You wrote: “...vpw said "Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers." that's from "The Joy of Serving", the supposed Last Commercial of VPW. Mike said "IN EFFECT there are no answers out there" and "There are lots of answers out there, but they're not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in." ____ As usual, what Mike said vpw said, and what vpw said, are 2 different things. Mike added a word of vpw, and changed a word of vpw. When you do that, you no longer have the word of vpw.”
You are assuming that my usage of “answers” matches Dr’s usage of “answers” in those passages. I don’t think that’s the case here.
It’s because I include other things that Dr says about this that I can say what he did. Couple this with what Dr said in The Way Living in Love” and there’s no contradiction.
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
What was it that Dr claimed he “put together” if the raw unrefined answers are not out there?
IN EFFECT the answers were not out there for the taking because they were mixed with many errors.
***
I had written: “The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.”
You responded with: “A commercial is an ADVERTISEMENT. The meaning of the word has NO requirement like Mike is imposing on it. This was a taped advertisement: a commercial.”
The reason I objected to commercial is because the ministry was not a mere brute marketplace where COMMERCE took place. It was the way of a Father with His children overseen by a man appointed by God. You deliberately use these two words to reduce the ministry to a worldly entity when at that time it wasn’t. It was a MINISTRY, if ministered great help to thousands of people who are STILL thankful for it. If you didn’t get ministered to it was because of you ego. You were not meek to obey by the time Dr died. Neither was I. I had an ego too.
***
I had written regarding Dr’s last teaching: “I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.”
You responded with: “As usual, Mike is saying vpw said one thing, and vpw said another.”
Then you quoted Dr from that teaching: “‘Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.’ _____ Mike: ‘this message is for OLGs.’ _____ vpw: ‘this is for every born-again believer, especially coordinators.’”
Let’s look at Dr’s quote again: “Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.”
I bold fonted the OLGs.
From Dr’s words it “should be applicable to every born-again believer.”
That would mean it applicable to every OLG too.
But it was more that merely applicable for the OLGs. Dr didn’t specifically state it here, but all other indications are that in addition to being applicable to OLGs it was ALSO something that the same leaders (and many other OLGs too) had heard before from Dr, but were asleep.
At the AC’79 segment 5 Dr told them:
“I have set for our people, and it’s set in the book on ‘Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,’ and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven’t, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it’s utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I’ve discovered as I’ve worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.”
Notice how Dr uses the word “all.” All the OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were AC grads.
The OLGs Dr was addressing were asleep prior to 1979 and Dr tried to wake them (including me) up with the above statement. It didn’t work. He tried again and again. His last grand attempt was his last teaching.
The OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were ALL asleep and he was trying to wake them up. It was
That’s not necessarily the case for all born again believers, but the message was still applicable.
Some scraps fall from the master’s table to the dogs below. In some cases those “dogs” later became Sons of God as a result of those falling scraps.
PFAL was not produced to gain the approval of any worldly people nor institutions, so it shouldn’t be expected to conform to their rules.
Sorry Mike. That won't *wash*.
I know for a fact that the pfal books were put in libraries (for all to read), and that they were marketed to the public as well.
I think the man's name was Jerry Jacks (I could be wrong), who was in charge of a marketing program that was designed to get the pfal books into the hands of non-grads.
Pfal may not have been *produced* to gain the approval of the world, but they sure as h### were marketed that way. Thus my insistent complaints that docvic never cited his references.
In his own words -- he was a *Piker*.
He took the money and ran.
He could have been honest about what he knew, and from whom he got it --- but he wasn't, and didn't. He would have been more credible, had he done so.
Say what you want -- yer blowing smoke in the wind.
The following quote has been throw into the mix several times lately: "“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped". Taken by itself it seems to put to rest any claim that Wierwille was passing PFAL off as 100% his own, when in fact he "borrowed" from others.
I don't have it at my fingertips, but WordWolf probably does; in the preface to RHST Wierwill says the opposite. I'm sure most of us remember the statement in PFAL about hauling the 3000 theological works to the city dump and thenceforth only using the bible.
Besides, there is a great difference between reading widely and synthesizing a practical theology from the various sources and copying sections almost word-for-word.
Wierwille didn't always present himself in the same way: sometimes he was the lone cowboy, blazing new trails, sometimes he was the humble compiler, just "putting it together so it fit".
I too thought it was pretty practical. Before I came back to PFAL I was thinking much the same way about that topic and others.
... "Now I've abandoned all reason, and the world is just ROSY!"
You misrepresented me again. You wrote (with my bold fonts) that this is my position: "...anyone who looks at Wierwille's written works with an open mind and sees it for what it is automatically and by definition becomes an 'unfit researcher.'"
Mike, the discrepancy here is that when I say "see it for what it is," what I mean is "see it for what it is." When YOU say "see it for what it is," you mean "see it for the idol I have turned it into." See the difference? Of course not. Too much sand in your eye. Or something.
One thing that comes up for me in this discussion, is that there really was a mixed message in my way experience concerning PFAL. On one level, PFAL was treated as the touchstone for all bible truth. Yet, on another, there were contradictions and inconsistencies that were known and acknowledged, at least in the way corps "household."
There are quite a few examples, but one that comes up for me immediately is the role of suffering in the life of a believer. I remember having questions about Acts 16, for example, when Paul and Silas obeyed the Lord and went to Macedonia to preach the gospel and then got thrown in jail and beaten for their faith and obedience.
To a certain extent, it was okay (in the corps household) to have questions and even talk about it out loud, but egads, don't ever directly challenge PFAL, or VPW's interpretation. Whatever you do, don't get combative, was the message I got while in. But, honest, sincere questions were acceptable in some circles.
(As I write this, I am fully aware that some got thrown out on their behinds for disagreeing with PFAL, and were horribly treated.) But there were times.......when there was a nod in the direction of "further research is needed." ( I don't know if that was your experience or not, socks, since you were an "earlier generation" of corps than I was.)
I have found the same thing to be true in the churches I've been a part of. I mean, as long as one doesn't openly challenge what a church considers to be etched-in-stone-biblical truth in a combative manner, there is a chance that sincere searching and questions will be met with consideration. Just my experience, fwwiw.
Doctrinal "likemindedness" has taken a back seat for me in my "walk" I admit. I just figure that many of the trinitarians and other church people who disagree with MOI, are beloved of God just the same as I am. And it behooves me to treat them as such.
I don’t know if you saw this or anyone else, but I woke up this morning with the scenery of “A prophet is not without honor” in my head. I could see that in the machinations of the logic in my post to you that I neglected to note an exception.
The process by which that verse comes to pass in most cases was well described by me, where a prophet sins and the adversary seizes on the opportunity to besmirch the Word that prophet speaks.
