All Nine All the Time

[WordWolf]

Where was I proven wrong WW ??

Amazing you missed it, but I shall document it.

It was in a post you made, and the post IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IT,

WHICH YOU REPLIED TO.

No wonder Mike despairs sometimes !!!

I wouldn't brag about that particular level of "understanding"...

No.. they among others believe that tongues 'ceased' centuries ago and are not needed today.

Therefore they have a 'problem' sometimes because occasionally newly baptised mormons after receiving the 'new birth' speak in tongues ! However, they are quickly told to 'cease'.

HEY..my names not Mo !!!! (interested in hearing her version though)

(snip)

James A. Cullimore, "Gifts of the Spirit," Ensign, Nov. 1974, 27

(snip)

I bear my solemn witness that these gifts are with the Church today.

(snip)

All the gifts and powers and blessings that have always identified Christ's church are with the Church today.

That was you making an incorrect statement in ignorance, phrased as if

you knew what you were talking about,

followed by tl correcting you by citing an official source.

In other words, this was when you were proven wrong and came back to

pick a second/third fight.

Edited March 29, 2006 by WordWolf

[templelady]

So which is it MO, does LDS encourage s.i.t. in ones private prayer life or no ?

Allen, the reason it is called Private is that you can do anything you please-It would never occur to an LDS bishop or president to inquire if you SIT or suggest that you SIT in your personal prayer life because it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

[Oakspear]

Allen, the reason it is called Private is that you can do anything you please-It would never occur to an LDS bishop or president to inquire if you SIT or suggest that you SIT in your personal prayer life because it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

templelady, obviously it is allan's business, so please, humble yourself before his great and all-encompassing wisdom and admit your error.

[templelady]

Allen

you have posted this item more than once on these forums and silly me I didn't get the message until just now. I was so excited I logged back on to post...

Therefore they have a 'problem' sometimes because occasionally newly baptised mormons after receiving the 'new birth' speak in tongues !

YOU have publicly admitted that people baptized into the LDS church receive the Holy Ghost as manifested by them speaking in tongues, and in so doing confirmed that the LDS Church is in fact true

Thank you so much

[allan w.]

So you still cannot answer my questions with a straight definitive answer ?!

That speaks volumes.

Any person who 'manifests tongues' in an LDS baptism is 'manifesting' in spite of, not because of LDS teaching on this particular subject.

WW..no, actually for someone who tries to come across as 'intellectually and grammatically enlightened' you seem to have ignored or missed the fact that Mo is 'hedging' LDS actual definition of what s.i.t. IS and how it is USED.

Mo, I can understand someone being a bit embarrased at having to defend some of their churches 'doctrine' BUT..could you just answer ...do LDS teach that s.i.t. is for personal edification, private prayer, YES or NO ? DO they encourage it as an individual blessing, YES or NO ?

Pretty simple question don't ya think.

[allan w.]

an interesting link to a group called 'Mormons in transition' and in it they answered my questions for me, thanks anyway Mo !!

[WordWolf]

"In transition?"

They paused while getting sex-change procedures to set up a website??? :blink:

[templelady]

Allen I am going to talk in simple words.

The LDS church does not teach TWI doctrine

NOW can we get back to my question about VPW and prophecy??

Does anyone know of a single prophecy of his that came true?

The gift of prophecy being a means by which we learn things that are not available to know otherwise

and as a corollary to this did he in fact ever prophecy?

And ALLEN I am not discussing the LDS Church with you on this topic so save your typing fingers

[allan w.]

Of course you won't answer the question because you know what the answer is, along with the guy who wrote the piece on Mormonism and s.i.t. !

Even I was surprised to 'google' Ex- LDS and to see how many sites there are.

www.irr.org/mit/story3.html

Anyway, you decided to 'hedge' your churches belief concerning s.i.t. so I (hope) I don't see you accusing the likes of Mike about not giving a 'straight answer' hmmm. Oh and seeing as WW seemed to o.k. your 'fudging' your reply, the same goes for WW as well.

[WordWolf]

Actually,

since her DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you-

you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack-

I don't see why she should entertain endless permutations of

your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything,

it's ALWAYS an attack on her beliefs. That's dishonest,

ungentlemanly, and tacky.

But hey, that's you, so whatever.

[allan w.]

Didn't think I'd see you 'scratchin' for a reply WW, aah well.

[Mike]

WW,

I could say the exact same thing of you and several other posters.

