is tipped to Paw and the moderators and how we can discuss these things with civility and respect. There was a time six years ago where this discussion would have resembled something out of the Wild West.

[RumRunner]

It seems to me that searching for "Truth" in PFAL is akin to hunting snipe...

Or perhaps more like Monty Python and the search for the holy grail - or better yet Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where he is searching for the grail only to find out the woman who "befriended" him is a Nazi agent...

[Mike]

I do know what I reject. I studied PFAL for years, sat through it more times than I can count, and have even looked at some of the material that vpw stole to remodel into PFAL.

One of the great discoveries I've made in the last ten years, and this applies to me as well as to anyone else, is that what we HEARD in the film/tape class was NOT AT ALL the same as the contents of the writings.

I'm assuming by your saying "sat through it" you mean you HEARD what was spoken. That is FAR from the FINAL END PRODUCT I've been talking about here. The books have more far material and it's more refined.

What we "sat through" was done in late 1967, and was not at all the finished product. Over the next 18 years that material was refined and several more books were added along with scores of magazine articles.

Many of us, and this is again is my great discovery which applies equally to me, substituted the hearing of the class and the SNS tapes for mastery of the written material. The verbal teaching got us only so far and they stranded us. It was the written material, especially the LATER writings that would have made the difference for us (and still can).

Time and time again I have discovered that what I thought I knew from the hearing is VASTLY superseded by what I found within the writings in these past ten years.

Hearing the class and the SNS teachings is NOT the same as reading the whole set of writings. This is a crucial point that many have missed. I did too.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Mike

[doojable]

Mike - I have to strenuously disagree with your process.

As I see it, for centuries and generations the OT was handed down verbally. If the only way to get what you see as "truth" out of PFAL is to ONLY read and minutely pick apart the writings of ONE man, then your religion is flawed.

Or perhaps more like Monty Python and the search for the holy grail - or better yet Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade where he is searching for the grail only to find out the woman who "befriended" him is a Nazi agent...

RR- LOL!

I was thinking that in snipe hunting you find yourself in the dark and more lost than when you started.

Edited January 8, 2009 by doojable

[waysider]

One of the great discoveries I've made in the last ten years, and this applies to me as well as to anyone else, is that what we HEARD in the film/tape class was NOT AT ALL the same as the contents of the writings.

Hi, Mike

You've piqued my interest.

Can you elaborate why you've deduced that wierwille's verbal teachings contradict his writings?

If you don't mind, would you cite some specific examples?

[Mike]

Mike - I have to strenuously disagree with your process.

As I see it, for centuries and generations the OT was handed down verbally. If the only way to get what you see as "truth" out of PFAL is to ONLY read and minutely pick apart the writings of ONE man, then your religion is flawed.

Please look at what Oakspear accentuated above in Post #85.

Even on the physical level, the writings are far more than one man's words, but if you include the spiritual, GOD was working with all the people on that extended team.

***

If you look at the history of Israel they didn't do all that well at times. I think written scriptures are a VAST improvement, and God thinks so too, otherwise he wouldn't have had them put into written form.

Verbal contracts only work when the stakes are low. When there's a lot at stake, everyone knows getting it in writing is important.

Wasn't it Job who praised God for committing Himself to a book? Remember that teaching? It's the adversary who likes to play it loosey goosey and not be pinned down to written commitments. God is good and is not afraid to chisel His will in stone.

[Tzaia]

One of the great discoveries I've made in the last ten years, and this applies to me as well as to anyone else, is that what we HEARD in the film/tape class was NOT AT ALL the same as the contents of the writings.

I'm assuming by your saying "sat through it" you mean you HEARD what was spoken. That is FAR from the FINAL END PRODUCT I've been talking about here. The books have more far material and it's more refined.

What we "sat through" was done in late 1967. That material was refined and then several more books were added and scores of magazine articles.

Many of us, and this is again is my great discovery which applies equally to me, substituted the hearing of the class and the SNS tapes for mastery of the written material. The verbal teaching got us only so far and they stranded us. It was the written material, especially the LATER writings that would have made the difference for us (and still can).

Time and time again I have discovered that what I thought I knew from the hearing is VASTLY superseded by what I found within the writings in these past ten years.

Hearing the class and the SNS teachings is NOT the same as reading the whole set of writings. This is a crucial point that many have missed. I did too.

I sat through the class twice. Since it was repetitious and boring, that's all I needed to get the buzzwords and main points - especially since there were so few points.

I read the books afterward and read them all again several times. Then I read them again. I have not looked at them recently because I doubt if I could come to any point of agreement at all since I started actually studying religion. It has nothing to do with VPW and his proclivities although that hurts his credibility. He missed the whole point.

