It's true. I completely lost sight of Jesus in my Way years. Big concept of God, and who God is. Lost concept of Jesus, and who he is.
TWAP. Haha. That's funny, so close to ... a word that might get changed if I write it. T at the end.
The Way of Abasement and Powerlessness. That'll do.
OMG, love your last re-titling!!! Even tho my years in twi (14), and in geer-land (18, rather absent-geer-land - where even WAS the dude?? I know in Maine, but writing from afar...) had many positive aspects, the abasements and powerlessness were very inter-woven. And tragically, so was the absence of Jesus, along with the absence of vpw following the basic Biblical principals he taught, as John J shares in the video. I know this is awkwardly expressed, but oh well, am feeling some more emotional upheaval... Thank you!!
The pfal Foundational class was billed as "foundational." It would be more fair to the material to point out that the class is a mix of material from BG Leonard's class, Bullinger's books ("How To Enjoy the Bible" early on, "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" later on) abd Stiles' "Gifts of the Spiirit" book, along with a few things tossed in here and there. Then it should look a little disjointed- because it IS.
Look- I'm an eclectic. I LIKE the idea of drawing from diverse backgrounds. That's a SELLING POINT to me- you did the work and are trying to get the best, or the most relevant, to present here and now. Unfortunately, this wasn't what was done with pfal- it was sort-of thrown together, and the main organizing of the thoughts was done by the people who transcribed and then edited vpw's ramblings, making it all look planned.
Leonard's class was never meant for the common student- it was meant for the minister so he could go back and bless his congregation. Bullinger's books were never meant to be read by the common people- he wrote, as was common for his time, to the intelligentsia who could FIND his book. He and his contemporaries would do things like quote Latin in their books and never translate it to English, since all of them studied Latin in school and thought all their readers would do so in perpetuity (forever). Stiles was at a big conference of ministers, and probably spent more time there working with ministers.
pfal was sold to the common people because that's where the money was. The others thought "Bless God's People" and acted accordingly. vpw thought "God's People are a comfortable living for me" and acted accordingly. So, his "Foundational" class misses a LOT that a STARTING Christian should learn, and this should NOW surprise no one.
Look- I'm an eclectic. I LIKE the idea of drawing from diverse backgrounds. That's a SELLING POINT to me- you did the work and are trying to get the best, or the most relevant, to present here and now. Unfortunately, this wasn't what was done with pfal- it was sort-of thrown together, and the main organizing of the thoughts was done by the people who transcribed and then edited vpw's ramblings, making it all look planned.
(snip)
I’m a bit of an eclectic myself – so I too think drawing from various perspectives is a more thoughtful approach. But one of the problems with the PFAL foundational class was that wierwille did NOT do the work to analyze, develop, refine, expand and improve on the work of others. Though he claimed that in the authorized book on The Way International “The Way Living in Love” as well as on other occasions – saying he taught nothing new but simply pieced together what he learned from others and with God’s guidance made it accurate in the process.
That doesn’t pass the sniff test in my book – it fails on numerous counts. He repeated some of the same dubious topics from Bullinger – like ultra-dispensationalism (wierwille re-named it “administrations”) and the supposed four crucified with Jesus Christ; In my opinion wierwille actually mangled one of Bullinger’s strongest topics – the keys to the interpretation of scripture. Explaining II Peter 1:20, 21 KJV in “How to Enjoy the Bible” Bullinger says “no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation” uses a genitive of origin (“of ”) and refers to how we got the scriptures ( other versions do a better job of clarifying that see II Peter 1:20, 21 NET and II Peter 1:20, 21 NIV ). So it does NOT refer to the interpretation of the scriptures but how they came to be written – wierwille twisted that verse around to essentially mean no one is free to interpret the Bible all on their own , and then he actually said the Bible interprets itself - which is basically an affront to logic, linguistics, translators, interpreters, real bible scholars and even students of The Bible.