Well, obviously that doesn’t work for Jesus, who spoke that verse. (He may have been quoting an OT verse: I don’t know) That didn’t thwart the adversary, though. He simply used Jesus’ family to besmirch by proxy. (I’m still groggy, with little sleep accomplished, so I don’t even know if I used “proxy” right.)
Anyway, I just woke up knowing I needed to note that. Now, if I don’t decide to go back to sleep, I’ll read the responses here and see if anyone caught my oversight.
You wrote: “You know all about drama don't you Mike? __ Sorry you've got such a hang up about the Way Corps, which I dropped out of, btw. I can't change my past. __ Keep accusing and fighting... your identity depends on it.”
As for the Corps, I am extremely disappointed with them, and have been starting slowly in 1978 with personal observations, then accelerating in their handling of the ministry meltdown, climbing much higher in 1998 when I first found out about their fumbling of Dr’s final instructions, and now peaking as I see their persistence in ignoring these final instructions.
I now know why Dr was so often angry with them. I can’t think of an institution that has failed more spectacularly.
[These people were "screened" ineptly by a process designed and
implemented by vpw. It's called
"You can stay as long as your money holds!"
Thus, ANYBODY with money made it in.
(That's "absence of quality control.")
They then entered into a program designed an implemented by a
man with NO experience, background or training in programs himself (vpw).
So, they were trained in a haphazard fashion at the whims of vpw.
They spent a lot of time taking every twi class, and a year going wow,
and doing a lot of manual labour around grounds that normally is
done by paid employees. For this, they paid a tuition (including the wow year.)
Occasional highlights included a seminar showing how
communisim was behind rock and roll-which was vpw's idea and
vpw DEMANDED the instructor be at his most extreme.
Other highlights included a video where two women engaged in sexual
acts with a dog. vpw was the one who selected this video, and made
sure it was covered with the corps. Until one class en masse screamed
about it, he had NO problem using this.
The ONE thing they were REQUIRED to do-with the rare exceptions of
an entire corps year rebelling- was to give 100% obedience. vpw
had FIRED one entire corps when he felt they weren't sufficiently
obedient.
The one EXCEPTION to the unprofessional training they received
(even LEAD was amateurs leading amateurs) was the Dale Carnegie
SALES Training vpw put in place. In other words, he was fine with an
inferior education for them-EXCEPT FOR THEIR ABILITY TO SELL.
Add all that together, and it is small wonder the corps was not a
rousing success. Some students will ALWAYS rise above bad classes,
and some students will ALWAYS fall below standard. However,
the way corps was poorly designed and poorly executed.
The only thing it was wildly successful at was guaranteeing tuition
(MONEY) for 4 years, and a free labour force to guarantee upkeep
on grounds.
So, when one student fails, you can blame the student.
When a MAJORITY of the students fails, the problem is the
PROGRAM. I agree it failed SPECTACULARLY.
Therefore, the fault is on its designer/implementer.
The death-knell for it was the assignment BY vpw of
its top spot to a wet-behind-the-ears college athlete
with even fewer qualifications than vpw had.
Finally,
vpw was famous-WHEN FEW WERE LOOKING-
for having temper-tantrums when he felt like it, and
yelling when he wanted. His excuse?
"I yell because you can take it!" Although, of course,
when they COULDN'T, he was just as loud.
Do something nice but not the way he wanted?
vpw might scream at you-and he did, sometimes.
He yelled at students he barely knew, and he
yelled at those closest to him.
Was it the constant drinking? Was it the
emotionally-crippled upbringing by the control
freak who yelled at his kids and everyone else?
Was there some other reason he yelled whenever
he felt like?]
Keep in mind that I have not counted myself as superior. I had been counting on the Corps to help me with my deficiencies. I committed all the errors I am now complaining about, but I knew I didn’t have it together. It was a bitter disappointment for me to find out that they had not grown nearly as much as they projected to us peons.
[That's what they were TRAINED to do.
Who was responsible to see that their training was adequate?
I think it was you who wrote: “The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.”
In your method an assumption must be made first that an actual error is POSSIBLE for that sentence to make sense.
[Raf mentioned that. It is the position a reasonable person takes.]
In my method, the first assumption is that all PFAL errors are only apparent.
["PFAL has no errors-only the illusion of errors."
We know that's your method, and he never pretended your method was
anything other than it is.
Nor did he pretend that was a position that a healthy person would take.]
Someone must know ENOUGH of PFAL to see how an apparent error resolved.
[Or must be skilled enough to BURY AND HIDE a problem they can't face.]
In your method, finding a seemingly solid error is the end of the process, followed only by uncorking the Champagne.
[Don't you get tired of repeating this vicious lie?
Raf's method BEGINS when an error is found.
Then discussion and consideration begins. Research is done.
Concepts are considered and exchanged. Knowledge grows.
Then an error is either shown to be substantial,
or it is shown to not be one. Action is then taken accordingly.
(Most of the errors that were worth discussing get confirmed as
definitive errors. That's the result of not bothering when something's
not a clear error.)]
In my method a different kind of celebration takes place, knowing that the eventual resolution will be quite enlightening. When the adversary spins his web to bring forth an apparent error, it often means he’s trying to hide something good. While you are pouring the Champagne and your method winds down, my method is just getting started.
[Don't you get tired of repeating this silly lie?
Mike's method ENDS intelligent discussion and debate.
"Dodge, distract, deny,
BUT NEVER ADMIT AN ERROR IS AN ERROR."- MIKE.
Have you forgotten your OWN words on this subject,
or are you hoping WE did? Are you going to pretend you
never said that now?]
My method for working PFAL’s apparent errors, when it comes to these points, is pretty much identical to your method for working your KJV’s apparent errors. You know the method, you just don’t want to use it on PFAL.
[Actually, we EXAMINE information in both cases,
and Mike CONCEALS information in both cases.
Mike is either intentionally lying or completely delusional
as to this description.
Think I MIGHT be mistaken? There's a thread on errors
in the Doctrinal section. Read the DISCUSSIONS and see
what YOU think.]
Knowing PFAL inside and out, to the best of one’s ability, seems be necessary to do all the things that Jesus did.
[i wonder how JESUS managed it, since he didn't have a copy
of the Orange Book on him....]
You wrote: “First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed."
I give you credit for objectivity here.
[it's about time-he's BEEN this objective all along.]
This was discussed a little by me and dmiller, the tatterations of PFAL being extremely minor compared to the ancient scripture difficulties.
[Mike's invented the word "tatterations". Keep score, people.]
***
You wrote: “By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.”
Thank you, again.
***
[None of us ever claimed otherwise.]
In a later post you wrote, countering WTH’s discourse on the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God: “You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.”
[Correct. Jesus Christ used the term "kingdom of heaven"
interchangeably with "kingdom of God".]
