It's so refreshing to see a conversationally short post from you in my viscinity. I noticed another occurrence of this on the Gear thread, but didn’t have the time or the desire to keep that thread on my “watch list” any longer.
If you could point to where you discussed the two issues I brought up to you that would same us both time. Or if you would paste it in here I’d appreciate it.
With spring cleaning arriving I am just entering a very busy season in my business, so yes, discussing these two issues will take away from my already scarce time in dealing with other matters here. These two issues, however, are far more important in my opinion than the rather petty swiping that’s going on right now here.
***
On the editors issue, I am aware of your bringing up HCW’s testimony on several occasions, and I have gone over HCW’s stories pretty carefully. I do have a reading problem with your long posts in that they include way too many topics for my non-multi-tasking mind, and I just don’t have the time to deal with all points you bring up. Consequently, I often can’t read them in their entirety and it’s easy for me to lose track of what you say. I’d be much more inclined to engage you if you’d limit your discourse to the more salient issues.
Still on the editors issue, did you see the correction of one of your points that someone (I think it was Linda Z) brought up? I didn’t regard him to be an editor, even though I think he did say once that he had to cut out some sentences to make something fit on the page. It’s entirely within my paradigm that Dr’s selection and supervision of staff that HCW was guided by God in that move he described here. If it were not by inspiration and it excluded something crucial, I’m convinced someone else on staff, or Dr himself, would have interrupted it.
***
On the “Joy of Serving” issue, I am quite sure it was his last public teaching. It, however, there is some huge glitch in my research there, correcting it would not subvert my message, only one mere selling point of it.
In my investigations of these matters I have always sought a thorough collection of the facts, so if you have some added information on this issue I definitely want to include it in the mix, even if it means making extensive corrections to my sales pitch.
I think that the ones I am harsh with deserve it, need it, and other more thorough observers need to learn from it in dealing with the baloney thrown at them. We're to be loving, but not doormats. I take my example from how Jesus was that man of steel and velvet. He took no baloney, had anger, and shoved hate back in the faces of some. He was also tolerant at times.
Mike, what did I "do" to deserve/provoke your nasty and insipid post towards me a few pages ago? Nothing.
I can only conclude that those demanding me to do this simple homework for them by posting the text are NOT interested in the text, but only interested in perceiving me as over a barrel of sorts. This conclusion is hardly a profound deduction.
And you would be wrong in your conclusion. This is just an example, another example, of you making a statement and when questioned about it, telling the questioner to 'go find it' rather than just answering it as anyone truly interested in constructive discourse would.
Mike, you're never going to get anyone to listen to you, much less take you seriously, until you quit behaving like you do. Do you really think "everyone" is against you? There are plenty who have come and gone and unless they completely agree with you and do not question anything you treat them like krap. Of course, it is only an assumption on my part that you would treat those that agree with you completely and do not ask questions with respect and dignity since there haven't been any of those folks here.
Where are these "others" you speak of that agree with you? I'm sure they would be treated with dignity and respect by all of us AS WOULD YOU if they treated us likewise.
YOU have always been the one to attack, demean and abase people as soon as they merely ask a legitimate question.
The only reason you have ever had any harsh or unkind words thrown you way is because folks have responded IN KIND to you. If you don't want sh1t thrown your way, don't throw it at others.
Again, Mike, it's not your message that makes you the target, it's the messenger (YOU). Many folks, myself included, have been more than happy to 'listen to' your message... but we will have questions... does a good "teacher" not expect, prepare for and encourage questions? Yes, they do. They anticipate them... and if their subject matter is worthy of belief they have answers to those questions.
If all teachers were like you no one would ever make it out of kindergarten... and it wouldn't be the student's fault.
If I saw you gently scolding WordWolf, Tom Strange, and a few others for their reprehensible behavior towards me you would have some credibility with me, but you’ve totally blown it by often showing your bias and blindness. I’m not here to satisfy your stated intentions of wanting to see the children on the playground all getting along, while your actions are all calculated to thwart my message as much as and in unison with the others who want to see PFAL rejected. Get it?
Mike,
I have gotten on all these in the past.
I have no hidden agenda concerning you or your message or that of your "enemies." Quite frankly, I don't have the patience for this type of discussion - which is why I bowed out a while back.
You may be right concerning you being civil to others - I haven't been checking on a daily basis, I just caught this last page.
I thought that you and I had an understanding of being civil to each other despite our differences. I have refrained from making smarta$$ remarks and I will continue to do so.
I THOUGHT I would give you some friendly advice. I'm sorry I found you in such a foul mood. I meant no harm. You can believe that or not - I know what I intended and your sourness will not change my response to you.
I wish you well -
I don’t buy your gentle approach to me at all. If you were to get back to addressing the meat of what I’m posting about instead of the manner in which I bring things up, then I’d let you get away with your bias, but when you try to trick me with some appeal to love I see through it and it offends me. I won't tolerate it.
Quit talking about me and get on track with the message and we can have a conversation, but I will not tolerate your trying to mold me into your wishes all the while rejecting and trying to subvert a very important mission I have.
This post has been edited by Mike: Today, 02:34 AM
Quit talking about me and get on track with the message and we can have a conversation, but I will not tolerate your trying to mold me into your wishes all the while rejecting and trying to subvert a very important mission I have.
Quit talking about me and get on track with the message and we can have a conversation, but I will not tolerate your trying to mold me into your wishes all the while rejecting and trying to subvert very important questions I have.
Okay MIke you're on, my address is to the right. Send me those books and I'll reread them. I'll post direct quotes from them to your points as well as other posters questions.
I wasn't in a bad mood but I was angry. AND it was good anger.
I am fed up with constant droning talk about me and how I post. The contents of PFAL and God's will should be paramount in our discussions. If you want to have PFAL content discussion I'm ready, willing, and able.
It just double irked me that, in addition to focusing on me and how I post, you always ignore the lousy behavior of the others. Go back and read it to see what I mean.
I am as right to fiercely oppose that kind of hard heartedness of posters there as Jesus Christ was angry and fiercely opposed the phony religionists of his time. All people want to do is catch me in an error, and God is of no use to them.
***
...they wanted to accuse Jesus! They were not interested in whether the man got delivered or not. They were only interested in one thing--catching Jesus.
Mark 3:5a: And when he had looked round about on them [with compassion, ah no, no, no. It says when he had looked round about on them] with anger,
Jesus looked round about on them, the people there in the synagogue. He looked round about on them with what? Anger. That's a tremendous lesson? You know we've always been taught that if a person is a real Christian the only thing he ever does is love. Well don't you think Jesus Christ loved? Wasn't he all love? Yet, here it says he looked round about on those synagogue leaders, the leaders, he looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. This idea that just because you're a Christian believer, and a man of God, you go around patting everybody on the back all the time! Somebody once said, they need to pat down a foot lower.