I don’t think wierwille was competent enough to analyze anyone else’s ideas let alone critique or extrapolate on them. And even if he was an accomplished researcher and teacher – I think the PFAL material might have had some merit if he would have cited his sources, given a critique on their strong and weak points and then presented his case on why his synthesis was better…I have a modest collection of commentaries and some authors do just that. They might refer to another commentary by someone else who said “that passage means this” and then they go on to present their case for their own alternate understanding of the same passage by using the biblical languages, context, logic, etc.
See, here's the problem. You guys seem to think Wierwille was actually interested in finding 'The rightly divided word". I think he really couldn't have cared less. He was looking for the perfect con, just like Harold Hill in The Music Man..... Grifers gotta grift.
See, here's the problem. You guys seem to think Wierwille was actually interested in finding 'The rightly divided word". I think he really couldn't have cared less. He was looking for the perfect con, just like Harold Hill in The Music Man..... Grifers gotta grift.
With 20/20 hindsight, we know the difference NOW, But, at the time, I would have found an openly eclectic approach a selling=point. Of course, vpw was busy trying to convince people that the ONLY place to get answers was twi, so he went in the opposite direction.
BTW, it would have been a better con if vpw had understood everything Stiles, Bullinger and Leonard had taught. He mashed together what he understood, and deprecated what he didn't understand.
With 20/20 hindsight, we know the difference NOW, But, at the time, I would have found an openly eclectic approach a selling=point. Of course, vpw was busy trying to convince people that the ONLY place to get answers was twi, so he went in the opposite direction.
BTW, it would have been a better con if vpw had understood everything Stiles, Bullinger and Leonard had taught. He mashed together what he understood, and deprecated what he didn't understand.
...I don’t think wierwille was competent enough to analyze anyone else’s ideas let alone critique or extrapolate on them...
Amen
If I wasn't supposed actually being at work now, I could point to dozens of examples where Wierwille was using the work done by Bullinger and completely missed the point that Bullinger was making. Same with other authors he plagiarized. An example that comes to mind though is Wierwille's explanation of the word that is translated "interpretation". He clearly lifts his explanation and illustration from Bullinger' How to Enjoy the Bible but completely muffs it. Bullinger, in his example of unleashing dogs upon the game emphasizes the unleashing part (the word is in other places translated "revealing" or "unveiling". Wierwille either misunderstands or purposely misleads by emphasizing that the dogs were attacking the game in a frenzy, shooting way wide of the point that Bullinger was making
If I wasn't supposed actually being at work now, I could point to dozens of examples where Wierwille was using the work done by Bullinger and completely missed the point that Bullinger was making. Same with other authors he plagiarized. An example that comes to mind though is Wierwille's explanation of the word that is translated "interpretation". He clearly lifts his explanation and illustration from Bullinger' How to Enjoy the Bible but completely muffs it. Bullinger, in his example of unleashing dogs upon the game emphasizes the unleashing part (the word is in other places translated "revealing" or "unveiling". Wierwille either misunderstands or purposely misleads by emphasizing that the dogs were attacking the game in a frenzy, shooting way wide of the point that Bullinger was making
Furthermore,
as Bullinger knew and vpw didn't.
the verses were about THE ORIGIN OF SCRIPTURE.
It wasn't from some person's volition, but rather holy men were moved of God and that's how we got it. That was the point of the verses, and Bullinger made the same point there. vpw, on the other hand, wanted to make it about having an official "interpretation" (his), so he claimed it was about how NOT to approach the Scriptures- NOT like a wild pack of dogs on a hunt.
I always got the impression from PFAL that while Jesus is "gone" it is our privileged and responsibility to BE him for others, until they can learn the same.
By using the word "gone" I mean not present physically. ...like how Jesus is present in Acts 1 and "absent" in Acts 2.
I was taught that Jesus' current spiritual presence is within us, spiritually as the mind of Christ, and we're supposed to "act him out" into the open for others to see while they can't see him physically. This is what ambassadorship means to me.
I got plenty of "Jesus" appreciation in JCOP as well as in other teachings.
What was missing in PFAL (and rightly) was a shmaltzy, romantic-like, emotional relationship with some fake jesus spirit. The "Jesus Freak" movement of the 70s had these things going on a lot, and I see it every now and then in churchianity.