If you study NT and pay close attention to the very apocalyptic words of Jesus, VPW and TWI (and pretty much every denomination) has been so off base regarding Jesus and the "truth" that it's not even funny. If VPW had really been paying attention, every bit of that ABS would have been used to help the less fortunate - not build buildings, buy land, train corp, or used administratively or personally at all, because Jesus believed that there was nothing in this world worth acquiring and doing so would keep someone away from the kingdom. So Vic had it ALL wrong IMO. He compounded his woes in the coming kingdom by not heeding the words of Jesus regarding marriage and just about every other way he conducted himself. But that's just my opinion.

[Mike]

Hi, Mike

You've piqued my interest.

Can you elaborate why you've deduced that wierwille's verbal teachings contradict his writings?

If you don't mind, would you cite some specific examples?

Well, for starters, I don't think they contradict, but they do add to the verbal teachings.

The writings may well contradict some of the mis-impressions that many of us got from limiting ourselves to the verbal teachings.

It's even the case that some of the written teachings changed over time. This was not error correction, but changes in the revelation due to changes in the circumstances. More was being made available by God as we were growing and better able to receive it. It's like how things are explained to a college student in ways that differ from how they are explained in middle school.

As for specific examples, that would take some time and some bandwidth. I think I may well wear out my welcome if I start citing page references and long quotes. If you'd like to discuss this in private I'm open.

[waysider]

Well, for starters, I don't think they contradict, but they do add to the verbal teachings.

The writings may well contradict some of the mis-impressions that many of us got from limiting ourselves to the verbal teachings.

It's even the case that some of the written teachings changed over time. This was not error correction, but changes in the revelation due to changes in the circumstances. More was being made available by God as we were growing and better able to receive it. It's like how things are explained to a college student in ways that differ from how they are explained in middle school.

As for specific examples, that would take some time and some bandwidth. I think I may well wear out my welcome if I start citing page references and long quotes. If you'd like to discuss this in private I'm open.

Gee, Mike, I'm corn-fused.

If there is no contradiction, what seems to be the problem?

[potato]

One of the great discoveries I've made in the last ten years, and this applies to me as well as to anyone else, is that what we HEARD in the film/tape class was NOT AT ALL the same as the contents of the writings.

I'm assuming by your saying "sat through it" you mean you HEARD what was spoken. That is FAR from the FINAL END PRODUCT I've been talking about here. The books have more far material and it's more refined.

<snip>

I don't know why you chose to highlight "sat through it" and ignore that I said I studied PFAL. I studied it. I own a box of books that are dog-earred, and spiral notebooks full of study notes. so what? the end product you speak of stinks even more than PFAL the film class because it has layers of back-pedaling and "meat" that just obfuscate the truth.

[Raf]

It's been fun, staying home with the sniffles and going over these things with all you folks. My hat is tipped to Paw and the moderators and how we can discuss these things with civility and respect. There was a time six years ago where this discussion would have resembled something out of the Wild West.

Yeah, that was largely my fault. Then I realized the futility of arguing with a wall and took all the fun out of the Mike wars.

I also took the "no personal attacks" admonition a bit more seriously after trying to host my own message board. I truly admire Paw for all he's done, because it didn't take me nearly as long to chuck that whole endeavor.

[Raf]

How to spot an error in PFAL (the book):

[Mike]

Gee, Mike, I'm corn-fused.

If there is no contradiction, what seems to be the problem?

Look more closely at what I wrote. "The writings may well contradict some of the mis-impressions that many of us got from limiting ourselves to the verbal teachings. "

By having the partial, hearing-mode understanding only, many of us developed mis-impressions of what was being taught. By absorbing the whole picture presented in the writings those individualistic contraqdictions melt away.

***

In the past I've posted many specifics regarding differences between the verbal and written teachings. One was that the "Red Drapes" story was removed, and not in the writings at all. Another was "needs and wants parallel" was augmented with "needs and wants balanced."

Another example of augmentation in the writings was in the "third heaven and earth" teaching. In the class it's about three sentences. In the writings it's an entire, robust chapter.

Another vital book addition, in 1977, was the admonition that we shouldn't follow leadership's idiosyncrasies or when they are off the Word. Many missed this and hurt resulted.

Another change between the verbal and the written is in finding spiritual meanings, hidden in God's Word. In our early teachings, like the film class (1967), we were urged to NOT look for hidden meanings, just to "read what's written." After we matured a little, in Volume IV (1977) we were told that Psalm 103 had "hidden truths" that wen beyond what a senses reading could discern.

I could go on and on, but this is not the proper place to do so.

Why don't you just crack the books, again, and see what a more mature reading/study in a far different atmosphere than the hectic "move the Word" lifestyle we were in can produce? (Are you listening Tzaia? This is the answer to your protest.)

[Oakspear]

I just thought this statement deserved to be highlighted.

Sorry, this post was supposed to be part of the first post on the next page, but waysider was too fast

[waysider]

I'm the kind of guy who wonders about stuff.

Like, for example, let's say a guy is blind and has been reliant on the audio version of PFAL as his authoritative source. Doesn't seem fair, really, that he's been confined to a defective version, now, does it?