You see Jesus looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. And sometimes men of God have to take a stand. You don't allow people to push you around all over and every other place. Jesus loved this man. He loved all the people, but yet these who were obstructing the power of God, he looked round about on them with anger.
Mark 3:5: --- being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, ---
That's why he was angry, for the hardness of their hearts; that they were not able to accept the greatness of God's Word and refused to accept it.
If our needs are light and wants are heavy, we are not balanced.
pfal --- page 23 & 24 .....
We are going to keep our needs and wants in balance, recognizing that God is not only able, but willing to perform every promise set forth in His Word.
Are those the ones? :)
from Mike ---
Still on the editors issue, did you see the correction of one of your points that someone (I think it was Linda Z) brought up? I didn’t regard him to be an editor, even though I think he did say once that he had to cut out some sentences to make something fit on the page.
Sooooo --- some *editors* are *walking*, and others are just *talking*, eh???
I want to thank you for posting on topic. I really mean that.
YES! Those are the ones.
Here is the film class transcript corresponding to page 19:
“Now, I want to take you a step further. Not only must you know what's available, how to receive and what to do with it; but if you're going to tap into the resources for the more abundant life you must get your need and your want parallel. The need and want must be parallel. Many times there are people who have tremendous needs but they only want their need filled thus far. They'll never get this prayer answered. Because if you're going to manifest the more abundant life there's one basic requirement: and that is that the need and the want must be parallel.”
And here is the Book version:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must not only know what is available, how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe, we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are equal.”
Notice that the book ALSO uses the word equal. So parallel, balanced, and equal all fit together. In the film class he uses hand motions to illustrate parallel with the Word, but that can’t be seen in the book version, so a wider variety of words are used instead.
Also, the film class version goes on for a few more paragraphs than I’ve posted here with no corresponding book text. This section of the film class is pretty much a repetition of what was already spoken. In the book a reader can re-read the text to get the same repetition.
***
Quite a bit later in the class Dr summarizes the several things needed to know to receive anything from God and it goes like this:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life; in this class on Power For Abundant Living we are going to go to the Word. We're going to find out what is available, we're going to find out how to receive these things and we're going to find out what to do with it after we've got it. And we're going to keep our need and our want parallel recognizing that God is not only able but God is willing to perform every promise that He has set in His Word.”
The book also much later has this corresponding summary:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we have to go to The Word to find out what is available, how to receive, and what to do with it after we have it. We are going to keep our needs and our wants in balance, recognizing that God is not only able but willing to perform every promise set forth in His Word.”
***
I had written: “Still on the editors issue, did you see the correction of one of your points that someone (I think it was Linda Z) brought up? I didn’t regard him to be an editor, even though I think he did say once that he had to cut out some sentences to make something fit on the page.”
And you responded with: “Sooooo --- some *editors* are *walking*, and others are just *talking*, eh??? __ How do you decide which is which??”
Why do you need to?
Let’s describe them as major and minor editors. It sounds more respectful. Or less major editors might sound even better.
Even to have worked the graphics for the articles was a very big deal spiritually. There’s an Out Times article where Dr explicitly states this, how there was divine design in the graphics layout of the magazine.
It’s an extreme honor to have been entrusted by Dr and God to work with Dr in the final output of the Word. I was absolutely enthralled with HCW’s testimony, so much so I held greatly back debating with him on points where we differed.
We can easily see from his posts that he had a great respect for Dr, in spite of Dr’s flesh, and I’m sure Dr had great respect for HCW as well, and for all the other editors who worked on the texts. For Dr to mention at the end of the Preface of RHST that his helpers had both Biblical AND spiritual abilities in their assisting him means that God was inspiring them all.
I have spent many, many hours discussing the editing process with many of Dr’s editors, and I’ve found that it doesn't matter who did what to which texts. It was a team effort and God was supervising it from the top, and Dr supervised it on the flesh level. This is one reason I’m confident that Dr’s flesh was sufficiently stripped out of all that was printed. I can’t say that for the tapes andfilm class, but they too are still pretty darn enlightening. When the microphone was on Dr was on, for the most part.
I am fed up with constant droning talk about me and how I post. The contents of PFAL and God's will should be paramount in our discussions. If you want to have PFAL content discussion I'm ready, willing, and able.
Mike, the only reason I (and others) talk about 'how you post' is because we're really tired of you treating us as your whipping post. We talk about the way you post because you are condescending, mean spirited and downright nasty at times. We ask you to change your style because we're tired of you treating us all like sh1t. And since you have chosen to refuse to treat us civilly when we asked, I tried to appeal to your zeal to get your message out by saying that no one will listen to or follow a person who acts in such a vile manner. That's why we talk about how you post.
It just double irked me that, in addition to focusing on me and how I post, you always ignore the lousy behavior of the others. Go back and read it to see what I mean.
Yes, go back to posts 187 & 188 and see where Mike and I are having a civil discussion, with opposing sides, as to what the purpose of this thread is. Mike posts his opinion and I post mine, then take a look at MIKE'S next response. His next response is an unprovoked, invective filled vitriolic post spewing anger, nastiness, and the like. You can go back to the beginning of every little 'spat' that happens down here... you will ALWAYS find that MIKE was the person to first spew forth filth. The rest of us are just trying to give it back to him because we don't want it.
I am as right to fiercely oppose that kind of hard heartedness of posters there as Jesus Christ was angry and fiercely opposed the phony religionists of his time. All people want to do is catch me in an error, and God is of no use to them.
As I said, go back and look, if you have any doubt, MIKE is the one who ALWAYS attacks first. Just because we dare to ask a question.
...they wanted to accuse Jesus! They were not interested in whether the man got delivered or not. They were only interested in one thing--catching Jesus.
Yes Mike, you are comparing yourself to Jesus. BUT that doesn't really matter... what matters is Jesus was preaching God while you are preaching veepee... so the comparison you make and the rationalization (that follows below) do not matter. They're just an excuse for someone who is full of misery and wants to lash out at others. There's no valid excuse for your behavior towards us. None.
Mark 3:5a: And when he had looked round about on them [with compassion, ah no, no, no. It says when he had looked round about on them] with anger,
HERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON ABOUT ME & MIKE FOLKS: There is no valid excuse for your behavior towards us. I first came to you with honest questions. You attacked. I asked you the questions again. You attacked. I took quite a bit of sh1t off of you totally unprovoked and you attacked. Sometimes I just send it back your way. And then you run crying to "mommy" that the bullies won't leave you alone... when you are the one who started it. All I was ever 'guilty' of is asking you questions, just as dooj and templelady and dmiller and TBone have here recently. And you treated them the same way you treated me. And then run crying about how the riff-raff and naysayers are out there trying to obstruct your message.