I want to apologize for not having read ANY of the comments above. I've been gone from this site for years. It didn't occur to me that I was barging into a conversation until after I did it.
I'll try to catch up, but please let me know of any highlights.
I always got the impression from PFAL that while Jesus is "gone" it is our privileged and responsibility to BE him for others, until they can learn the same.
By using the word "gone" I mean not present physically. ...like how Jesus is present in Acts 1 and "absent" in Acts 2.
I was taught that Jesus' current spiritual presence is within us, spiritually as the mind of Christ, and we're supposed to "act him out" into the open for others to see while they can't see him physically. This is what ambassadorship means to me.
I got plenty of "Jesus" appreciation in JCOP as well as in other teachings.
What was missing in PFAL (and rightly) was a shmaltzy, romantic-like, emotional relationship with some fake jesus spirit. The "Jesus Freak" movement of the 70s had these things going on a lot, and I see it every now and then in churchianity.
This made me recall a passage that talks about the confusion and reversal on moral issues.
Beware, those who call evil good and good evil,
who turn darkness into light and light into darkness,
who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter...Isaiah 5:20 NET
I think there is something to what you said “I always got the impression from PFAL that while Jesus is "gone" it is our privileged and responsibility to BE him for others, until they can learn the same. “ It seems to me that may have been a huge misdirect for a lot of PFAL students - resulting in folks having an inflated sense of self. It does seem natural that the narcissistic tendencies of “the teacher” might rub off onto his students.
Perhaps for wierwille and many followers the “fake Jesus spirit” was like the “here be dragons” - the medieval practice of putting illustrations of dragons, sea monsters and other mythological creatures on uncharted areas of maps which warned of dangerous and unexplored territories. Looking back – it does make me wonder why wierwille pontificated about the importance of Paul’s epistles over the Gospels and he put a stronger emphasis on theory rather than practice. Perhaps a personally immersive and transforming experience through the presence of Jesus Christ was unexplored territory for a lot of folks in TWI. Don’t know for sure – just thinking out loud about my own experience.
Remember the slogan what would Jesus Do? It was popular in some Christian groups but not in TWI of course. I've always thought that it was very compelling – a moral imperative – a reminder to act in a way that demonstrated the love, compassion and kindness of Jesus Christ...In PFAL wierwille shifted the importance when he said “The Word takes the place of the absent Christ"…thus a moral imperative to follow Jesus Christ’s example was eclipsed by an intellectual directive to study “The Word”…Maybe that’s what led me to have a cold…clinical…book-knowledge approach to Christianity rather than pursuing a deeper…personally immersive experience through Jesus Christ.
T-Bone, I think VPW was right about Paul's Epistles being superior to the 4 Gospels, otherwise why would Jesus leave? He said it was to make something better available than his personal presence could do.
I think Paul was right that while Jesus is gone, we get to take his place, and do what Jesus would do via that mind of Christ we have access to.
T-Bone, I think VPW was right about Paul's Epistles being superior to the 4 Gospels, otherwise why would Jesus leave? He said it was to make something better available than his personal presence could do.
Uhm...you know the gospels were written AFTER the epistles, right?
T-Bone, I think VPW was right about Paul's Epistles being superior to the 4 Gospels, otherwise why would Jesus leave? He said it was to make something better available than his personal presence could do.
I think Paul was right that while Jesus is gone, we get to take his place, and do what Jesus would do via that mind of Christ we have access to.
It sounds like you’re confusing Jesus’ earthly existence as a human being with his much more expansive role as the exalted Christ. A small sample of verses gives just a hint of his wide-ranging personal presence:
For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them. Matthew 18:20
Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize regarding yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you—unless, indeed, you fail the test! II Cor. 13:5
I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal. 2:20
== == == ==
1 hour ago, waysider said:
Uhm...you know the gospels were written AFTER the epistles, right?