Each Gospel emphasizes different hats that Jesus wore. For those in his presence at the time he could have easily said the two different sentences separately, and referred to similar but different characteristics for both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Then each Gospel only reports one of the sentences, the one that best fits with that Gospel’s orientation with respect to Jesus’ differing roles. This is ONE way I’d research those scriptures. Another would be to see if time and place line up, because each Gospel MAY be referring to different but similar events.
In other words it may only LOOK like he used them interchangeably.
[Take a look. We did. Jesus used them interchangeably.
Raf gave an example. I notice you skipped over it.]
You wrote: “Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books. No need for citing sources amongst *family* members? Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).”
Thank you,
Gosh, first doojable, then Raf, now you. I’m hojnored.
In some ways and for some time it WAS a family.
I too am rankled by what it became.
***
You wrote: “What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.”
[Which is true-and dmiller gave the details.]
Some scraps fall from the master’s table to the dogs below. In some cases those “dogs” later became Sons of God as a result of those falling scraps.
[This has been a message from the Irrelevant Analogy Division
of Mikean pfal.]
PFAL was not produced to gain the approval of any worldly people nor institutions, so it shouldn’t be expected to conform to their rules.
[it was produced to make money, engender loyalty, and THIRDLY
to teach some Bible. The priorities reflect the methods used.
I’m pretty careful to have either many observations behind my sweeping generalizations, OR doctrine behind them, OR both, OR it’s a close approximation with few significant exceptions, OR combionations of all the above.
[Hahaha!
Rug.]
Here’s an example of a doctrinal one: all men are liars. Here no amount of exceptions can change the rule. We all have SOME common characteristics, and I try my best to work within them. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Look at the early Romans chapters and there a bunch.
***
You wrote: “Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.”
I’m thankful for all the exceptions to the rule I saw develop over time.
I’m thankful for the Corps and all the good work they did prior to 1985. I benefited from those who were walking, but these benefits subsided as we progress into the mid 80’s.
***
You wrote: “Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other.”
I’m very happy for that bond, but not where I saw it as a division in the Body. The Corps camaraderie was supposed to be to help them get through training and then any hard times that hit the field. Instead I saw exclusive cliques develop, rudely excluding non-Corps far more than was called for and damaging the work they were trying to do. Many saw their membership as a license to be rude and elite; Craig was not the only one by far. The point of the whole thing was to serve, and many turned it into an opportunity to BE served. I SALUTE ANY AND ALL CORPS WHO RESISTED THIS, but many succumbed. By the mid 80’s I couldn’t see a shred of “in depth spiritual awareness.”
***
[Right.
The poorly-trained graduates reacted in the fashion they were
TRAINED to react in. That was the result of the designer and
implementor of the program, and the trained orangutan he
placed in charge of them directly. The aggregate failures of
both men was a millstone around the neck of EVERY student,
and some succeeded in SPITE of the training vpw and lcm
gave.]
You wrote: “There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends.”
[Right. Virtually everything Mike claims about vpw comes
from vpw's controlled media image, and the rest involves
vpw having some sort of superhuman powers.]
Let’s look at the same kinds of experiences from my perspective.
[We've done that. It's easy to do.
"vpw had little character flaws that never affected any of his
policies. He produced classes and programs that were great-
except students failed to rise to the level of excellence of the
classes. When twi collapsed, it was the result of failures
by everyone EXCEPT vpw." There it is in few words.]
Remember that a prophet is not without honor EXCEPT in his own country and with his own kin. Now, of course, most posters are now gagging and protesting my labeling Dr as a prophet. Ok, those who can’t listen and control their emotions can leave the room.
[Actually, when you're done with the melodrama,
you'll see most of us are snickering or looking on sadly.]
I insist on this as a fundamental postulate from which to build on: Dr was God’s spokesman to teach us.
[Which is why your posting on GSC is a waste of time.]
At least I HAVE a fundamental postulate; many just think wherever their feelings of the moment lead them.
[strawman! It's been a whole page! Welcome back!]
Working from within my postulate, have you ever wondered WHY a prophet lacks honor from those who are close to him?
[No, because we reject your postulate.
Even rejecting it, we know the answer.
Stop pretending you're of superior intelligence to the
average poster here.]
It’s because the adversary first builds false expectations in us that a prophet can only be a goodie-goodie. Sometimes he uses actual preachers who lead what looks (on the surface) like a spotless life to prop up this illusion.
[incorrect reason. I'm disappointed. This one was EASY.]
Then, with a real prophet, he watches and waits and tempts extra hard to get him to slip up, or better yet, throw in the towel temporarily and deliberately blow it.
[False assumption: everyone ELSE gets a lesser effort.
Amazing how little you understand the workings of a prophet-
or not so amazing, since you're limited-at BEST- to what vpw
said about them, and at WORST how you've rewritten it.]
When he spots his chance he throws a spotlight on said prophet’s sin, making sure that as many people CLOSE TO HIM see it. He then, EVER SO SUBTLY, and sometimes over the course of many years, works on those who saw said sin. He exaggerates it as much as possible and even adds in complete fabrications to spice it up. He has the witnesses spread it ever so efficiently. (I know many think I’m speaking specifically about people here, but I’m not. I’ve long known that this a completely general process, repeated over and over throughout the centuries.) He makes SURE no one forgets what they saw. He has the witnesses build each other up to keep the stories alive. He attacks the integrity of the Word that the prophet accurately brings forth for God and for seekers of God. The more good Word the prophet brings forth, the more the adversary intensifies the kind of campaign outlined here.
How could the adversary NOT try to do such things?
[because-to be effective- he can accomplish
his purposes with less effort. But I'm not here to educate
you on how that works, especially since you won't learn/]
Didn’t any of you Corps people here (not just singling out you dooj) know this was BOUND to happen well before you signed up?
[it wasn't, so small wonder they didn't.]
Hadn’t you ever read Romans 7 or I John 1 and seen that all have sinned, even the greatest of prophets, with ONLY one exception?
[A triangle has 3 sides. Relevance?]
Hadn’t you Corps people been taught that the adversary’s top priority was to attack the Word as it sits in believers’ minds, and that would also mean attacking the integrity of the man who teaches it to us?
[They were taught that as one of the meany control methods
to keep them from ever questioning their teacher.
Bravo for pointing that one out!]
Have you even ONCE flashed on this inevitable scenario over the decades?
[intellectually, this one's a cinch.]
Evidently not, at least not for a large majority here.
[Mike, once again, can read everyone's mind.]
I think a lot of the splinter group leaders who lean positively in Dr’s direction know this. Why don’t people here? Maybe all the Corps meant to some people was the social club and camaraderie.
[And maybe Mike is the pseudonym for a mental patient under
minimum supervision. Hey, so long as we're positing theoreticals...]