I don't think you know what your message is Mike, I think you make it up as you go... why else wouldn't you ever be able to answer any questions about it?
Jesus looked round about on them, the people there in the synagogue. He looked round about on them with what? Anger. That's a tremendous lesson? You know we've always been taught that if a person is a real Christian the only thing he ever does is love. Well don't you think Jesus Christ loved? Wasn't he all love? Yet, here it says he looked round about on those synagogue leaders, the leaders, he looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. This idea that just because you're a Christian believer, and a man of God, you go around patting everybody on the back all the time! Somebody once said, they need to pat down a foot lower.
You see Jesus looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. And sometimes men of God have to take a stand. You don't allow people to push you around all over and every other place. Jesus loved this man. He loved all the people, but yet these who were obstructing the power of God, he looked round about on them with anger.
Mike, you forgot to footnote that little 'teaching' for Book and page that you copied it from.
Mark 3:5: --- being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, ---
That's why he was angry, for the hardness of their hearts; that they were not able to accept the greatness of God's Word and refused to accept it. [/color]
Which, by the way, has nothing to do with how you act or why you act that way. There's no "hardness of hearts" here. I dare you to show me hardness in anyone's heart here prior to you attacking them... in some cases they haven't 'taken your bait' but chose instead to walk away from you (another OLG lost from your message because of the messenger)...
But since Jesus is who you want to use for a comparison to "why you act like you do"... did Jesus 'talk down' to everyone he met? did Jesus call people names and spew bile at them simply for asking him a question? did Jesus walk around with a 3 ton chip on his shoulder just waiting for someone to trip in front of him so he could beat them over the head with it? did Jesus treat people the way you do when they asked him a question? The answer to all of those questions is NO. Jesus did not act at all like you do. Ever. And it's blasphemus for you to insinuate that he did.
You wrote: "Okay MIke you're on, my address is to the right. Send me those books and I'll reread them. I'll post direct quotes from them to your points as well as other posters questions."
Don’t you think it would be better to READ the books first. If you approach the books with the intent of tearing them apart (or me with them as ammunition) you’ll not learn anything. I offered the books in an attempt to get you to see what you missed. They should be an adventure enjoyed between you and God, not ammo for fighting me.
I wasn’t attacking your character, merely pointing out that in the past you missed learning many things because you weren’t PRIMARILY in a learning mode. The result was missing many elementary items that could bless your life. Please think of getting into a NEW mode, one of PRIMARILY learning and you’ll see the books are wonderful. To use them the way you just stated will mean you miss a lot again.
I don’t see your e-mail address, but it’s probably better for you to PM it to me.
AGAIN: Why do you care? I’m trying to dismiss the issue, and I deliberately used that nomenclature, as I mentioned, to make it sound more respectful as the topic of telling who from who is dismissed. Why do you want to go there? The important stuff is not the editors, not even Dr, but what is written.
You forget the history of how I was treated here from my first days of posting and then for many, many months afterward. I remember that you were not in that initial lynch mob, but you joined right in with them later.
You are constantly focusing on me. Switch to PFAL and we can talk. I’m not interested in reading long posts on boring subjects.
Sure I realize I’m not being symmetrical here. I do post long posts, and they are full of detailed information that people need. No one needs long posts filled with complaints to me or criticisms of me. Don't even expect me to read your long boring posts focused on me as the topic, ok? If I do I may come at you in ways you don't like.
Switch topics and we can talk civilly. Keep on talking about me and I’ll deal with you in whatever way I feel is right at the time. I don’t answer to you about any tone or techniques I use to deal with your interruptions.
Are you ABLE to talk about the contents of PFAL? Do you WANT to?
I asked you some questions, some PFAL and Word content questions, in Post #6 on this thread. I repeated them just recently. What is your response to those questions?
AGAIN: Why do you care? I’m trying to dismiss the issue, and I deliberately used that nomenclature, as I mentioned, to make it sound more respectful as the topic of telling who from who is dismissed. Why do you want to go there? The important stuff is not the editors, not even Dr, but what is written.
The reason I *care*, is because the editors had *ultimate* control over what was, and what was NOT printed. Since you value the *written work* of docvic so highly, and then say some editors were *less major* -- that indicates to me that there is a hierarchy there.
I'm NOT trying to dismiss the issue, since you brought it up, and thought it worthy of mention in the first place.
You're a good man, and I'm VERY happy to see you operating in this mode again.
You wrote: “The reason I *care*, is because the editors had *ultimate* control over what was, and what was NOT printed. Since you value the *written work* of docvic so highly, and then say some editors were *less major* -- that indicates to me that there is a hierarchy there.”
The ultimate control was in God’s hands. Dr oversaw things very closely, and by revelation. I’ll explain more.
The major and minor designations I invented simply refer to how much text they worked on. The most text, by far I’m told, was worked on by Karen Martin, Dr’s daughter. She did most of the magazine articles, and many of the book chapters.
David Craley, the magazine’s editor from around 1974 to 1982 (with some breaks) told me this. He worked on some of Dr’s Our Times articles. He and I are very good friends and have kept in touch all these years.
I was a fan of David’s SNS teachings from 1972, especially “The Masterpiece of You Life,” which was also a favorite of many grads and a high-volume back-order teaching tape when I worked in Tape Duplicating at HQ. (note the theme “master” as it has coursed through my life)
I met David at HQ in 1976 and watched him at a distance as he wrote his book because I wanted to become a writer someday. I am the only grad he has kept in touch with in the last 15 or so years. He lived in San Diego in the late 80’s near Pamsandiego’s house at the beach and we all got together at times. He has come to agree a little more these days with my thesis that PFAL is God-breathed. We often talk about Dr’s inspiration and the editing process, and David teaches straight out of RHST in his fellowship to this day.
The co-editors of the PFAL book were Karen Martin and J. Fred Wilson.
I lived with J. Fred and his family in New Knoxville for two years, from 1976 to 1978, and I kept in touch with him OFTEN for all the time after that until his death a little over one year ago. He was one of my best friends in the whole wide world.
I talked with him for MANY hours about the editing process he and Karen went through. We discussed it in the 70's, in the 80’s, in the 90’s and in recent years after I started posting on GSC.
J. Fred did a small amount of posting here before I registered, but not on any heavy topics. He read lots of my posting and we often discussed it for hours at a time, right up to the last days before he died. He confirmed my analysis of the grammar of PFAL page 83 several times, as did David Craley. They both gave me permission to use their names but I refrained for the most part until now.
I also talked to Karen by phone and e-mail. We disagreed a bunch, but I’ve been told she inherited that kind of stubbornness from her dad. STILL she said some VERY enlightening things to me, one of which I want to someday ask her permission to post. It corresponds greatly with an idea doojable has twice brought up and I sent up fireworks celebrating each time. Our conversations were terminated around the time Karen's brother got very ill.