Thanks for the text, though. I can use it in paste posting.

Since my DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you-

you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack-

I don't see why I should entertain endless permutations of

your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything,

it's ALWAYS an attack on my beliefs. That's dishonest,

ungentlemanly, and tacky.

But hey, that's you, so whatever.

Yeah! I like that.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Mike

[WordWolf]

WW,

I could say the exact same thing of you and several other posters.

Thanks for the text, though. I can use it in paste posting.

Since my DIRECT answers to you never satisfy you-

you just pick something in the reply and formulate a new attack-

I don't see why I should entertain endless permutations of

your attacks. No matter how you phrase anything,

it's ALWAYS an attack on my beliefs. That's dishonest,

ungentlemanly, and tacky.

But hey, that's you, so whatever.

Yeah! I like that.

Actually, I expected that your fundamental dishonesty would

cause you to see NO DIFFERENCE between the two.

So, I shall spell it out so that you have NO EXCUSE.

See,

Templelady minds her own business.

Then Allan comes along and says

"templelady believes in selling children!"

Then templelady responds, with a quote from an official source

saying "we deplore the vile practice of selling children!

Sincerely, Manchester Jones."

Then Allan comes along with

"so you always believe what Manchester Jones says is

equivalent to Scripture!"

So, here was the process (spelled out for Mike's benefit.)

1) templelady minds her own business

2) Allan attacks templelady by making unfounded accusations about her beliefs

3) templelady responds by proving Allan's accusation was unfounded

4) Allan ignores that he was proven wrong and skips apologizing

for his rude behaviour in step 2. He pretends the discussion just

started and that he is given carte blanche to just attack anything

she says, then he finds something, and makes any accusation he

feels like, skipping any process like "logic" or anything along those lines.

So,

when this is pointed out, of course,

Allan is unapologetic.

(Might even be said to pretend it was never pointed out.)

Now, let's compare this to Mike,

since Mike is under the delusion that some comparison can be made.

1) Mike-rather than minding his own business,

comes along and infects EVERY thread he can find a pretext to

with his belief-system. His entire purpose for being here IS

his belief-system. He continues this until the staff stops him to

a degree.

To make this simple (for Mike),

is this what templelady did in Step One?

No-she was minding her own business.

2) Mike now has entire threads dedicated to his belief-system.

He's determined to keep using the GSC as his podium as long as

he's permitted to.

So, Mike posts his material, and others, seeing it as unrepresentative

of reality, incorrect, and error-ridden, REPLY to his posts.

To make this simple (for Mike),

is this what happened in Step Two with Allan?

No-Allan went out of his way to OPEN an attack on templelady,

whereas Mike-who has already passed judgement on all the other

posters-has presented his beliefs, which he asserts are superior

to the beliefs of all other posters. Those beliefs-and those posts-

are challenged the same as they would be ANYPLACE IN

CYBERSPACE. (The exception being that Mike would have

earned a kickban years ago on any OTHER board.)

3) Mike replies-usually-by calling his responders

"unfit workmen" "crybabies" "a busload of bozos" and other

terms that suggest they did not document their positions,

and that Mike was somehow superior.

He sometimes responds with responses to little points

cherry-picked from larger posts with ironclad documentation.

(Example: Mike said once that the "LAW" of believing was

being misrepresented. So I myself included a LENGTHY set of

quotes from the Blue Book. I then grouped the list of

relevant sub-quotes FROM what I posted directly underneath

for easy reference. (Look up, you see EVERYTHING, look down,

you see the sentences that we discussed. Simple AND complete.)

Mike's immediate response to the post?

"Wasn't that set of quotes from PFAL great?"

Several pages later, Mike made a reference to the same post,

and claimed it was just a list of several sentences isolated from

their context. This was true if you looked at the later list-

but COMPLETELY IGNORES A PAGE-WORTH OF QUOTES

DIRECTLY ABOVE THEM which gave their entire context.

Honest reply to my post? Hardly.

Then Mike keeps comparing himself to the lone voice crying

in the wilderness, and the rest of us-quoting the Bible and quoting

vpw's books and quoting vpw ABOUT his books, all showing

that there's no comparison between the Bible and vpw's books,

as unfit researchers.

Again-in deference to Mike-I'll make this simple.

Is that what happened to tl in Step 3?

No-she simply responded to the unfounded attack that

one poster went out of his way to make out of the blue.

For Mike, let's see what a Step 4 looks like.