There are definite “disadvantages” of being close to a prophet. Those who aren’t especially prepared to withstand this buffeting won’t last long.
As I look back on my life, my respect for Dr went down considerably as I worked at HQ. How could anything significant come out of New Knoxville is the kind of thinking that plagued residents of Jesus’ home town, and THAT’S where the “prophet not without honor” verse comes from.
[Wrong again, but at least you're trying.
If you actually READ the Bible from time to time, you'd have caught
that one BEFORE posting it.]
When I returned to the field, and
my major exposure to Dr returned to mostly tapes and videos, with a light sprinkling of magazine articles, and a much lighter sprinkling of collateral reading, my respect rose about to it’s previous levels before my HQ years...
[Everyone EXCEPT MIKE can see the problem here.
Anyone want to explain it again? I tried, but Mike needs it
simpler than I can express it.]
until the late 80’s meltdown and then all hell broke loose.
***
You wrote: “If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr portrayed.”
[This is true.
They weren't SINLESS, but they exercised self-control and were thus BLAMELESS
and had a GOOD REPORT of them which were without.]
Spiritually, anyone born again is above rebuke
[Which has nothing to do with what Scripture was talking about there or in
any other place that it prescribes the behaviour of a prophet or ANY of God's
representatives. We were discussing CONDUCT and doing what God says to,
and NOT doing what God says NOT to.
Switching the subject is a sad attempt to try to draw attention away from the
deficient conduct on behalf of a person who deserved to be confronted to
the face often, because he was to be blamed.]
and has lots of things that need to be carefully nurtured to bring out to the open. Some prophets were more successful at this, and as a result, they were able to defeat the adversary’s counter measures better. Some were not so good at this, and their students had a more difficult time tracking with the good Word such a prophet brings forth. If a prophet comes close to the man he knows to be, then more gets done and God’s Word is promoted freer and farther. If he doesn’t then everybody has a more difficult time, but the Word that prophet brings forth is just as pure as God is pure. Examples: David, Solomon, Balaam.
***
[Then again,
there were also many men who claimed to speak for God, and
did so presumptuously. There are equally many examples.]
You wrote: “If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic.”
Dr did plenty of this, if you care to remember it in the face of the huge soap operas many choose to focus on.
[This is Mike's translation of
"exposing the felonies committed by a man who claimed to represent
God at the time he-with premeditation-plagiarized, deceived,
drugged women and raped them". Aka "huge soap operas".]
He also told us this in GMWD Chapter titled “Followers of Us” on pages 112, 113 (with my bold fonts, but Dr’s italics):
“As people get into the truth of God’s Word, it takes time for them to jell its greatness to the point that they walk on it. They need time to mature in God’s household and in the knowledge of His Word. In doing this they are to imitate the examples set by the men and women of God who are responsible to lead them. This does not mean that we take on our leaders’ idiosyncrasies and faults. It means that as we learn principles in God’s Word, we imitate those men and women as we see them practice the truth. It is a family learning situation, a growing experience. We learn from those who have been practicing the principles of God’s Word longer than we have. In doing this we become more and more perfected in His Word. We become more and more like the Lord Jesus Christ. In turn, as God’s children, we become more and more like our Heavenly Father, for we are learning to walk in the perfection to which He has called us. That is the pattern. We imitate the lives of those whom God has set in His household as leaders and overseers. They then imitate the Lord Jesus Christ by walking faithfully on God’s Word. As all of us do this, we are imitating the source of that Word, God. Paul sets this pattern of imitation very clearly in the first letter to the Corinthians.”
[Thank you for giving evidence that vpw laid the groundwork
for people looking to HIM and seeing HIM as the one to imitate
rather than to CHRIST THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF OUR FAITH.]
The italics that I bold fonted and the preceding words indicate that there is some work to do in sorting out our examples’ “practicing of the truth” from their “idiosyncrasies and faults.” This work can sometimes be hard work, but those called to leadership positions (as ALL Corps were supposed to have been called) should have been accustomed to that.
In the early days there was an ample supply of older leaders who had plenty of both, plenty of truth practices and plenty of idiosyncrasies and faults.
[All of which is a false issue, since we are to look unto CHRIST
(Hebrews 12:1-3) and NOT anyone else- not even Moses, Abraham, Elijah, etc.]
Evidently many Corps members didn’t take this chapter to heart or didn’t even read it. The book GMWD came out in ’77, but the tapes and magazine articles it was developed from were from years earlier. Why wasn’t this chapter properly followed?
[Actually, it WAS followed.
That's why people came out with asinine comments like
"You don't have Jesus Christ to follow, but you can follow vpw."
And it was all DELIBERATE on vpw's behalf.]
See why Dr told us to master PFAL?
[One had NOTHING to do with the other.]
***
You wrote: “Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.”
No, I felt called to NOT go into the Corps. I felt that the ministry needed people outside it for balance. I did resent the fact that the Corps fell short of their advertised reputation. I was hurt by Corps people instead of helped by them. The sting still hurts me, just like many people here still hurt, but I try my best to forget it, not magnify it. I can forgive, but I wont whitewash it if the wound is still festering (to mix a few metaphors).
I mentioned some of this to “A simple guy” so I won’t go into this any more here.
***
You wrote: “As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.”
Dr pointed to
the Word God taught him to write
and gave the credit to Him and the men He worked with prior to Dr. Dr did OFTEN say that his ministry was totally by grace, that he was not a goodie-goodie but a downer and outer. He admitted he was weak and had flaws and that he fell short of the man he knew to be.
***
You wrote: “I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm.”
No, I explained in my lengthy post to you, and just yesterday on this thread, that the reason I point out all the self references in the class materials is to prove that we didn’t master it. The same references are very useful in pointing out that the attitude of maximum reception for PFAL is to recognize that it’s NOT Dr who is the real author but God is. This helps us to shape our attitudes in reading differently than if we are reading the word of man.
***
You wrote: “PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former”
PFAL accomplished this for me very well. IF we don’t get well pointed to the written Word then how can we know how and where to focus with the Father and Son in our sights. This is like another point you brought up on your thread about love versus study.
[inasmuch as pfal became an end in itself,
pfal FAILED miserably with you.]
If we don’t study the accurate Word then all our loving and focus on God and Jesus Christ will be defined by the world, by tradition, by churchianity, and by Hollywood. I decline that quality of definition.
[And there's Mike's famous insult to all other Christians! It's been a few pages.
Of course, by "the accurate Word", Mike means "pfal".]
It's too bad we can't post all the PFAL chapters and collaterals on this thread, for review and comment; ... but I understand that would possibly be a copyright infringement, unless permission to post is granted.
It may be that TWI is too timid to bring such a case to court and risk have it exposed in court that many portions of the same paragraphs they are fighting for control of appeared in other publications long before Dr copyrighted them.