Waysider brought up a good point about the Gospels being written after the epistles…see Wikipedia - dating the Bible . There is something fascinating to me in terms of how one grows in the Christian faith...I talked about this on another thread - here - when the discussion brought up if there was difference in the terms and ideas presented in the Gospels and the epistles - quoting myself here:
"With any book, culture, religion, system of thought, etc. that present a set of beliefs there is going to be a learning curve which simply means that acquiring a new or better or deeper understanding comes from experiencing or practicing those set of beliefs…So, I think the nuts and bolts of the Christian faith are the same in the Gospels as well as in the epistles – but more than likely there will be some variations how folks understood those “nuts and bolts” simply due to the individuality of people and where they are on the learning curve. So one answer to your questions – it’s the same message but there’s a broad spectrum in the make-up of the audience. I will address something about the authors of that message further down below."
I’m tempted to think at first the disciples were beta testing their new found faith and writing about it in the epistles before they got around to writing the Gospels – but that’s whack I know. However, the Gospels do hit me as a finished product from seasoned believers - representing a lifetime of spiritual growth, experiences and observations as well as being very concise documents of what Christianity is all about.
I want to apologize for not having read ANY of the comments above. I've been gone from this site for years. It didn't occur to me that I was barging into a conversation until after I did it.
I'll try to catch up, but please let me know of any highlights.
Really? There aren't very many responses to John J's original post on this thread.
Here's the main highlight: watch the video then give us you specific impressions.
Love those vending machines in the background! Insert believing, out pops whatever you want.
That vending machine analogy brings to mind the frustration many TWI-believers have to deal with...some folks think it helps to add a little body English to their believing .... visual aid - adding body English to your believing
Recommended Posts
Twinky
It's true. I completely lost sight of Jesus in my Way years. Big concept of God, and who God is. Lost concept of Jesus, and who he is.
TWAP. Haha. That's funny, so close to ... a word that might get changed if I write it. T at the end.
The Way of Abasement and Powerlessness. That'll do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
annio
OMG, love your last re-titling!!! Even tho my years in twi (14), and in geer-land (18, rather absent-geer-land - where even WAS the dude?? I know in Maine, but writing from afar...) had many positive aspects, the abasements and powerlessness were very inter-woven. And tragically, so was the absence of Jesus, along with the absence of vpw following the basic Biblical principals he taught, as John J shares in the video. I know this is awkwardly expressed, but oh well, am feeling some more emotional upheaval... Thank you!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
The pfal Foundational class was billed as "foundational." It would be more fair to the material to point out that the class is a mix of material from BG Leonard's class, Bullinger's books ("How To Enjoy the Bible" early on, "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" later on) abd Stiles' "Gifts of the Spiirit" book, along with a few things tossed in here and there. Then it should look a little disjointed- because it IS.
Look- I'm an eclectic. I LIKE the idea of drawing from diverse backgrounds. That's a SELLING POINT to me- you did the work and are trying to get the best, or the most relevant, to present here and now. Unfortunately, this wasn't what was done with pfal- it was sort-of thrown together, and the main organizing of the thoughts was done by the people who transcribed and then edited vpw's ramblings, making it all look planned.
Leonard's class was never meant for the common student- it was meant for the minister so he could go back and bless his congregation. Bullinger's books were never meant to be read by the common people- he wrote, as was common for his time, to the intelligentsia who could FIND his book. He and his contemporaries would do things like quote Latin in their books and never translate it to English, since all of them studied Latin in school and thought all their readers would do so in perpetuity (forever). Stiles was at a big conference of ministers, and probably spent more time there working with ministers.
pfal was sold to the common people because that's where the money was. The others thought "Bless God's People" and acted accordingly. vpw thought "God's People are a comfortable living for me" and acted accordingly. So, his "Foundational" class misses a LOT that a STARTING Christian should learn, and this should NOW surprise no one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m a bit of an eclectic myself – so I too think drawing from various perspectives is a more thoughtful approach. But one of the problems with the PFAL foundational class was that wierwille did NOT do the work to analyze, develop, refine, expand and improve on the work of others. Though he claimed that in the authorized book on The Way International “The Way Living in Love” as well as on other occasions – saying he taught nothing new but simply pieced together what he learned from others and with God’s guidance made it accurate in the process.
