Doctrinal errors in TWI, I remember this as common knowledge in the old days.

[JeffSjo]

In the old days it was commonly reporteted that the reasearch department knew there was errors in PFAL. I heard these things at street level. But I was not ever near the research department. I wasn't Corps, I wasn't even an advanced class grad.

Can anyone else confirm or deny what I percieved as common knowlege in 1983?

[Bolshevik]

I can't help, but it wouldn't suprise me.

People in twi today know that lcm inherited his sex problems from vpw. It doesn't bother them.

PFAL full of bull? That's OK . . . that's OK.

[Nottawayfer]

There are new versions of the Studies in Abundant Living series. The started printing them when I was on Staff back in 2001. There were revisions made. If you get an older version and compare it to a new one, you will find out what the changes are.

I remember sitting in on a study group one time. We were going over the "Are the Dead Alive Now?" book. I had an old version, and everyone else had a newer one. There was one touchy topic which changed the words completely. It caused a huge discussion, and the meeting was ended never to start up again. I wish I could remember what the topic was and what was changed. I don't even own any books anymore. I sold them all to a Wierwille Worshipper on ebay.

[waysider]

I remember sitting in on a study group one time. We were going over the "Are the Dead Alive Now?" book. I had an old version, and everyone else had a newer one. There was one touchy topic which changed the words completely. It caused a huge discussion, and the meeting was ended never to start up again. I wish I could remember what the topic was and what was changed. I don't even own any books anymore. I sold them all to a Wierwille Worshipper on ebay.

Was it this?

George Aar

post Jan 17 2009, 01:25 AM

Post #9

(Blatant errors thread)

QUOTE (George Aar @ Jan 17 2009, 02:25 AM) *

As I've mentioned several times in the past, I think the most OBVIOUS of errors that Mr. Wierwille made in "The Class" is stating that the Council of Nicea was in FRANCE!

Nice, Nicea, I guess anybody could make that mistake...

Mark Clarke replied:

Didn't they fix that one in later editions of JCNG?

[Nottawayfer]

Nope. I believe it was the account about someone in the old testament being swept up in to heaven. Did he die or not? I think they changed their tune on that one. I can't remember anymore because it's not the least bit important to me anymore.

I really wanted to shed light on the fact that some things were changed in the Studies for Abundant Living. However, I don't ever remember them announcing the changes. They only announced they were the "New Prevailing Word Edition". I know there were changes in them from the previous ones VPW originally did. I think that constitutes that they knew there were errors in PFAL, but they never come out and tell anyone.

Just like LCM teaching man's original sin was Eve's lesbian encounter with the Devil. He said VPW didn't have it quite right, adn that he improved upon the teaching. LCM also said that's why VPW's teaching man's original sin never took off that well. I don't think it took off too well because it was a very questionable teaching and nobody could try to emulate it themselves because it didnt' make sense. LCM's version was even worse, but he tried everything in the book to prove his point. He even used art painted way back when to prove his point.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Nottawayfer

[Abigail]

Notta, maybe this will trigger your memory?

I can think of two possibilities

In Genesis, amongst all the begots there is Enoch who walked with God, thn was no more, because God took him away.

Later, there is Elijah in 2 Kings who went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

[waysider]

I found my old ADAN book.

It says it was copyrighted by The Devin-Adair Co. in 1971.

The copyright was then assigned to The Way International in 1973.

Published 1971.

My copy is First Edition. Third Impression 1976.

[RumRunner]

Hold on a sec - I left before all of this happened with Martindork changing all of this stuff...do you mean to tell me that God who created the universe actually gave a dam about Eve getting it on with a pseudo female? Besides I thought that spirit was sexless...never mind lemme go pour some more Drambuie.

Just like LCM teaching man's original sin was Eve's lesbian encounter with the Devil. He said VPW didn't have it quite right, adn that he improved upon the teaching. LCM also said that's why VPW's teaching man's original sin never took off that well.

[Nottawayfer]

Notta, maybe this will trigger your memory?

I can think of two possibilities

In Genesis, amongst all the begots there is Enoch who walked with God, thn was no more, because God took him away.