I’ve also talked by phone and e-mail with SEVERAL other editors of Dr’s, each on several occasions, all confirming the general proceedures of what I am about to tell you.
Karen and J. Fred started the editing of the PFAL book with Dr’s describing what he wanted them to do in preliminary meetings. Actually, Dr first spent MANY years prior to that editing time both teaching and training Karen and J. Fred and watching them closely as they matured in the Word, in his teachings.
Then they got an exact film transcript, and worked some pages according to Dr’s instructions, both general and specific. They then submitted the pages to Dr for his inspection and he read them with God’s oversight and supervision.
Dr then redlined what he (and God) didn’t like, adding, subtracting and changing portions and accepting some portions intact. Karen and J. Fred would then again work the suggestions and changes Dr gave them, and then re-submitted the pages for Dr’s approval.
God worked with Karen and J.Fred too, giving them revelation at times as Dr asserts at the end of the Preface to RHST. J.Fred OFTEN told me that those months were the spiritual highpoint of his whole life.
You wrote: "Okay Mike you're on, my address is to the right. Send me those books and I'll reread them. I'll post direct quotes from them to your points as well as other posters questions."
Don't you think it would be better to READ the books first. If you approach the books with the intent of tearing them apart (or me with them as ammunition) you'll not learn anything. I offered the books in an attempt to get you to see what you missed. They should be an adventure enjoyed between you and God, not ammo for fighting me.
Again you miss what is written right in front of you I clearly said ( in red) I would Reread them (since I have already read them before) and you completely blow off this statement like it was never made ( in orange).
My second point (in blue) was that after rereading them I would post exact quotes to respond to points and question by, not only you, but other posters as well, something I might add, that you keep insisting we do rather than expect you to do it. Your response (in green) is that by doing this I would be tearing them apart. Really? so you are telling me that posting exact quotes of what VPW said in the written PFAL is tearing the books apart if I do it but when you do it with the film class and written PFAL it is okay???, I am totally confused, Quotes is quotes
I wasn't attacking your character, merely pointing out that in the past you missed learning many things because you weren't PRIMARILY in a learning mode. The result was missing many elementary items that could bless your life. Please think of getting into a NEW mode, one of PRIMARILY learning and you'll see the books are wonderful. To use them the way you just stated will mean you miss a lot again
Being called a "social butterfly" and implying that I only go/went to church LDS or TWI or other only for social concerns not spiritual concerns isn't attacking my Character??!!?!? What else would you call it, pray tell ?? And then, to add icing to the cake, you attack my character again by implying I wasn't primarily in a learning mode when I took PFAL 14 + years ago, How in the bloody blue blazes would you KNOW?? you weren't there, You have no Idea how many hours I spent studying and reading the collateral's.
I don't see your e-mail address, but it's probably better for you to PM it to me.
What could you possibly need to say to me that can't be posted here on the boards for everyone to see. I'm not having (back door) conversations with you that you can twist into something else down the road. What you need to say post here
Edited by templelady
I wasn’t attacking your character, merely pointing out that in the past you missed learning many things because you weren’t PRIMARILY in a learning mode. The result was missing many elementary items that could bless your life. Please think of getting into a NEW mode, one of PRIMARILY learning and you’ll see the books are wonderful. To use them the way you just stated will mean you miss a lot again.
Mike, why didn't you simply post this way to her before? Could've saved a lot of grief.
I don’t see your e-mail address, but it’s probably better for you to PM it to me.
Her street address (for you to mail the books to) is on the left, underneath her avatar.
Tom,
You forget the history of how I was treated here from my first days of posting and then for many, many months afterward. I remember that you were not in that initial lynch mob, but you joined right in with them later.
Mike, I didn't 'forget the history'... if I wanted to, I couldn't because you always bring it up. That was many people and many years ago. Does that justify how you treat people who were not involved in that 'history' in any way? Who's only sin is to ask you a question about what you mean? And I didn't "join" anybody. I came into the discussion and innocently asked you a question about one of your (to me) far-fetched statements and you immediately laid into me. I asked you the question again, coupled with another question as to what gave you the right to treat me like that. I still ask you that first question, it's part of the "Mike Synopsis"... and you've never answered it. No Mike, I didn't join anyone or any group except the group of people that you've treated like sh1t for no other reason than because we dared to ask a question.
You are constantly focusing on me. Switch to PFAL and we can talk. I’m not interested in reading long posts on boring subjects.
Mike, I focus on you (at times) because YOU are not allowed to treat me and the other folks here the way you do. Nothing gives you the right to treat us so poorly. Nothing dictates that we are supposed to just sit back and take it from you either. Treat folks civilly and the discussions will be about PFAL, or at least what you think PFAL is. When I ask you questions, respond to them in a civil manner and there will only be discussion about the message, not the messenger.
Sure I realize I’m not being symmetrical here. I do post long posts, and they are full of detailed information that people need.
Correction: they are full of detailed information which are your opinions that you think people need.
No one needs long posts filled with complaints to me or criticisms of me. Don't even expect me to read your long boring posts focused on me as the topic, ok? If I do I may come at you in ways you don't like.
I know that "no one needs" them, but what they don't need even more is to be treated like they are by you. Read them or not... personally, I think you love it when it's all about YOU. And you're wasting your breath threatening me dude... you think you scare me? You're nothing but an uncaring bully. People who act like you do generally do so because of extremely low self-esteem.
Switch topics and we can talk civilly. Keep on talking about me and I’ll deal with you in whatever way I feel is right at the time. I don’t answer to you about any tone or techniques I use to deal with your interruptions.
Stick to your message and drop the attacks. It's up to you. You're the one who runs this thread... right?
Are you ABLE to talk about the contents of PFAL? Do you WANT to?
I ask you about your statements you've made about PFAL whenever you're behaving in a civil manner. You reap what you sow dude... you reap what you sow.
I asked you some questions, some PFAL and Word content questions, in Post #6 on this thread. I repeated them just recently. What is your response to those questions?
Mike, first of all your 'questions' were your response to my very simple questions that appear in the first part of your post #6, your 'questions' were to test me to see if I could handle your answers. I answered you in post numbers 7, 19 and 1 (post number 1 is my response to Mike's first questions when he was avoiding answering my originally posted questions which shouldn't be too hard to answer. But Mike still hasn't answered them so I'll probably be asking them again sometime.
Don't you get it Mike? No... I suppose you don't. Be a better teacher. Either present your lesson so cometently that there will be no questions or be prepared to answer questions about the lesson... and do so civilly. It's not that complicated.
I didn’t attack your character. I said I suspected (and for good reasons) that the primary mode of operation you were in (maximum social interactions and minimum study) was not efficient for your learning the text. There’s no question that you missed much and demonstrated it richly in public here.