Actually, I already outlined it-

he misreads replies to him, attacks the character of the

posters, and generally pretends he's the sole logical poster

when his approach REQUIRES one ABANDON logic to even

seriously consider it-as Mike himself has admitted.

Was this what tl does?

No. Other than Allan, she seems fine with the beliefs and

the posts of everyone else here.

tl doesn't mind that others disagree with her, and that she

disagrees with others. She NEVER started threads saying

"my position is the sole truth from God and all of you

best agree with me!"

Mike, however, exists entirely on such threads.

Can a FAIR comparison be made between Mike and

templelady?

Hardly.

Mike comes here to instigate and to prostelytize.

templelady comes here to discuss, and NOT to prostelytize.

Can a FAIR comparison be made between Allan and

WordWolf?

Hardly.

Allan goes out of his way to instigate attacks against templelady.

WordWolf waits until Mike has posted error before replying-

and that with substance and logic-

and even then, not ALWAYS replying to Mike.

(Don't believe me? Check the CURRENT Mike thread and count

how many pages-total-WordWolf has replied on.)

======

So,

to summarize-to make this simple, in deference to Mike-

For Mike to compare himself to a lady who is attacked out

of the blue, and to compare the churl who goes out of

his way to instigate attacks to people who reply to posts

that Mike VOLUNTARILY has instigated-

misrepresents himself,

his message,

his detractors,

the lady,

and her posts.

It is ungentlemanly of him to suggest there's a comparison,

and wrongs the lady.

It is dishonest, as it ignores the differences that show one's

nothing like the other.

It is tacky, since he went out of his way to attempt to draw

attention OFF the churlish behaviour of her attacker

to try to imply that he was doing the right thing when he

did the online equivalent of ambushing her.

Repeatedly.

In short,

Mike's attempt to shoehorn in a similarity to himself and

templelady is ungentlemanly, dishonest, illogical, and tacky.

So, any later attempts to cut-and-paste my reply

will have all the dishonesty of his isolations of

individual sentences from entire books of vpw,

claiming that didn't completely distort THEIR meaning.

It's typical, dishonest Mike,

which means I'm expecting him to do it eventually.

(Which I would have even if he hadn't replied-

except I expected him more to suggest it rather than

cut-and-paste.)

But, hey-that's Mike, so, whatever.

===========

BTW,

it is churlish to go out of one's way and instigate

attacks on a poster's beliefs, on threads that had

NOTHING TO DO with their beliefs.

That's what happened here,

and-if Mike meant to draw attention FROM it-

I beg to differ.

Edited March 30, 2006 by WordWolf

[allan w.]

Mo said "LDS do teach twi doctrine" Well Mo, twi and most off-shoots do not teach LDS doctrine and as you seem to like to attack VPs' teachings at any given time, I believe I/we have the right also to bring your doctrine into question.

And WW, AGAIN you got it wrong...LDS 'definition' of tongues by its' own merit dictates that NO, they do not s.i.t. in their churches, services anymore nor are they encouraged to do it in their own private homes.

[Goey]

Mo said "LDS do teach twi doctrine"

Alan, I believe that's a misquote --Your forgot the "NOT".

Edited March 30, 2006 by Goey

[templelady]

Mo said "LDS do teach twi doctrine" Well Mo, twi and most off-shoots do not teach LDS doctrine and as you seem to like to attack VPs' teachings at any given time

Allen the purpose of this website is to discuss, differ with, disprove, prove and/or agree with the teachings of TWI etal.

Therefore, to complain when that happens is disingenuous at best

[Mike]

WW,

I meant no comparison between me and Mo at all. Just NONE! I haven't even read the recent exchanges between Allan and Mo.

I just landed on this thread late last night and saw your scolding of Allan and thought to myself that what you said to him I've been trying to say in a succinct way to others for years. I felt it was a Godsend and a funny one at that.

As far as not minding my own business, may I remind you that this is a public forum?

As far as me posting my message on “EVERY thread he can find a pretext to with his belief-system,” that’s totally inaccurate. For every thread I do post on there are ten I wanted to post on but refrained. Call me a liar. I think it won’t be the first time I heard that, nor the first time I shrug it off.

Large portions of the following green section were edited or added about 15 minutes after first posting.

As far as "Mike now has entire threads dedicated to his belief-system," could you please name the threads (plural) beyond the one "official" PFAL thread in the Doctrinal forum?