Later, there is Elijah in 2 Kings who went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

I honestly don't remember Abi.

Maybe if someone else has a newer ADAN, then they can compare both of those scenarios to see if there is a difference. The year that this study happened was in 1993, so TWI had made the change to the book some time before that.

[Abigail]

Hold on a sec - I left before all of this happened with Martindork changing all of this stuff...do you mean to tell me that God who created the universe actually gave a dam about Eve getting it on with a pseudo female? Besides I thought that spirit was sexless...never mind lemme go pour some more Drambuie.

Yup, welcome to my world. I didn't get involved until after LCM was in charge and VPW was long gone. That is pretty much how LCM taught it. Eve had lesbian relations with "the serpent" :blink:

As hooked as I was by the time I took the WAP class, even I had a hard time swalling that.

[dmiller]

Notta, maybe this will trigger your memory?

I can think of two possibilities

In Genesis, amongst all the begots there is Enoch who walked with God, then was no more, because God took him away.

Later, there is Elijah in 2 Kings who went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Hey there Abi. Docvic had a convoluted teaching that was both in pfal and the ADAN book dealing with Enoch and Elijah.

I've got the same ADAN version as Waysider does (1971) which I bought new at the hdqtrs book store back in 1975/ 76.

Enoch (according to the gospel of docvic) was so pleasing to God, that he never literally *saw* someone one die. God was so impressed with Enoch and his "walk" that He *translated* Enoch so that Enoch would never have to SEE (according to docvic the word "see" is *eidon* which means to literally see someone die) (page 68 ADAN) and the word used in the KJV about Enoch's *journey* provided by God, is the word translated. Of course --- all modern day evangelical Christians talk about *translation at the Rapture" (these days), so they equate this episode in the bible as a passing from here to there bypassing death in the process. Docvic said "It ain't so!"

Not sure where docvic got his info from, because on the same page 68 of ADAN, docvic states:

In checking the Old Testament, one discovers that Enoch had never seen anybody pass away.

Then docvic (in a lucid/ non-lucid) moment decided to list the occurrences of Enoch in the Bible, at the bottom of the page.

Enoch is listed in : Genesis 5:21-24/ Hebrews 11:5/ Jude 14.

(Page 68 --- ADAN)

Gotta admit. Docvic was right. Nowhere did he (Enoch) see death.

Also gotta admit --- by searching those scriptures about Enoch (so well supplied by docvic) ----

Enoch must've never drank wine with his buddies, never had a house he could call home, never had a wife or kids/ never did a whole lot of things that one might ascribe to *life as we know it*. What's that FAMOUS line from docvic??? Something about: YOU CAN LEARN MORE FROM WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN.. Nother words -- docvic saying (in the 1971 version of ADAN), that he is conjecturing, and preparing a bill of goods for sale to the highest bidder, eh?

Short of the long of it is --- Docvic gave up the "seat of power" to the Okie Leatherhead back in (what -- 1982??), and from the moment he did -- his *teachings* were quickly eroded/ changed/ and forgotten in order to promote King Okie and his *interpretations* of everything he had heard and learned previously, but with a new spin in order to show who was *boss*.

Just like LCM teaching man's original sin was Eve's lesbian encounter with the Devil. He said VPW didn't have it quite right, and that he improved upon the teaching. LCM also said that's why VPW's teaching man's original sin never took off that well. I don't think it took off too well because it was a very questionable teaching and nobody could try to emulate it themselves because it didnt' make sense. LCM's version was even worse, but he tried everything in the book to prove his point. He even used art painted way back when to prove his point.

This is a case in point. This session by docvic about masturbation (as the original sin) was only run PRIVATELY by the time I got in. Perhaps he was too ashamed to admit that he actually allowed that to be taped, but (conversely), I bet he might have thought it would work to his *advantage* too. Craigger's had to go it one better, and given the allegations about D and R, I wonder what his impetus for doing the teaching he did entailed (no pun intended!).

What a sick buncha folks. I'm glad I walked away when I did, before the superficial injuries became permanent.