I think the mode you are in right now is also not efficient for learning.
I’m sorry, I missed the words you just highlighted in red. I apologize for my haste in reading. Please give me more reasons to read your posts more carefully by calming down and focusing on the more important matters at hand... like THE WORD, for instance. If I wrongly characterized you, then I’ll be happy to see you prove me wrong by your actions in re-reading and re-learning the wonderful contents of PFAL.
God says, I think in Proverbs, that a wise person loves reproof. God says in one of Peter’s epistles that if we are reproved wrongly it’s no big deal, AND it gives us an opportunity to relate to Jesus as to how he took savagely unjust criticism, bodily. Defending our ego is a small matter. I take in and blow off MUCH more baloney than I shove back. It’s a good skill to learn.
***
I didn’t see your e-mail address, and I still don’t. It’s not on my screen to the right as you described.
I read your post too hastily, and you did likewise. That’s why I ask you to calmly switch subjects away from you and me and onto more important matters.
I had asked you to PM your e-mail address to me BECAUSE posting your e-mail address in public is not a good thing to do unless you are prepared for it being found by anyone, including spambots.
But now, since you brought up your distaste to PM with me, might I AGAIN remind you that it’s better, if you have a beef with someone, to deal with it privately?
You once blew it in wrongly reproving me in public when it could have been done much more efficiently in private. I went to you by PM to show you were wrong FOR YOUR SAKE, and I urged you to remember Jesus’ advice to treat such matters privately FIRST if possible. This was an instance of where you seemed unaware of even KJV text in addition to many PFAL text items. Your learning in the past has been inefficient. I want to help you learn the Word better.
Calm down, and we will discuss in PMs which books and when I will provide you.
I absolutely INSIST on this being done privately or not at all.
This is the LAST I will discuss it with you in public, understand?
If you can’t trust me in PM, I can’t entrust to you the books.
Thank you! I didn't see templelady's address at all there to the left.
I looked to the right and saw nothing. I thought the small print to the left was some saying or motto, never thinking that anyone would put an address there. I owe you here.
***
I’m still not interested in your critiques of my styles and decisions which to implement and when. I want to get into the important stuff.
If you post your usual paste jobs I will post a paste of the Post #6 questions.
Why are you so afraid to deal with those questions? You absolutely MUST deal with them if you want any more from me on the subject. Those questions were designed to lead us into deeper discussion what you have been demanding of me, not to dodge it as you may suppose.
You want me to answer you, but then you object to the way I start out answering, and you thereby interrupt the answering process.
Think about the questions I posed you, and then say something about them that reflects an intelligent processing of them. Play along with me by considering them. Then I can respond more to you.
I offered the same style of answering T-Bone’s questions with questions of my own, questions designed to lead him towards more of my answer. He refused to follow me in my style of answering him and he now is not getting any more.
Just like you have demanded I consider your questions, WHICH I DID IN DESIGNING MY QUESTIONS, I demand you consider my questions.
I gave you the beginnings of the answers (in question format) and you rejected them. If you want me to resume answering you then you MUST deal with my pedagogical style.
***
Now, here is a new teaching/question I have for you: What is it about Jesus Christ’s DNA and fingerprints that forces you to clam up and change the subject? Why is that such a taboo subject?
What part of "What could you possibly need to say to me that can't be posted here on the boards for everyone to see. I'm not having (back door) conversations with you that you can twist into something else down the road. What you need to say post here". Was unclear???
Calm down, and we will discuss in PMs which books and when I will provide you. I absolutely INSIST on this being done privately or not at all. This is the LAST I will discuss it with you in public, understand? If you can’t trust me in PM, I can’t entrust to you the books. That’s final.
Me I'm perfectly calm.
I gave you the opportunity, (after much prompting by the Holy Spirit BTW) straight forward and above board, send me the books (as you have offered more than once ) and I will reread them.
But deep in my heart of hearts, I knew, because God gave me Word of Knowledge, that this was just a ploy on your part, (since you figured no one would take you up on the offer, least of all me).
NO longer can you claim to all and sundry, as you have so many times before, that none of us are willing to come back to PFAL; because when faced with a poster, myself, who agrees to do just that, you immediately set up a new series of conditions so that you don't have to provide the books. Conditions you already knew were not acceptable.
I must confess that I am disappointed that you are behaving exactly as I was told by Heavenly Father you would behave once I agreed to reread the books. I still held to the hope that you would actually supply the books so that a meaningful dialog could take place on this thread, with both of us having access to the same material.
There is only one reason for setting up this new scenario, knowing full well I will not agree to your new conditions: and that is that you DO NOT want a meaningful discussion about PFAL, and I doubt you ever have.
VPW used others work and claimed it was his own to gain acceptance. You on the other hand, use your work and claim it is VPWs in order to gain acceptance.
This is not a dialog about PFAL
this is a dialog about the "Doctrine and Dogma of Mike", always has been -
I will continue to post to this thread on occasion, but never again, will I be lured into the trap of thinking that this thread in any way is part and parcel of the PFAL I remember and learned from, this is your catechises pure and simple
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
104
50
72
59
Popular Days
May 5
39
May 3
38
Apr 4
34
Apr 3
28
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 104 posts
templelady 50 posts
Tom Strange 72 posts
dmiller 59 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2006
39 posts
May 3 2006
38 posts
Apr 4 2006
34 posts
Apr 3 2006
28 posts
Mike
WordWolf,
It's so refreshing to see a conversationally short post from you in my viscinity. I noticed another occurrence of this on the Gear thread, but didn’t have the time or the desire to keep that thread on my “watch list” any longer.
If you could point to where you discussed the two issues I brought up to you that would same us both time. Or if you would paste it in here I’d appreciate it.
With spring cleaning arriving I am just entering a very busy season in my business, so yes, discussing these two issues will take away from my already scarce time in dealing with other matters here. These two issues, however, are far more important in my opinion than the rather petty swiping that’s going on right now here.
***
On the editors issue, I am aware of your bringing up HCW’s testimony on several occasions, and I have gone over HCW’s stories pretty carefully. I do have a reading problem with your long posts in that they include way too many topics for my non-multi-tasking mind, and I just don’t have the time to deal with all points you bring up. Consequently, I often can’t read them in their entirety and it’s easy for me to lose track of what you say. I’d be much more inclined to engage you if you’d limit your discourse to the more salient issues.
Still on the editors issue, did you see the correction of one of your points that someone (I think it was Linda Z) brought up? I didn’t regard him to be an editor, even though I think he did say once that he had to cut out some sentences to make something fit on the page. It’s entirely within my paradigm that Dr’s selection and supervision of staff that HCW was guided by God in that move he described here. If it were not by inspiration and it excluded something crucial, I’m convinced someone else on staff, or Dr himself, would have interrupted it.