When seen in this light, this could be one of the reasons God told Dr to re-publish such paragraphs in his books. This strategy could be seen as God’s way of liberating the books from the later corrupted TWI’s control.
In the earlier days, when TWI-1 was behaving better than Craig’s TWI-2, the written doctrines accurate according to God, and distributing the paragraphs far wider than Bullinger, Styles, etc. could ever have broadcast them, God utilized the services of TWI to pull it all off.
After TWI had served it’s distribution purposes, but fell internally due to it’s own lack of focus on the same paragraphs, God pulled the plug on supporting it and the ministry melted down.
Given the huge legal controversy, the entire sad tale of TWI in recent decades, it could conceivably be seen as legally ok to discuss the full texts here. I don’t know.
It’s also the case that TWI just can’t afford the additional bad press of prosecuting anyone for something that they appear to be in violation of themselves, and risking the spotlight of an overly eager national press descending on the whole story on any slow news days.
If they spent thousands on one positive NBC commercial I’m sure they don’t want the equivalent of millions worth of negative exposure in all the media.
It's too bad we can't post all the PFAL chapters and collaterals on this thread, for review and comment; ... but I understand that would possibly be a copyright infringement, unless permission to post is granted.
Am I nuts for thinking it might be possible?
I checked the US Copyright Office database to see what works were copyrighted and what their status was. Here's what I found:
1. Registration Number: RE-653-041
Title: Are the dead alive now? By aVictor Paul Wierwille.
Claimant: Dorothea K. Wierwille (W)
Effective Registration Date: 20Jul99
Original Registration Date: 29Oct71;
Original Registration Number: A427317.
Original Class: A
59. Registration Number: TX-672-319
Title: Jesus Christ, our Passover / Victor Paul Wierwille.
Imprint: New Knoxville, Ohio : American Christian Press, Way International, 1980.
There are other works, but they are videotape/audiotape.
From what I understand, the copyright will expire 95 years after its first publication. So, according to this, the first one that would be available would be RHST...and that one in 2051.
The copyright law says the following about "Fair Use:"
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So it's apparent that the work, as a whole, would be under copyright protection for several more years.
Two options (either one of which could be used).
First, there is "fair use." I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart. That falls under the concept of criticism and scholarship...particularly considering that the book is not readily available.
Second, since we know that significant portions of the document are plagarized (without attribution), it would be questionable whether it is a legitimate copyright in the first place:
§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general26
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship
fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(snip)
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
§ 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works,
but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work,
as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work,
and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
So the estates of the person who originally authored the works plagarized by Wierwille might find it in their interest to file a complaint with the Copyright office, on the basis of plagarism. They might be able to get some significant amount of damages, as well. (Think about it...if VPW plagarized 10% of PFAL from a book by Kenyon and 25% from a book by Stiles...then in theory Kenyon's estate should be entitled to 10% of the proceeds that TWI got from the sale of PFAL and Stiles' estate should be able to get 25%...that would be sort of fun seeing TWI's lawyers fend off plagarism accusations, now wouldn't it?)
BTW, sorry for the length of the post, but there was a lot of data on the US Copyright Office's site that was pertinent)
I step aside from your level and type of objectivity, but I appreciate your open honesty and wish Raf were this open with his deep intents in his “AE in PFAL” thread.
You wrote: “I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart.”
It’s transparent to all that, like you, Raf (and many others with him) totally intend to “rip it apart” instead of resolving the apparent errors in written PFAL.
I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have. My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of "God-breathed." You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact. That's fine with me. But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented, and your refusal to really come to grips with that truth had turned you into Smikeol.
For me to resolve "apparent" errors in PFAL, I would have to agree that they are merely "apparent." Some of them probably are. But not all, and as long as ANY are actual errors, your thesis is disproven.
What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.
I step aside from your level and type of objectivity, but I appreciate your open honesty and wish Raf were this open with his deep intents in his “AE in PFAL” thread.
You wrote: “I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart.”
I make no bones that my belief is that PFAL is a dangerous course that, in the main, serves to deceive its students. I believe that it is the "foundational course" that leads its students into a dangerous theology whose end result is self-idolatry. From its initial citation of John 10:10, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the only virtue of the course is strictly incidental to its actual content.
"Rip it apart" was a reference to a close examination, a dissection, if you will (or even if you won't). The goal being to document where, exactly, each section is in error (or, as unlikely as it is, where it's on the mark). Why rip it apart? Because it is unlikely that there will be much left following that dissection. Thus, rip it apart.
Of course, there are a few who would not care to see that document placed under that degree of scrutiny.
Again..I for one never looked on VPWs works as 'God breathed'.. BUT I will say that they logically and otherwise are 'streets ahead' of most other denominational and non-denominationals interpretations of scripture (imo)
You wrote: “I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have.”
I can believe you didn’t start out with that intention, but I can’t believe it’s not part of you now. Sorry, what you say here is just not credible.
***
You wrote: “My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of ‘God-breathed.’”
Well first you have to “find out” that it doesn’t live up to its own definition of “God-breathed” before you can “show” it, and you skipped that part.
For instance, you didn’t first do an exhaustive study of all the items that showed up in the Blue Book, searching them all out in all of Dr’s other writings before making your pronouncements in your published BTMS study. What you did was a limited analysis at items you felt comfortable with shooting from the hip at, and praising some sections, giving your work an appearance of objectivity.
***
You wrote: “You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact.”
You forget to mention that I spent 27 years with that critical thinking turned ON, and more than most grads around me. It got me into trouble with them at times and with God at times, me not applying what He wanted me to do as taught to me from PFAL.
I’m not proud of turning off THAT ONE ELEMENT of my critical thinking, just relieved that I finished that course and now can FINALLY commit the rest of my life to something. I often envied the commitment that I saw others have toward PFAL and Dr, but now in hindsight I can see their commitment some of it was not well rooted and grounded and they got blown away in the frenzy that followed Dr’s death. Mine is rooted and grounded.
***
You wrote: “But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented...”
No, the product of your investigation, with your methods in place, had said that there are errors in PFAL. You can’t equate your investigation as thorough, though, because you have not utilized the research methods Dr taught us within PFAL. He taught us them so that we could eventually use them on the PFAL texts.
***
You wrote: “What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.”
Not to YOUR satisfaction have I done that, but your methods are not my methods. I tried it BOTH your way and my way, while you have only tried it your way. I have seen the subject with a larger number of eyes than you.
I had written: “Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.”
You wrote in response: “Mike, you're the only one who wants that. Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that. If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.”
Oh, like they DON’T show up here when I make a post or start a thread?
***
I had written: “At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.”
You wrote: “Well, you DO want to control the microphone. You can do that when you control the forum.”