Edited January 30, 2009 by dmiller

[Oakspear]

This is a case in point. This session by docvic about masturbation (as the original sin) was only run PRIVATELY by the time I got in.

When was this? I took that class twice, once in '82, and once in '91. It was in both times.

[WordWolf]

When was this? I took that class twice, once in '82, and once in '91. It was in both times.

I think he's contrasting "you have to finish the foundational, then wait for the next time

CFS runs" with

"it's right in the foundational, when you're still forming your first impression of twi."

I still think lcm's response right on tape says it all:

"Don't see it? Too bad (laughs)- I do!"

[Mark Clarke]

Hey there Abi. Docvic had a convoluted teaching that was both in pfal and the ADAN book dealing with Enoch and Elijah.

I've got the same ADAN version as Waysider does (1971) which I bought new at the hdqtrs book store back in 1975/ 76.

Enoch (according to the gospel of docvic) was so pleasing to God, that he never literally *saw* someone one die. God was so impressed with Enoch and his "walk" that He *translated* Enoch so that Enoch would never have to SEE (according to docvic the word "see" is *eidon* which means to literally see someone die) (page 68 ADAN) and the word used in the KJV about Enoch's *journey* provided by God, is the word translated. Of course --- all modern day evangelical Christians talk about *translation at the Rapture" (these days), so they equate this episode in the bible as a passing from here to there bypassing death in the process. Docvic said "It ain't so!"

Not all modern day Christians teach that. VPW was not the only one to teach that Enoch was moved, rather than taken to heaven. Most Bible teachers who believe that the dead are unconscious (which is a minority, but still not limited to TWI) hold the same view about Enoch, and it's not all that convoluted. Heb. 11:13 includes Enoch when it says "these all died" and John 3:13 says that no one has ascended to heaven but Jesus.

Gotta admit. Docvic was right. Nowhere did he (Enoch) see death.

Also gotta admit --- by searching those scriptures about Enoch (so well supplied by docvic) ----

Enoch must've never drank wine with his buddies, never had a house he could call home, never had a wife or kids/ never did a whole lot of things that one might ascribe to *life as we know it*. What's that FAMOUS line from docvic??? Something about: YOU CAN LEARN MORE FROM WHAT IS NOT WRITTEN.. Nother words -- docvic saying (in the 1971 version of ADAN), that he is conjecturing, and preparing a bill of goods for sale to the highest bidder, eh?

Actually he did have a wife and kids, including Methusaleh, according to Gen. 5:21-22. Nothing is said about whether he drank wine or had a house, which isn't the point. If you compare the genealogies in Genesis, you see that no one except Adam died of natural causes during Enoch's lifetime. "That he might not see death" could easily mean that Enoch was moved so he wouldn't see anyone die. Another possibility is that it means that he was moved so he would not experience martyrdom, i.e., death at the hands of someone else. Either way, it is clear that he did die rather than get "translated" to heaven.

This is a case in point. This session by docvic about masturbation (as the original sin) was only run PRIVATELY by the time I got in. Perhaps he was too ashamed to admit that he actually allowed that to be taped, but (conversely), I bet he might have thought it would work to his *advantage* too. Craigger's had to go it one better, and given the allegations about D and R, I wonder what his impetus for doing the teaching he did entailed (no pun intended!).

Actually VP's teaching that the original sin was masturbation was in the Christian Family and Sex class, not PFAL. Don't know why Craig thought it worth talking about in his foundational class. That kind of stuff was usually reserved for grads.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[JeffSjo]

One of the things that I was hoping for when I started this thread was to confirm or deny that even TWI research department knew of PFAL errors in 1983 or so when I heard such things. I'm not looking for a doctrinal discussion so much as just remembering what is for me to be common knowledge in the eighties.

I know that there are many folks here who took part in TWI research meetings and I'm mostly hoping to hear from them.

The point that I specifically remember from back then is that PFAL was incorrect in teaching that the Lord's cry from the cross was a cry of victory, but instead a quoting of part of a Psalm. I think that we can discuss the truth (or not) of the matter in the doctrinal section.