That doesn’t pass the sniff test in my book – it fails on numerous counts. He repeated some of the same dubious topics from Bullinger – like ultra-dispensationalism (wierwille re-named it “administrations”) and the supposed four crucified with Jesus Christ; In my opinion wierwille actually mangled one of Bullinger’s strongest topics – the keys to the interpretation of scripture. Explaining II Peter 1:20, 21 KJV in “How to Enjoy the Bible” Bullinger says “no prophecy of scripture is of any private interpretation” uses a genitive of origin (“of ”) and refers to how we got the scriptures ( other versions do a better job of clarifying that see II Peter 1:20, 21 NET and II Peter 1:20, 21 NIV ). So it does NOT refer to the interpretation of the scriptures but how they came to be written – wierwille twisted that verse around to essentially mean no one is free to interpret the Bible all on their own , and then he actually said the Bible interprets itself - which is basically an affront to logic, linguistics, translators, interpreters, real bible scholars and even students of The Bible.
I don’t think wierwille was competent enough to analyze anyone else’s ideas let alone critique or extrapolate on them. And even if he was an accomplished researcher and teacher – I think the PFAL material might have had some merit if he would have cited his sources, given a critique on their strong and weak points and then presented his case on why his synthesis was better…I have a modest collection of commentaries and some authors do just that. They might refer to another commentary by someone else who said “that passage means this” and then they go on to present their case for their own alternate understanding of the same passage by using the biblical languages, context, logic, etc.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
See, here's the problem. You guys seem to think Wierwille was actually interested in finding 'The rightly divided word". I think he really couldn't have cared less. He was looking for the perfect con, just like Harold Hill in The Music Man..... Grifers gotta grift.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
With 20/20 hindsight, we know the difference NOW, But, at the time, I would have found an openly eclectic approach a selling=point. Of course, vpw was busy trying to convince people that the ONLY place to get answers was twi, so he went in the opposite direction.
BTW, it would have been a better con if vpw had understood everything Stiles, Bullinger and Leonard had taught. He mashed together what he understood, and deprecated what he didn't understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Amen
If I wasn't supposed actually being at work now, I could point to dozens of examples where Wierwille was using the work done by Bullinger and completely missed the point that Bullinger was making. Same with other authors he plagiarized. An example that comes to mind though is Wierwille's explanation of the word that is translated "interpretation". He clearly lifts his explanation and illustration from Bullinger' How to Enjoy the Bible but completely muffs it. Bullinger, in his example of unleashing dogs upon the game emphasizes the unleashing part (the word is in other places translated "revealing" or "unveiling". Wierwille either misunderstands or purposely misleads by emphasizing that the dogs were attacking the game in a frenzy, shooting way wide of the point that Bullinger was making
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Furthermore,
as Bullinger knew and vpw didn't.
the verses were about THE ORIGIN OF SCRIPTURE.
It wasn't from some person's volition, but rather holy men were moved of God and that's how we got it. That was the point of the verses, and Bullinger made the same point there. vpw, on the other hand, wanted to make it about having an official "interpretation" (his), so he claimed it was about how NOT to approach the Scriptures- NOT like a wild pack of dogs on a hunt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I always got the impression from PFAL that while Jesus is "gone" it is our privileged and responsibility to BE him for others, until they can learn the same.
By using the word "gone" I mean not present physically. ...like how Jesus is present in Acts 1 and "absent" in Acts 2.
I was taught that Jesus' current spiritual presence is within us, spiritually as the mind of Christ, and we're supposed to "act him out" into the open for others to see while they can't see him physically. This is what ambassadorship means to me.
I got plenty of "Jesus" appreciation in JCOP as well as in other teachings.
What was missing in PFAL (and rightly) was a shmaltzy, romantic-like, emotional relationship with some fake jesus spirit. The "Jesus Freak" movement of the 70s had these things going on a lot, and I see it every now and then in churchianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I want to apologize for not having read ANY of the comments above. I've been gone from this site for years. It didn't occur to me that I was barging into a conversation until after I did it.