No, you DO want to think evil of me and you succeed. The main reason I suggest an entire PFAL forum here is in the quote of mine above this one where I say: “...in order to ... compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters.”
You see, your intent to besmirch me blinded you to my stated reason(s) for discussing such a forum, presumably to get the thought refined before approaching Pawtucket with the suggestion. I sincerely think Pawtucket is NOT going to be tricked into giving me any control here, AND I don’t even want such a heavy responsibility, not for a second!
One of the sub-topics that can emerge needing compartmental organization, like a thread of their own, is the many “thus saith” statements I’ve been waiting for three solid years for someone to challenge me to produce, like you finally did in this area of this thread. I think you challenge is several items down in my itinerary here, in your next post awaiting my commentary.
I discussed this wait of mine last year in a PT thread with several people, and I have written up 22 such statements so far. I refrain from posting them right now in this fray, because in addition to the 22 items getting lost in the shuffle, it seems that many here have a lot on their mind that’s unrelated to my 22 (and growing) items. A separate thread for them would be ideal organizationally, but it would give me absolutely no power, unless I simply wanted, by the existence of such a forum, to irk some here, which I don’t.
***
WW, I am in my business lull months now, so that’s why I am now addressing your long winded posts more. A slap on my wrist by Modaustin also got me out of a year long habit pattern of rarely responding to your posts, even to the point of avoiding reading them in their entirety sometimes.
If I had the time all year round I’d be taking you on point by point like this with no problem at all.
I like using posts from people like you to launch my ideas with greater gusto and greater reception than if I were posting them relatively alone in an unvisited thread. Your attacks arouse greater energy from me, and the fray draws in more readers.
Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority) I do see that the principle of “Don’t feed the trolls” has some applicability here, but is lost on you with your ego in place. For years I kept this a secret, but in the last six months I’ve decided it’s no longer necessary to do so. In other words, I thank you for being such a useful antagonist, but I can’t at all guarantee there are any eternal rewards for you in it.
You wrote: “Again..I for one never looked on VPWs works as 'God breathed'.. BUT I will say that they logically and otherwise are 'streets ahead' of most other denominational and non-denominationals interpretations of scripture (imo)”
We agree on this. If you’d like to see the 22 “this saith the lord” statements I have I can send them to you in PMs.
I have sent you a letter to your once posted e-mail address, but it was returned as blocked or undeliverable, I forget which. I thought it was a spam filter, maybe, so I tried the PM system here, but there was no response.
Did you get any of these attempts of mine to communicate on our relatively huge bank of doctrinal agreements?
***
Adressed to all:
If someone doesn’t want to have any private correspondence with me, a polite note to that effect would be the loving and efficient thing to do.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: “...vpw said "Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers." that's from "The Joy of Serving", the supposed Last Commercial of VPW. Mike said "IN EFFECT there are no answers out there" and "There are lots of answers out there, but they're not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in." ____ As usual, what Mike said vpw said, and what vpw said, are 2 different things. Mike added a word of vpw, and changed a word of vpw. When you do that, you no longer have the word of vpw.”
You are assuming that my usage of “answers” matches Dr’s usage of “answers” in those passages. I don’t think that’s the case here.
It’s because I include other things that Dr says about this that I can say what he did. Couple this with what Dr said in The Way Living in Love” and there’s no contradiction.
“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”
What was it that Dr claimed he “put together” if the raw unrefined answers are not out there?
IN EFFECT the answers were not out there for the taking because they were mixed with many errors.
***
I had written: “The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.”
You responded with: “A commercial is an ADVERTISEMENT. The meaning of the word has NO requirement like Mike is imposing on it. This was a taped advertisement: a commercial.”
The reason I objected to commercial is because the ministry was not a mere brute marketplace where COMMERCE took place. It was the way of a Father with His children overseen by a man appointed by God. You deliberately use these two words to reduce the ministry to a worldly entity when at that time it wasn’t. It was a MINISTRY, if ministered great help to thousands of people who are STILL thankful for it. If you didn’t get ministered to it was because of you ego. You were not meek to obey by the time Dr died. Neither was I. I had an ego too.
***
I had written regarding Dr’s last teaching: “I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.”
You responded with: “As usual, Mike is saying vpw said one thing, and vpw said another.”
Then you quoted Dr from that teaching: “‘Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.’ _____ Mike: ‘this message is for OLGs.’ _____ vpw: ‘this is for every born-again believer, especially coordinators.’”
Let’s look at Dr’s quote again: “Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators --and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving.”
I bold fonted the OLGs.
From Dr’s words it “should be applicable to every born-again believer.”
That would mean it applicable to every OLG too.
But it was more that merely applicable for the OLGs. Dr didn’t specifically state it here, but all other indications are that in addition to being applicable to OLGs it was ALSO something that the same leaders (and many other OLGs too) had heard before from Dr, but were asleep.
At the AC’79 segment 5 Dr told them:
“I have set for our people, and it’s set in the book on ‘Receiving the Holy Spirit Today,’ and people, when you reach the Advanced Class, you ought to be able almost to quote this line for line. You should have mastered this book by the time you get to the Advanced Class. If you haven’t, you better get busy and do it - work it to where you understand the Word of God in every facet, in every way of it’s utilization regarding the holy spirit field - all of them, you must know this book, in and out. But I’ve discovered as I’ve worked among my people, and even all the grads of the Advanced Class, there still are areas where we got to push ourselves.”
Notice how Dr uses the word “all.” All the OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were AC grads.
The OLGs Dr was addressing were asleep prior to 1979 and Dr tried to wake them (including me) up with the above statement. It didn’t work. He tried again and again. His last grand attempt was his last teaching.
The OLGs addressed by “The Joy of Serving” were ALL asleep and he was trying to wake them up. It was
That’s not necessarily the case for all born again believers, but the message was still applicable.
***
I’m tired. to be continued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sorry Mike. That won't *wash*.
I know for a fact that the pfal books were put in libraries (for all to read), and that they were marketed to the public as well.
I think the man's name was Jerry Jacks (I could be wrong), who was in charge of a marketing program that was designed to get the pfal books into the hands of non-grads.
Pfal may not have been *produced* to gain the approval of the world, but they sure as h### were marketed that way. Thus my insistent complaints that docvic never cited his references.
In his own words -- he was a *Piker*.
He took the money and ran.
He could have been honest about what he knew, and from whom he got it --- but he wasn't, and didn't. He would have been more credible, had he done so.
Say what you want -- yer blowing smoke in the wind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The following quote has been throw into the mix several times lately: "“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped". Taken by itself it seems to put to rest any claim that Wierwille was passing PFAL off as 100% his own, when in fact he "borrowed" from others.