***
On the “Joy of Serving” issue, I am quite sure it was his last public teaching. It, however, there is some huge glitch in my research there, correcting it would not subvert my message, only one mere selling point of it.
In my investigations of these matters I have always sought a thorough collection of the facts, so if you have some added information on this issue I definitely want to include it in the mix, even if it means making extensive corrections to my sales pitch.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, what did I "do" to deserve/provoke your nasty and insipid post towards me a few pages ago? Nothing.
And you would be wrong in your conclusion. This is just an example, another example, of you making a statement and when questioned about it, telling the questioner to 'go find it' rather than just answering it as anyone truly interested in constructive discourse would.
Mike, you're never going to get anyone to listen to you, much less take you seriously, until you quit behaving like you do. Do you really think "everyone" is against you? There are plenty who have come and gone and unless they completely agree with you and do not question anything you treat them like krap. Of course, it is only an assumption on my part that you would treat those that agree with you completely and do not ask questions with respect and dignity since there haven't been any of those folks here.
Where are these "others" you speak of that agree with you? I'm sure they would be treated with dignity and respect by all of us AS WOULD YOU if they treated us likewise.
YOU have always been the one to attack, demean and abase people as soon as they merely ask a legitimate question.
The only reason you have ever had any harsh or unkind words thrown you way is because folks have responded IN KIND to you. If you don't want sh1t thrown your way, don't throw it at others.
Again, Mike, it's not your message that makes you the target, it's the messenger (YOU). Many folks, myself included, have been more than happy to 'listen to' your message... but we will have questions... does a good "teacher" not expect, prepare for and encourage questions? Yes, they do. They anticipate them... and if their subject matter is worthy of belief they have answers to those questions.
If all teachers were like you no one would ever make it out of kindergarten... and it wouldn't be the student's fault.
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Only Mike would thank someone for a short, conversational post with a long, non-conversational one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... along with a couple of l-o-n-g drags of that loco weed.
Tom,
"... of course it has, you swine"
ROFLMAO! I bet that sounds just perfect with a touch of a German accent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Quit talking about me and get on track with the message and we can have a conversation, but I will not tolerate your trying to mold me into your wishes all the while rejecting and trying to subvert very important questions I have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Okay MIke you're on, my address is to the right. Send me those books and I'll reread them. I'll post direct quotes from them to your points as well as other posters questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Mike,
You will have to look carefully in my last post to see my response. For some reason it looks as if I only quoted you.
I didn't come looking for a fight. I'm leaving before another one ensues.
Adieu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi doojable,
I wasn't in a bad mood but I was angry. AND it was good anger.
I am fed up with constant droning talk about me and how I post. The contents of PFAL and God's will should be paramount in our discussions. If you want to have PFAL content discussion I'm ready, willing, and able.
It just double irked me that, in addition to focusing on me and how I post, you always ignore the lousy behavior of the others. Go back and read it to see what I mean.
I am as right to fiercely oppose that kind of hard heartedness of posters there as Jesus Christ was angry and fiercely opposed the phony religionists of his time. All people want to do is catch me in an error, and God is of no use to them.
***
...they wanted to accuse Jesus! They were not interested in whether the man got delivered or not. They were only interested in one thing--catching Jesus.
Mark 3:5a: And when he had looked round about on them [with compassion, ah no, no, no. It says when he had looked round about on them] with anger,
Jesus looked round about on them, the people there in the synagogue. He looked round about on them with what? Anger. That's a tremendous lesson? You know we've always been taught that if a person is a real Christian the only thing he ever does is love. Well don't you think Jesus Christ loved? Wasn't he all love? Yet, here it says he looked round about on those synagogue leaders, the leaders, he looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. This idea that just because you're a Christian believer, and a man of God, you go around patting everybody on the back all the time! Somebody once said, they need to pat down a foot lower.
You see Jesus looked round about on them with anger. He got real teed off. And sometimes men of God have to take a stand. You don't allow people to push you around all over and every other place. Jesus loved this man. He loved all the people, but yet these who were obstructing the power of God, he looked round about on them with anger.
Mark 3:5: --- being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, ---
That's why he was angry, for the hardness of their hearts; that they were not able to accept the greatness of God's Word and refused to accept it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Are those the ones? :)
Sooooo --- some *editors* are *walking*, and others are just *talking*, eh???
How do you decide which is which??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh -- and this is NOT an attack. I'm curious how you determine which are, and which aren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
I want to thank you for posting on topic. I really mean that.
YES! Those are the ones.
Here is the film class transcript corresponding to page 19:
“Now, I want to take you a step further. Not only must you know what's available, how to receive and what to do with it; but if you're going to tap into the resources for the more abundant life you must get your need and your want parallel. The need and want must be parallel. Many times there are people who have tremendous needs but they only want their need filled thus far. They'll never get this prayer answered. Because if you're going to manifest the more abundant life there's one basic requirement: and that is that the need and the want must be parallel.”
And here is the Book version:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must not only know what is available, how to receive it, and what to do with it; but we must also get our needs and wants parallel. If our needs are light and our wants are heavy, we are not balanced. If our wants are light and our needs are heavy, we will never get an answer. When we believe, we get results in prayer if our needs and our wants are equal.”
Notice that the book ALSO uses the word equal. So parallel, balanced, and equal all fit together. In the film class he uses hand motions to illustrate parallel with the Word, but that can’t be seen in the book version, so a wider variety of words are used instead.
Also, the film class version goes on for a few more paragraphs than I’ve posted here with no corresponding book text. This section of the film class is pretty much a repetition of what was already spoken. In the book a reader can re-read the text to get the same repetition.
***
Quite a bit later in the class Dr summarizes the several things needed to know to receive anything from God and it goes like this:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life; in this class on Power For Abundant Living we are going to go to the Word. We're going to find out what is available, we're going to find out how to receive these things and we're going to find out what to do with it after we've got it. And we're going to keep our need and our want parallel recognizing that God is not only able but God is willing to perform every promise that He has set in His Word.”
The book also much later has this corresponding summary:
“If we are going to tap the resources for the more abundant life, we have to go to The Word to find out what is available, how to receive, and what to do with it after we have it. We are going to keep our needs and our wants in balance, recognizing that God is not only able but willing to perform every promise set forth in His Word.”
***
I had written: “Still on the editors issue, did you see the correction of one of your points that someone (I think it was Linda Z) brought up? I didn’t regard him to be an editor, even though I think he did say once that he had to cut out some sentences to make something fit on the page.”
And you responded with: “Sooooo --- some *editors* are *walking*, and others are just *talking*, eh??? __ How do you decide which is which??”
Why do you need to?