I'll try to catch up, but please let me know of any highlights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This made me recall a passage that talks about the confusion and reversal on moral issues.
Beware, those who call evil good and good evil,
who turn darkness into light and light into darkness,
who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter...Isaiah 5:20 NET
I think there is something to what you said “I always got the impression from PFAL that while Jesus is "gone" it is our privileged and responsibility to BE him for others, until they can learn the same. “ It seems to me that may have been a huge misdirect for a lot of PFAL students - resulting in folks having an inflated sense of self. It does seem natural that the narcissistic tendencies of “the teacher” might rub off onto his students.
Perhaps for wierwille and many followers the “fake Jesus spirit” was like the “here be dragons” - the medieval practice of putting illustrations of dragons, sea monsters and other mythological creatures on uncharted areas of maps which warned of dangerous and unexplored territories. Looking back – it does make me wonder why wierwille pontificated about the importance of Paul’s epistles over the Gospels and he put a stronger emphasis on theory rather than practice. Perhaps a personally immersive and transforming experience through the presence of Jesus Christ was unexplored territory for a lot of folks in TWI. Don’t know for sure – just thinking out loud about my own experience.
Remember the slogan what would Jesus Do? It was popular in some Christian groups but not in TWI of course. I've always thought that it was very compelling – a moral imperative – a reminder to act in a way that demonstrated the love, compassion and kindness of Jesus Christ...In PFAL wierwille shifted the importance when he said “The Word takes the place of the absent Christ"…thus a moral imperative to follow Jesus Christ’s example was eclipsed by an intellectual directive to study “The Word”…Maybe that’s what led me to have a cold…clinical…book-knowledge approach to Christianity rather than pursuing a deeper…personally immersive experience through Jesus Christ.
Edited by T-Boneformatting & typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone, I think VPW was right about Paul's Epistles being superior to the 4 Gospels, otherwise why would Jesus leave? He said it was to make something better available than his personal presence could do.
I think Paul was right that while Jesus is gone, we get to take his place, and do what Jesus would do via that mind of Christ we have access to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Uhm...you know the gospels were written AFTER the epistles, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It sounds like you’re confusing Jesus’ earthly existence as a human being with his much more expansive role as the exalted Christ. A small sample of verses gives just a hint of his wide-ranging personal presence:
For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them. Matthew 18:20
Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize regarding yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you—unless, indeed, you fail the test! II Cor. 13:5
I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal. 2:20
== == == ==
Waysider brought up a good point about the Gospels being written after the epistles…see Wikipedia - dating the Bible . There is something fascinating to me in terms of how one grows in the Christian faith...I talked about this on another thread - here - when the discussion brought up if there was difference in the terms and ideas presented in the Gospels and the epistles - quoting myself here:
"With any book, culture, religion, system of thought, etc. that present a set of beliefs there is going to be a learning curve which simply means that acquiring a new or better or deeper understanding comes from experiencing or practicing those set of beliefs…So, I think the nuts and bolts of the Christian faith are the same in the Gospels as well as in the epistles – but more than likely there will be some variations how folks understood those “nuts and bolts” simply due to the individuality of people and where they are on the learning curve. So one answer to your questions – it’s the same message but there’s a broad spectrum in the make-up of the audience. I will address something about the authors of that message further down below."
I’m tempted to think at first the disciples were beta testing their new found faith and writing about it in the epistles before they got around to writing the Gospels – but that’s whack I know. However, the Gospels do hit me as a finished product from seasoned believers - representing a lifetime of spiritual growth, experiences and observations as well as being very concise documents of what Christianity is all about.
Edited by T-Boneformatting & typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Really? There aren't very many responses to John J's original post on this thread.
Here's the main highlight: watch the video then give us you specific impressions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
Love those vending machines in the background! Insert believing, out pops whatever you want.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That vending machine analogy brings to mind the frustration many TWI-believers have to deal with...some folks think it helps to add a little body English to their believing .... visual aid - adding body English to your believing
Edited by T-Boneformatting & typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.