I don't have it at my fingertips, but WordWolf probably does; in the preface to RHST Wierwill says the opposite. I'm sure most of us remember the statement in PFAL about hauling the 3000 theological works to the city dump and thenceforth only using the bible.
Besides, there is a great difference between reading widely and synthesizing a practical theology from the various sources and copying sections almost word-for-word.
Wierwille didn't always present himself in the same way: sometimes he was the lone cowboy, blazing new trails, sometimes he was the humble compiler, just "putting it together so it fit".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Possible and documented. Repeatedly. I'd ask you to pull your head out of the sand, Mike, but I'm not sure that's where it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
... "Now I've abandoned all reason, and the world is just ROSY!"
Mike, the discrepancy here is that when I say "see it for what it is," what I mean is "see it for what it is." When YOU say "see it for what it is," you mean "see it for the idol I have turned it into." See the difference? Of course not. Too much sand in your eye. Or something.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
but you haven't done this Mike
you are not doing pfal
you are doing something very different
"either in our understanding or in translation"
you have error in both
quite the twisted knot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Socks and Raf
You both make some really good points. Thank you.
One thing that comes up for me in this discussion, is that there really was a mixed message in my way experience concerning PFAL. On one level, PFAL was treated as the touchstone for all bible truth. Yet, on another, there were contradictions and inconsistencies that were known and acknowledged, at least in the way corps "household."
There are quite a few examples, but one that comes up for me immediately is the role of suffering in the life of a believer. I remember having questions about Acts 16, for example, when Paul and Silas obeyed the Lord and went to Macedonia to preach the gospel and then got thrown in jail and beaten for their faith and obedience.
To a certain extent, it was okay (in the corps household) to have questions and even talk about it out loud, but egads, don't ever directly challenge PFAL, or VPW's interpretation. Whatever you do, don't get combative, was the message I got while in. But, honest, sincere questions were acceptable in some circles.
(As I write this, I am fully aware that some got thrown out on their behinds for disagreeing with PFAL, and were horribly treated.) But there were times.......when there was a nod in the direction of "further research is needed." ( I don't know if that was your experience or not, socks, since you were an "earlier generation" of corps than I was.)
I have found the same thing to be true in the churches I've been a part of. I mean, as long as one doesn't openly challenge what a church considers to be etched-in-stone-biblical truth in a combative manner, there is a chance that sincere searching and questions will be met with consideration. Just my experience, fwwiw.
Doctrinal "likemindedness" has taken a back seat for me in my "walk" I admit. I just figure that many of the trinitarians and other church people who disagree with MOI, are beloved of God just the same as I am. And it behooves me to treat them as such.
Ok, I think I'm through ranting..... :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
I don’t know if you saw this or anyone else, but I woke up this morning with the scenery of “A prophet is not without honor” in my head. I could see that in the machinations of the logic in my post to you that I neglected to note an exception.
The process by which that verse comes to pass in most cases was well described by me, where a prophet sins and the adversary seizes on the opportunity to besmirch the Word that prophet speaks.
Well, obviously that doesn’t work for Jesus, who spoke that verse. (He may have been quoting an OT verse: I don’t know) That didn’t thwart the adversary, though. He simply used Jesus’ family to besmirch by proxy. (I’m still groggy, with little sleep accomplished, so I don’t even know if I used “proxy” right.)
Anyway, I just woke up knowing I needed to note that. Now, if I don’t decide to go back to sleep, I’ll read the responses here and see if anyone caught my oversight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[WordWolf in brackets & boldface.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It's too bad we can't post all the PFAL chapters and collaterals on this thread, for review and comment; ... but I understand that would possibly be a copyright infringement, unless permission to post is granted.
Am I nuts for thinking it might be possible?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It was worth considering, but, yes, it would be illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW and oldiesman,
It may be that TWI is too timid to bring such a case to court and risk have it exposed in court that many portions of the same paragraphs they are fighting for control of appeared in other publications long before Dr copyrighted them.
When seen in this light, this could be one of the reasons God told Dr to re-publish such paragraphs in his books. This strategy could be seen as God’s way of liberating the books from the later corrupted TWI’s control.
In the earlier days, when TWI-1 was behaving better than Craig’s TWI-2, the written doctrines accurate according to God, and distributing the paragraphs far wider than Bullinger, Styles, etc. could ever have broadcast them, God utilized the services of TWI to pull it all off.
After TWI had served it’s distribution purposes, but fell internally due to it’s own lack of focus on the same paragraphs, God pulled the plug on supporting it and the ministry melted down.
Given the huge legal controversy, the entire sad tale of TWI in recent decades, it could conceivably be seen as legally ok to discuss the full texts here. I don’t know.
It’s also the case that TWI just can’t afford the additional bad press of prosecuting anyone for something that they appear to be in violation of themselves, and risking the spotlight of an overly eager national press descending on the whole story on any slow news days.
If they spent thousands on one positive NBC commercial I’m sure they don’t want the equivalent of millions worth of negative exposure in all the media.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I checked the US Copyright Office database to see what works were copyrighted and what their status was. Here's what I found:
There are other works, but they are videotape/audiotape.
From what I understand, the copyright will expire 95 years after its first publication. So, according to this, the first one that would be available would be RHST...and that one in 2051.
The copyright law says the following about "Fair Use:"
So it's apparent that the work, as a whole, would be under copyright protection for several more years.
Two options (either one of which could be used).
First, there is "fair use." I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart. That falls under the concept of criticism and scholarship...particularly considering that the book is not readily available.
Second, since we know that significant portions of the document are plagarized (without attribution), it would be questionable whether it is a legitimate copyright in the first place:
So the estates of the person who originally authored the works plagarized by Wierwille might find it in their interest to file a complaint with the Copyright office, on the basis of plagarism. They might be able to get some significant amount of damages, as well. (Think about it...if VPW plagarized 10% of PFAL from a book by Kenyon and 25% from a book by Stiles...then in theory Kenyon's estate should be entitled to 10% of the proceeds that TWI got from the sale of PFAL and Stiles' estate should be able to get 25%...that would be sort of fun seeing TWI's lawyers fend off plagarism accusations, now wouldn't it?)
BTW, sorry for the length of the post, but there was a lot of data on the US Copyright Office's site that was pertinent)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I step aside from your level and type of objectivity, but I appreciate your open honesty and wish Raf were this open with his deep intents in his “AE in PFAL” thread.
You wrote: “I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart.”
It’s transparent to all that, like you, Raf (and many others with him) totally intend to “rip it apart” instead of resolving the apparent errors in written PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have. My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of "God-breathed." You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact. That's fine with me. But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented, and your refusal to really come to grips with that truth had turned you into Smikeol.
For me to resolve "apparent" errors in PFAL, I would have to agree that they are merely "apparent." Some of them probably are. But not all, and as long as ANY are actual errors, your thesis is disproven.