I suspect that TWI was very careful to keep the research departments work under cover. I also suspect that TWI was very careful to completely dominate the people that worked in research.

I am hoping that some of these folks would be willing to share their recollections and experiences.

(added in editing)

Dear Nottawafer,

Personally, I think Martindale's teaching about Eve is one of the stupidest things that I've ever heard.

Edited January 30, 2009 by JeffSjo

[Mark Clarke]

Yes, I remember a number of things that were said to be wrong in PFAL back then. That was why they started talking about whether or not to replace it. Most of the points were relatively minor, as I recall, and did not contradict the major doctrines of PFAL.

I also remember several issues being dealt with after VP's death. W@lt3r C#mm!ns wrote an article about the "Cry of Triumph" that was published in Chr!s G33r's Future Considerations publication, for one. Also, the studies in that publication about Faith/Believing and the Holy Spirit Usages revamped a lot of what VP had done, and it was presented the same way earlier changes were presented: "We're a research ministry, so if new research reveals we were wrong on something, we change it."

That only worked up to a point, however. The only errors I heard admitted to were ones that could be explained by saying "we have new research on this." I don't remember hearing any public announcement about the blatant errors of fact that had been in PFAL or VP's other books. Except possibly the one about the Council of Nicea being in France. I'm pretty sure I heard that it was corrected in later editions of JCNG.

[now I see]

I wouldn't trust anyone's "research" who still follows that old gasbag vpee's teachings or anyone who is still in one of the vp worshipping offshoots.  Just because vpee anointed someone with a title and a job doesn't mean what they've researched is valid, I would lean more toward it being bereft of any legitimacy.

A little leaven leaveneth...

[dmiller]

Mark --- you made my point exactly!

Docvic's *research* was so shoddy that anything could've been proven given the time and effort he put into it. :)

[Frame57]

Early on I saw some of the errors in PFAL like the "All without exception..." And so forth. I was chastisd by WAy Corp for questioning it, but I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I find it interesting though that many have said that VP's class was basically a rip of BG Leonards class and I have taken BG's class and can say with all distinction that the two classes are not remotely similar in any way. With the exception of the definitions of the 9 gifts or manifestations of the Spirit. They all begin them with "The God given ability..." But this has been evidenced in other ministries as well. The 40's and 50's had a huge Holy Spirit movement in the USA that many attribute to the ministries of John G. Lake and Smith Wigglesworth. J.E. Stiles learned about speaking in tongues from the Wigglesworth ministry and Wierwille learned it from Stiles. So, what I really see in PFAL is a little bit of Leonard, but a whole lot of Bullinger and some of Kenyon. As far as the matter over "the cry of triumph" is concerned. Wierwille was not an Aramaic scholar but relied mostly on the works of George Lamsa. Lamsa was consulted on it and felt it was accurate as far as estrangelo Aramaic was concerned. But all in all I can say I had a far worse experience with the "leadership" in BG's ministry than I ever had with the Way. but that is another story...

[waysider]

Hey there, Frame57

Welcome to GSC.

First latte is on the house.

[Frame57]

Hey there, Frame57

Welcome to GSC.

First latte is on the house.

Mmmm! Thanks, but i really love those Starbucks double shots, well the diet ones anyway!

[Twinky]

But all in all I can say I had a far worse experience with the "leadership" in BG's ministry than I ever had with the Way. but that is another story...

Welcome, Frame57.

I don't even like to think what experiences you may have had with BG's ministry if it was better than TWI, but no doubt that'll depend on how long you were in TWI or how quickly you realized the grass there wasn't as green you thought, and it wasn't in fact grass but moss on a stinky bog.