As far as "He's determined to keep using the GSC as his podium as long as he's permitted to" could yo tell me why that's bad to you? Yes I want to use GSC to get my message out, don't a lot of other posters do that at times. There ARE other reasons I post here, quite a few. I probably post on well less than 1% of the threads here. I think my message is helpful and healing to people bewildered by the ministry meltdown. Isn't that what GSC is all about? I know it helped me, an entire fellowship in SoCal, and a handful of others around the country, so I adopted this message as my own and want to share it with other grads. I didn't write this message, I was taught it. It's only "mine" in the sense that I saw it, liked it, agreed with it, got a lot of deliverance from it, and adopted it as my responsibility to pass on. I can take no credit for it.

For another inaccurate accusation I submit these words of yours about me: “usually-by calling his responders "unfit workmen" "crybabies" "a busload of bozos" and other terms that suggest they did not document their positions, and that Mike was somehow superior.” There are times I do SOME of that and if it is with someone who has been civil with me I try my best to return the civility. If it is someone who has been rough with me I sometimes, if I think it will do them or someone else some good, then I return fire roughly. Sometimes I refrain.

Calm down WW. Your emotions cloud your thinking.

***************************************************

***************************************************

***************************************************

***************************************************

templelady,

It’s too bad WW read into my short post much more than I had stated.

I meant it when I said to him that I had not read the recent exchanges between you and Allan. I don’t like watching wannabe bullies like Allan at work.

My post above was VERY detached from this thread, and I made such an off topic remark here only because I could see that the already-in-place derailment here is greater than any I’ve seen in a long time.

For all our disagreements, both public and private I have found a comfortable degree of respect for you, and almost none for Allan. I think Allan is very often rude on this board, even though I agree with a number of points he makes at times.

I have tried SEVERAL times to talk to him about this, and also discuss some fine tuning on his respect for PFAL, and to encourage him to proofread his posts a little better for grammar as others have, and to discuss some other points I have in common with him.

Allan has completely shunned me in public and privately, just as bad as anything we saw in TWI. He won’t return e-mails, PM’s or post responses of mine. He is more rude to me than most posters here.

He looks to fit the definition of a troll to me.

For Allan to take on the Mormons or any other group is his way of building himself up. He has nothing to offer anyone, and if you’d like me to help you fend off his crass manner in any way I’d be happy to help, although it looks like you are quite able to deal with him yourself.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Mike

[Mike]

P.S.

I like Mormons.

Several of my customers are Mormons and I have long wonderful discussions with them as I clean their windows. I often spend more hours talking in their homes than I do work. They are some of the most honest, hardworking, healthy, and kind people I've ever seen.

When I was traveling cross country to go WOW in 1982 my car broke down in Utah very late on a Saturday afternoon. When the filling station clerk saw my plight he called the mechanic who immediately came back to work and fixed my car, and at a very reasonable price. I knew they were Mormons because I witnessed to them. I never forgot them.

For all his criticism of other denominations and religions (and rightly I think), VPW held high respect for the Jane sect in India and the Mormons. He praises Mormons in “Christians Should be Prosperous.”

Edited March 30, 2006 by Mike

[WordWolf]

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.]

WW,

I meant no comparison between me and Mo at all. Just NONE! I haven't even read the recent exchanges between Allan and Mo.

[but that's exactly what you DID, intent or no.]

I just landed on this thread late last night and saw your scolding of Allan and thought to myself that what you said to him I've been trying to say in a succinct way to others for years. I felt it was a Godsend and a funny one at that.

[And yet, the CONTEXT was completely different.

WordWolf explains himself in the post, in the context,

and as phrases have been used before.]

As far as not minding my own business, may I remind you that this is a public forum?

[Duh.

That had NOTHING to do with what I was saying.]

As far as me posting my message on “EVERY thread he can find a pretext to with his belief-system,” that’s totally inaccurate. For every thread I do post on there are ten I wanted to post on but refrained.

[i didn't say you posted on every thread you wanted to,

just the ones you found a PRETEXT to."

Big difference.]

Call me a liar. I think it won’t be the first time I heard that, nor the first time I shrug it off.

As far as "Mike now has entire threads dedicated to his belief-system," could you please name the threads (plural) beyond the one "official" PFAL thread in the Doctrinal forum?

[At present, the staff has decided to limit you to one active thread,

which is that one. I expect they did this due to a volume of complaints

about the number of threads and so on.

There's plenty of other threads from before they FORCED you to

limit to one thread.