Let’s describe them as major and minor editors. It sounds more respectful. Or less major editors might sound even better.
Even to have worked the graphics for the articles was a very big deal spiritually. There’s an Out Times article where Dr explicitly states this, how there was divine design in the graphics layout of the magazine.
It’s an extreme honor to have been entrusted by Dr and God to work with Dr in the final output of the Word. I was absolutely enthralled with HCW’s testimony, so much so I held greatly back debating with him on points where we differed.
We can easily see from his posts that he had a great respect for Dr, in spite of Dr’s flesh, and I’m sure Dr had great respect for HCW as well, and for all the other editors who worked on the texts. For Dr to mention at the end of the Preface of RHST that his helpers had both Biblical AND spiritual abilities in their assisting him means that God was inspiring them all.
I have spent many, many hours discussing the editing process with many of Dr’s editors, and I’ve found that it doesn't matter who did what to which texts. It was a team effort and God was supervising it from the top, and Dr supervised it on the flesh level. This is one reason I’m confident that Dr’s flesh was sufficiently stripped out of all that was printed. I can’t say that for the tapes andfilm class, but they too are still pretty darn enlightening. When the microphone was on Dr was on, for the most part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
You wrote: "Okay MIke you're on, my address is to the right. Send me those books and I'll reread them. I'll post direct quotes from them to your points as well as other posters questions."
Don’t you think it would be better to READ the books first. If you approach the books with the intent of tearing them apart (or me with them as ammunition) you’ll not learn anything. I offered the books in an attempt to get you to see what you missed. They should be an adventure enjoyed between you and God, not ammo for fighting me.
I wasn’t attacking your character, merely pointing out that in the past you missed learning many things because you weren’t PRIMARILY in a learning mode. The result was missing many elementary items that could bless your life. Please think of getting into a NEW mode, one of PRIMARILY learning and you’ll see the books are wonderful. To use them the way you just stated will mean you miss a lot again.
I don’t see your e-mail address, but it’s probably better for you to PM it to me.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
???? Excuse me -- I don't understand. That's the same thing as categorizing PROPHETS,
into the *major* & *minor* category. After all --- if they were *prophets* ---
Who decides if they are one, or the other??
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
No, excuse ME!
AGAIN: Why do you care? I’m trying to dismiss the issue, and I deliberately used that nomenclature, as I mentioned, to make it sound more respectful as the topic of telling who from who is dismissed. Why do you want to go there? The important stuff is not the editors, not even Dr, but what is written.
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
Tom,
You forget the history of how I was treated here from my first days of posting and then for many, many months afterward. I remember that you were not in that initial lynch mob, but you joined right in with them later.
You are constantly focusing on me. Switch to PFAL and we can talk. I’m not interested in reading long posts on boring subjects.
Sure I realize I’m not being symmetrical here. I do post long posts, and they are full of detailed information that people need. No one needs long posts filled with complaints to me or criticisms of me. Don't even expect me to read your long boring posts focused on me as the topic, ok? If I do I may come at you in ways you don't like.
Switch topics and we can talk civilly. Keep on talking about me and I’ll deal with you in whatever way I feel is right at the time. I don’t answer to you about any tone or techniques I use to deal with your interruptions.
Are you ABLE to talk about the contents of PFAL? Do you WANT to?
I asked you some questions, some PFAL and Word content questions, in Post #6 on this thread. I repeated them just recently. What is your response to those questions?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
The reason I *care*, is because the editors had *ultimate* control over what was, and what was NOT printed. Since you value the *written work* of docvic so highly, and then say some editors were *less major* -- that indicates to me that there is a hierarchy there.
I'm NOT trying to dismiss the issue, since you brought it up, and thought it worthy of mention in the first place.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Sorry to leave so soon -- but it's late here, and I have to be up, and at work in 6 hours.
Grr! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You're a good man, and I'm VERY happy to see you operating in this mode again.
You wrote: “The reason I *care*, is because the editors had *ultimate* control over what was, and what was NOT printed. Since you value the *written work* of docvic so highly, and then say some editors were *less major* -- that indicates to me that there is a hierarchy there.”
The ultimate control was in God’s hands. Dr oversaw things very closely, and by revelation. I’ll explain more.
The major and minor designations I invented simply refer to how much text they worked on. The most text, by far I’m told, was worked on by Karen Martin, Dr’s daughter. She did most of the magazine articles, and many of the book chapters.
David Craley, the magazine’s editor from around 1974 to 1982 (with some breaks) told me this. He worked on some of Dr’s Our Times articles. He and I are very good friends and have kept in touch all these years.
I was a fan of David’s SNS teachings from 1972, especially “The Masterpiece of You Life,” which was also a favorite of many grads and a high-volume back-order teaching tape when I worked in Tape Duplicating at HQ. (note the theme “master” as it has coursed through my life)
I met David at HQ in 1976 and watched him at a distance as he wrote his book because I wanted to become a writer someday. I am the only grad he has kept in touch with in the last 15 or so years. He lived in San Diego in the late 80’s near Pamsandiego’s house at the beach and we all got together at times. He has come to agree a little more these days with my thesis that PFAL is God-breathed. We often talk about Dr’s inspiration and the editing process, and David teaches straight out of RHST in his fellowship to this day.
The co-editors of the PFAL book were Karen Martin and J. Fred Wilson.
I lived with J. Fred and his family in New Knoxville for two years, from 1976 to 1978, and I kept in touch with him OFTEN for all the time after that until his death a little over one year ago. He was one of my best friends in the whole wide world.
I talked with him for MANY hours about the editing process he and Karen went through. We discussed it in the 70's, in the 80’s, in the 90’s and in recent years after I started posting on GSC.
J. Fred did a small amount of posting here before I registered, but not on any heavy topics. He read lots of my posting and we often discussed it for hours at a time, right up to the last days before he died. He confirmed my analysis of the grammar of PFAL page 83 several times, as did David Craley. They both gave me permission to use their names but I refrained for the most part until now.
I also talked to Karen by phone and e-mail. We disagreed a bunch, but I’ve been told she inherited that kind of stubbornness from her dad. STILL she said some VERY enlightening things to me, one of which I want to someday ask her permission to post. It corresponds greatly with an idea doojable has twice brought up and I sent up fireworks celebrating each time. Our conversations were terminated around the time Karen's brother got very ill.
I’ve also talked by phone and e-mail with SEVERAL other editors of Dr’s, each on several occasions, all confirming the general proceedures of what I am about to tell you.
Karen and J. Fred started the editing of the PFAL book with Dr’s describing what he wanted them to do in preliminary meetings. Actually, Dr first spent MANY years prior to that editing time both teaching and training Karen and J. Fred and watching them closely as they matured in the Word, in his teachings.