What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.
Some "master."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mike,
Mark,
I step aside from your level and type of objectivity, but I appreciate your open honesty and wish Raf were this open with his deep intents in his “AE in PFAL” thread.
You wrote: “I, for one, would think that it is 'fair use' if we were to take a chapter at a time (or some smaller division if a reasonable division could be made) and rip it apart.”
I make no bones that my belief is that PFAL is a dangerous course that, in the main, serves to deceive its students. I believe that it is the "foundational course" that leads its students into a dangerous theology whose end result is self-idolatry. From its initial citation of John 10:10, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that the only virtue of the course is strictly incidental to its actual content.
"Rip it apart" was a reference to a close examination, a dissection, if you will (or even if you won't). The goal being to document where, exactly, each section is in error (or, as unlikely as it is, where it's on the mark). Why rip it apart? Because it is unlikely that there will be much left following that dissection. Thus, rip it apart.
Of course, there are a few who would not care to see that document placed under that degree of scrutiny.
Hopefully that makes it a little clearer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Again..I for one never looked on VPWs works as 'God breathed'.. BUT I will say that they logically and otherwise are 'streets ahead' of most other denominational and non-denominationals interpretations of scripture (imo)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: “I have no intention of "ripping PFAL apart," and never have.”
I can believe you didn’t start out with that intention, but I can’t believe it’s not part of you now. Sorry, what you say here is just not credible.
***
You wrote: “My intention was explicit: to show that it does not live up to its own definition of ‘God-breathed.’”
Well first you have to “find out” that it doesn’t live up to its own definition of “God-breathed” before you can “show” it, and you skipped that part.
For instance, you didn’t first do an exhaustive study of all the items that showed up in the Blue Book, searching them all out in all of Dr’s other writings before making your pronouncements in your published BTMS study. What you did was a limited analysis at items you felt comfortable with shooting from the hip at, and praising some sections, giving your work an appearance of objectivity.
***
You wrote: “You've turned off your ciritical thinking on this one, and, not surprisingly, you're proud of that fact.”
You forget to mention that I spent 27 years with that critical thinking turned ON, and more than most grads around me. It got me into trouble with them at times and with God at times, me not applying what He wanted me to do as taught to me from PFAL.
I’m not proud of turning off THAT ONE ELEMENT of my critical thinking, just relieved that I finished that course and now can FINALLY commit the rest of my life to something. I often envied the commitment that I saw others have toward PFAL and Dr, but now in hindsight I can see their commitment some of it was not well rooted and grounded and they got blown away in the frenzy that followed Dr’s death. Mine is rooted and grounded.
***
You wrote: “But the truth that there are errors in PFAL is there, it's documented...”
No, the product of your investigation, with your methods in place, had said that there are errors in PFAL. You can’t equate your investigation as thorough, though, because you have not utilized the research methods Dr taught us within PFAL. He taught us them so that we could eventually use them on the PFAL texts.
***
You wrote: “What's it been, two, three years since we all worked through that thread? And .. you... have... yet...to...resolve...a...single...error.”
Not to YOUR satisfaction have I done that, but your methods are not my methods. I tried it BOTH your way and my way, while you have only tried it your way. I have seen the subject with a larger number of eyes than you.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
WordWolf,
I had written: “Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.”
You wrote in response: “Mike, you're the only one who wants that. Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that. If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.”
Oh, like they DON’T show up here when I make a post or start a thread?
***
I had written: “At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.”
You wrote: “Well, you DO want to control the microphone. You can do that when you control the forum.”
No, you DO want to think evil of me and you succeed. The main reason I suggest an entire PFAL forum here is in the quote of mine above this one where I say: “...in order to ... compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters.”
You see, your intent to besmirch me blinded you to my stated reason(s) for discussing such a forum, presumably to get the thought refined before approaching Pawtucket with the suggestion. I sincerely think Pawtucket is NOT going to be tricked into giving me any control here, AND I don’t even want such a heavy responsibility, not for a second!
One of the sub-topics that can emerge needing compartmental organization, like a thread of their own, is the many “thus saith” statements I’ve been waiting for three solid years for someone to challenge me to produce, like you finally did in this area of this thread. I think you challenge is several items down in my itinerary here, in your next post awaiting my commentary.
I discussed this wait of mine last year in a PT thread with several people, and I have written up 22 such statements so far. I refrain from posting them right now in this fray, because in addition to the 22 items getting lost in the shuffle, it seems that many here have a lot on their mind that’s unrelated to my 22 (and growing) items. A separate thread for them would be ideal organizationally, but it would give me absolutely no power, unless I simply wanted, by the existence of such a forum, to irk some here, which I don’t.
***
WW, I am in my business lull months now, so that’s why I am now addressing your long winded posts more. A slap on my wrist by Modaustin also got me out of a year long habit pattern of rarely responding to your posts, even to the point of avoiding reading them in their entirety sometimes.
If I had the time all year round I’d be taking you on point by point like this with no problem at all.
I like using posts from people like you to launch my ideas with greater gusto and greater reception than if I were posting them relatively alone in an unvisited thread. Your attacks arouse greater energy from me, and the fray draws in more readers.
Although I don’t fit the definition of a troll (validated by the highest authority) I do see that the principle of “Don’t feed the trolls” has some applicability here, but is lost on you with your ego in place. For years I kept this a secret, but in the last six months I’ve decided it’s no longer necessary to do so. In other words, I thank you for being such a useful antagonist, but I can’t at all guarantee there are any eternal rewards for you in it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Mark,
I understood your position and how you used the phase "rip it apart" to fit with your perception of danger.
I also understood the other day that our agreement on the nature of this thread did not mean any other areas of agreement existed.
Outside the obvious threat PFAL poses to RC validity, I see the TVTs as actually posing the secular dangers you perceive.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Allan,
You wrote: “Again..I for one never looked on VPWs works as 'God breathed'.. BUT I will say that they logically and otherwise are 'streets ahead' of most other denominational and non-denominationals interpretations of scripture (imo)”
We agree on this. If you’d like to see the 22 “this saith the lord” statements I have I can send them to you in PMs.
I have sent you a letter to your once posted e-mail address, but it was returned as blocked or undeliverable, I forget which. I thought it was a spam filter, maybe, so I tried the PM system here, but there was no response.
Did you get any of these attempts of mine to communicate on our relatively huge bank of doctrinal agreements?
***
Adressed to all:
If someone doesn’t want to have any private correspondence with me, a polite note to that effect would be the loving and efficient thing to do.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Actually, I don't see PFAL as a threat to any Christian validity (not simply Catholic validity).
I see PFAL as a threat to people's souls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike! You made a funny!
This is like Gollum calling Sam obsessed!
I'm proud of you, lad!
Link to comment
Share on other sites