[WordWolf]

Early on I saw some of the errors in PFAL like the "All without exception..." And so forth. I was chastisd by WAy Corp for questioning it, but I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I find it interesting though that many have said that VP's class was basically a rip of BG Leonards class and I have taken BG's class and can say with all distinction that the two classes are not remotely similar in any way. With the exception of the definitions of the 9 gifts or manifestations of the Spirit. They all begin them with "The God given ability..." But this has been evidenced in other ministries as well. The 40's and 50's had a huge Holy Spirit movement in the USA that many attribute to the ministries of John G. Lake and Smith Wigglesworth. J.E. Stiles learned about speaking in tongues from the Wigglesworth ministry and Wierwille learned it from Stiles. So, what I really see in PFAL is a little bit of Leonard, but a whole lot of Bullinger and some of Kenyon. As far as the matter over "the cry of triumph" is concerned. Wierwille was not an Aramaic scholar but relied mostly on the works of George Lamsa. Lamsa was consulted on it and felt it was accurate as far as estrangelo Aramaic was concerned. But all in all I can say I had a far worse experience with the "leadership" in BG's ministry than I ever had with the Way. but that is another story...

Hello.

Now, with "similarities" between BG Leonard's class and pfal, here's what happened.

The first iteration of pfal was "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", and WAS a complete copy of

Leonard's class without Leonard's name. That's why grads of Leonard's class were automatically

considered grads of "vpw's" class.

Why was it the same class? vpw planned it that way. He talked his way into one of Leonard's

classes, took it again the next time it was offered, then, 3 months later, asked Leonard for

permission to run "LEONARD's" class locally on a onetime basis. Leonard approved of it,

giving vpw the benefit of the doubt. So, vpw took Leonard's class, said "this is my class",

ran it, charged money for it, and send Leonard a class photo for his collection.

After that, vpw kept teaching Leonard's class with vpw's name on it.

Later, he added JE Stiles' and Bullinger's books on the Holy Spirit, and Bullinger's stuff

on "how the Bible interprets itself." Later classes included some Aramaic distractions

courtesy of Lamsa-but few. Oh, and Kenyon, where this Word-Faith business of

the supposed "LAW" of believing is inserted.

The later classes looked less like Leonard clones because of the new material-

and how they were stretched into 3 levels of class after that.

Edited February 9, 2009 by WordWolf

[geisha779]

PFAL full of bull? That's OK . . . that's OK.

I think the signs read. . . "PFAL is The Way to hell".

PFAL 77 --- Muncie, Indiana

Rather profound looking back. . . my time in was somewhat hellish.

Edited February 9, 2009 by geisha779

[Frame57]

Hello.

Now, with "similarities" between BG Leonard's class and pfal, here's what happened.

The first iteration of pfal was "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", and WAS a complete copy of

Leonard's class without Leonard's name. That's why grads of Leonard's class were automatically

considered grads of "vpw's" class.

Why was it the same class? vpw planned it that way. He talked his way into one of Leonard's

classes, took it again the next time it was offered, then, 3 months later, asked Leonard for

permission to run "LEONARD's" class locally on a onetime basis. Leonard approved of it,

giving vpw the benefit of the doubt. So, vpw took Leonard's class, said "this is my class",

ran it, charged money for it, and send Leonard a class photo for his collection.

After that, vpw kept teaching Leonard's class with vpw's name on it.

Later, he added JE Stiles' and Bullinger's books on the Holy Spirit, and Bullinger's stuff

on "how the Bible interprets itself." Later classes included some Aramaic distractions

courtesy of Lamsa-but few. Oh, and Kenyon, where this Word-Faith business of

the supposed "LAW" of believing is inserted.

The later classes looked less like Leonard clones because of the new material-

and how they were stretched into 3 levels of class after that.

Agreed on some of this. There are still huge differences between the two. I spent many many nights chatting with BG about this so I speak first hand. Wierwille had BG's blessing early on which is fact. VPW tried to convince BG that the term "Gifts" should be manifestations instead and that is where the fun began. Also BG was a staunch advocate that the KJV and only the KJV is the authorized text and so on...The last straw was when VPW went to SF to witness to the hippies. BG was reviled because he felt they were too steeped into drugs to and unless they were delivered first then and only then would they be allowed to take a class. BG always felt that VPW's problems with the Way were all due to the hippies...Both men parted company but Mrs. Wierwille and Mrs. Leonard stayed in contact regularly until Mrs. Wierwille was a convalescent.