Then again, looks like you might be shaping up to infect this one

as well. We'll see.]

As far as "He's determined to keep using the GSC as his podium as long as he's permitted to" could you tell me why that's bad to you? Yes I want to use GSC to get my message out, don't a lot of other posters do that at times.

[Few of them, in the history of GSC, ever attempted to

use the GSC specifically as their podium. Nonstop.

They occasionally made a few posts like that, then posted

the links to their website/forum, and ended the commercials.

You're THE exception to that, and have continued to advertise

where it's unwelcome so long as it's not made a bannable offense.]

There ARE other reasons I post here, quite a few. I probably post on well less than 1% of the threads here.

[under compulsion, that amount was trimmed down

some time ago. Of course, you're welcome to post on

any thread-so long as the post is RELEVANT and is not

inflammatory. Since you rarely want to post on anything

other than the Mikean system, that narrows the field.]

I think my message is helpful and healing to people bewildered by the ministry meltdown. Isn't that what GSC is all about?

[And white supremacists think that "whites" are a "superior race."

That's their opinion.

Let's not get into your older posts which were specifically not

calculated to assist in people's healing. It's not worth it, and you'll

only deny it anyway.

I know it helped me, an entire fellowship in SoCal, and a handful of others around the country, so I adopted this message as my own and want to share it with other grads. I didn't write this message, I was taught it. It's only "mine" in the sense that I saw it, liked it, agreed with it, got a lot of deliverance from it, and adopted it as my responsibility to pass on. I can take no credit for it.

[Nobody else has been pushing it on the posters here,

so the credit for that is all yours.

If you guys want to believe this on your own, your business.

However, you're determined to MAKE it our business here.]

For another inaccurate accusation

[Having seen your "analysis" of what is inaccurate,

nobody should take the rest of this sentence seriously...]

I submit these words of yours about me: “usually-by calling his responders "unfit workmen" "crybabies" "a busload of bozos" and other terms that suggest they did not document their positions, and that Mike was somehow superior.” There are times I do that and if it is with someone who has been civil with me I try my best to return the civility. If it is someone who has been rough with me I sometimes, if I think it will do them or someone else some good, then I return fire roughly. Sometimes I refrain.

[That's your story LATELY.

For years, you just fired both barrels at anyone dissenting.

Of course, I'm sure you don't remember it that way,

but a skim of the old threads will illustrate it.]

Calm down WW. Your emotions cloud your thinking.

[As if MY thinking's the clouded one here...]

[Mike]

Referring to the beginning of your post:

No, WW, I simply saw your words as useful to me if slightly rewritten.

There was no comparison between me and Mo other than what yo manufactured.

***

Referring to the ending of your post:

No, as I’ve explained before, both barrels were blasted at me 3 months before my first post here. When I started posting it immediately got even worse. It’s been slowly calming down ever since, except when people like you need some of your own medicine.

***

I’m not sure I want to bother reading the bulk of the post. I’d like to quit this thread.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Mike

[allan w.]

Well, theres some funny rules here on GS alright !

WW, Garth, Goey can post very personal inflammatory remarks about people and get away with it, yet Mo can get me banned for 'insulting' her religion.

A moderator under peer pressure I presume.

[templelady]

Allen ,I have never requested that you be banned

[Mike]

Allan,

Management here is VERY tolerant. You are not.

[allan w.]

Mike, the reason I've never replied to your emails (and you've brought it up not me, so here it is) is that I think you're either pathologically 'nuts' and/or you have some hidden agenda/motive to become a cyber-prophet or something else as silly/sinister !

Still no reason for people to 'flame' you though !!

[Mike]

Well you could have said so earlier.

I am highly motivated to bring to grads attention many items that we either forgot or that slipped by us unawares.

Even if I am a nut, it might be in your best interests to examine not so much my words, but the words of VPW that I present and see if they were forgotten by you or if they slipped by you unawares.

If my reminding you of many lost words of VPW blesses you, then maybe I'm not so nuts.

You seem to have such a chip on your shoulder that everyone (not just me) is wrong and you are right. Ok, many people think that of me, so I produce the lost words of VPW and then they have more to go on.

Lighten up a little, man. We used to be a family, and cared for each other. Basically, the biggest and easiest thing I’m saying is that opening up the books....

Oops, I’m on the wrong thread. Come visit us sometime, and look at the lost words of VPW over there... and try to remember that family love we all used to have for each other.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Mike