Then they got an exact film transcript, and worked some pages according to Dr’s instructions, both general and specific. They then submitted the pages to Dr for his inspection and he read them with God’s oversight and supervision.
Dr then redlined what he (and God) didn’t like, adding, subtracting and changing portions and accepting some portions intact. Karen and J. Fred would then again work the suggestions and changes Dr gave them, and then re-submitted the pages for Dr’s approval.
God worked with Karen and J.Fred too, giving them revelation at times as Dr asserts at the end of the Preface to RHST. J.Fred OFTEN told me that those months were the spiritual highpoint of his whole life.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Again you miss what is written right in front of you I clearly said ( in red) I would Reread them (since I have already read them before) and you completely blow off this statement like it was never made ( in orange).
My second point (in blue) was that after rereading them I would post exact quotes to respond to points and question by, not only you, but other posters as well, something I might add, that you keep insisting we do rather than expect you to do it. Your response (in green) is that by doing this I would be tearing them apart. Really? so you are telling me that posting exact quotes of what VPW said in the written PFAL is tearing the books apart if I do it but when you do it with the film class and written PFAL it is okay???, I am totally confused, Quotes is quotes
Being called a "social butterfly" and implying that I only go/went to church LDS or TWI or other only for social concerns not spiritual concerns isn't attacking my Character??!!?!? What else would you call it, pray tell ?? And then, to add icing to the cake, you attack my character again by implying I wasn't primarily in a learning mode when I took PFAL 14 + years ago, How in the bloody blue blazes would you KNOW?? you weren't there, You have no Idea how many hours I spent studying and reading the collateral's.
What could you possibly need to say to me that can't be posted here on the boards for everyone to see. I'm not having (back door) conversations with you that you can twist into something else down the road. What you need to say post here Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
templelady,
Please calm down.
I didn’t attack your character. I said I suspected (and for good reasons) that the primary mode of operation you were in (maximum social interactions and minimum study) was not efficient for your learning the text. There’s no question that you missed much and demonstrated it richly in public here.
I think the mode you are in right now is also not efficient for learning.
I’m sorry, I missed the words you just highlighted in red. I apologize for my haste in reading. Please give me more reasons to read your posts more carefully by calming down and focusing on the more important matters at hand... like THE WORD, for instance. If I wrongly characterized you, then I’ll be happy to see you prove me wrong by your actions in re-reading and re-learning the wonderful contents of PFAL.
God says, I think in Proverbs, that a wise person loves reproof. God says in one of Peter’s epistles that if we are reproved wrongly it’s no big deal, AND it gives us an opportunity to relate to Jesus as to how he took savagely unjust criticism, bodily. Defending our ego is a small matter. I take in and blow off MUCH more baloney than I shove back. It’s a good skill to learn.
***
I didn’t see your e-mail address, and I still don’t. It’s not on my screen to the right as you described.
I read your post too hastily, and you did likewise. That’s why I ask you to calmly switch subjects away from you and me and onto more important matters.
I had asked you to PM your e-mail address to me BECAUSE posting your e-mail address in public is not a good thing to do unless you are prepared for it being found by anyone, including spambots.
But now, since you brought up your distaste to PM with me, might I AGAIN remind you that it’s better, if you have a beef with someone, to deal with it privately?
You once blew it in wrongly reproving me in public when it could have been done much more efficiently in private. I went to you by PM to show you were wrong FOR YOUR SAKE, and I urged you to remember Jesus’ advice to treat such matters privately FIRST if possible. This was an instance of where you seemed unaware of even KJV text in addition to many PFAL text items. Your learning in the past has been inefficient. I want to help you learn the Word better.
Calm down, and we will discuss in PMs which books and when I will provide you.
I absolutely INSIST on this being done privately or not at all.
This is the LAST I will discuss it with you in public, understand?
If you can’t trust me in PM, I can’t entrust to you the books.
That’s final.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
Thank you! I didn't see templelady's address at all there to the left.
I looked to the right and saw nothing. I thought the small print to the left was some saying or motto, never thinking that anyone would put an address there. I owe you here.
***
I’m still not interested in your critiques of my styles and decisions which to implement and when. I want to get into the important stuff.
If you post your usual paste jobs I will post a paste of the Post #6 questions.
Why are you so afraid to deal with those questions? You absolutely MUST deal with them if you want any more from me on the subject. Those questions were designed to lead us into deeper discussion what you have been demanding of me, not to dodge it as you may suppose.
You want me to answer you, but then you object to the way I start out answering, and you thereby interrupt the answering process.
Think about the questions I posed you, and then say something about them that reflects an intelligent processing of them. Play along with me by considering them. Then I can respond more to you.
I offered the same style of answering T-Bone’s questions with questions of my own, questions designed to lead him towards more of my answer. He refused to follow me in my style of answering him and he now is not getting any more.
Just like you have demanded I consider your questions, WHICH I DID IN DESIGNING MY QUESTIONS, I demand you consider my questions.
I gave you the beginnings of the answers (in question format) and you rejected them. If you want me to resume answering you then you MUST deal with my pedagogical style.
***
Now, here is a new teaching/question I have for you: What is it about Jesus Christ’s DNA and fingerprints that forces you to clam up and change the subject? Why is that such a taboo subject?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
What part of "What could you possibly need to say to me that can't be posted here on the boards for everyone to see. I'm not having (back door) conversations with you that you can twist into something else down the road. What you need to say post here". Was unclear???
Me I'm perfectly calm.
I gave you the opportunity, (after much prompting by the Holy Spirit BTW) straight forward and above board, send me the books (as you have offered more than once ) and I will reread them.
But deep in my heart of hearts, I knew, because God gave me Word of Knowledge, that this was just a ploy on your part, (since you figured no one would take you up on the offer, least of all me).
NO longer can you claim to all and sundry, as you have so many times before, that none of us are willing to come back to PFAL; because when faced with a poster, myself, who agrees to do just that, you immediately set up a new series of conditions so that you don't have to provide the books. Conditions you already knew were not acceptable.
I must confess that I am disappointed that you are behaving exactly as I was told by Heavenly Father you would behave once I agreed to reread the books. I still held to the hope that you would actually supply the books so that a meaningful dialog could take place on this thread, with both of us having access to the same material.
There is only one reason for setting up this new scenario, knowing full well I will not agree to your new conditions: and that is that you DO NOT want a meaningful discussion about PFAL, and I doubt you ever have.
VPW used others work and claimed it was his own to gain acceptance. You on the other hand, use your work and claim it is VPWs in order to gain acceptance.
This is not a dialog about PFAL
this is a dialog about the "Doctrine and Dogma of Mike", always has been -
I will continue to post to this thread on occasion, but never again, will I be lured into the trap of thinking that this thread in any way is part and parcel of the PFAL I remember and learned from, this is your catechises pure and simple
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.