T-Bone

Burt argued that some things do get better over time.

Hi Charity!

 I always enjoy the feedback loop too!

Your comments got me thinking of the parasitic and destructive nature of a harmful and controlling pseudo-Christian cult-leader like wierwille.

Parasitic = consistently exploiting people AND Scripture. Leechlike, bloodsucking… living off another. wierwille was also parasitic in his plagiarism – stealing the ideas and work of others (that’s not to say every source he plagiarized was correct either – but even so, usually through the tenth manifestation of incompetency wierwille managed to make matters worse – for example Bullinger’s 4 crucified and dispensationalism  ).

 

Destructive = lies…deception…fraud need some truth as bait – in the context of faith, it is the twisting of Scripture…the misrepresentation of the gospel of Jesus Christ that is so detrimental to our belief system – look at the book of Peter on this:

1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3 In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

2 Peter 2 NIV

 

 

In 2 Peter 2:1 Interlinear the word destructive is Strong's Greek: 684. ἀπώλεια (apóleia) - destruction, loss and it says Cognate: 684 apṓleia (from 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") – destruction, causing someone (something) to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been. (Note the force of the prefix, apo.) See 622 (apollymi)… 684 /apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being (Vine's Expository Dictionary, 165; cf. Jn 11:50; Ac 5:37; 1 Cor 10:9-10; Jude 11).

From Bible Hub’s definitions of the Greek, I get the idea that destructive doctrines are completely severed from the truth of the Word of God; it does not imply annihilation (no longer being) but instead a loss of well-being. The doctrines are sick! Here’s my suggestion to reframe the question “did you throw out the baby with the bath water?”  (see *footnote 1)...Assuming the baby is something of value, the great truths of the Bible - and of course this is all relative to what each person thinks is valuable , and the bath water is hermeneutical tools to help one understand and explain the Bible -  I would ask “Why don’t you just start over? Why not throw out all the stuff you learned in PFAL and explore what legitimate resources have to offer.” I would venture to say just about everything wierwille taught in PFAL is illogical, fabricated, twisted, heavily biased, and inaccurate.

~ ~ ~ ~

*footnote 1

 

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is an idiomatic expression for an avoidable error in which something good or of value is eliminated when trying to get rid of something unwanted. A slight A slightly different explanation suggests this flexible catchphrase has to do with discarding the essential while retaining the superfluous because of excessive zeal from: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - Wikipedia

~ ~ ~ ~ 

*footnote 2

  Cheers back at yah   – I usually get a Caramel Macchiato built upside down at Starbucks – but a Dutch Brothers opened nearby – so I get a Caramelizer hot and my wife gets a Golden Eagle hot – when it warms up, we get them cold.

 

1 hour ago, Charity said:

By using the word “rights” which is nowhere in the Bible, it was easy for vp to switch over to what a right actually is - a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way, and an entitlement is the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment. These words have nothing to do with our relationship with God since it’s only through God's love, mercy and grace and the obedience of His son that we became redeemed, justified, sanctified and made righteous. 

That’s why I agree with OldSkool to just read what is written.  It's a way to avoid making up one's own terminology so we have a better chance of remaining on solid ground biblically.  (Mike has been confronted with this many times.)

 

Yup!

In the PFAL material wierwille spoke of certain spiritual realities as a “right” – a legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. That is  PARTLY  true. He was really big on teaching theory, but he showed little concern for practice. Here’s how he defined sanctification in the PFAL book, chapter 23, Knowing One’s Sonship Rights, page 338:

I Corinthians 1:30

But of him [God] are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption…

…The word “sanctified” means “to be set apart.” Before a man is born again of God’s Spirit, he is a man of body and soul, that’s all. But when he is born again, he is set apart by God for heaven and all hell can’t stop him from going...

End of excerpt

~ ~ ~ ~

In my opinion, wierwille's definition of "sanctification" is an incomplete thought. Consider the dedication of the Temple in   I Kings 8    , I Kings 9 and  II Chronicles 5ff 

The dedication meant to set it apart for God’s use…to commit everything to a special purpose…It was not just the building itself that was dedicated for God’s use. It was the building, all the furniture, all the vessels, all the altars, and all the tools that were a part of this glorious Temple.

I believe the sanctification of I Cor. 1:30 may be talking in terms of in principle but not fully realized yet – since in the passage it relates to the achievements of Jesus Christ; considering other passages on this topic, I lean toward the notion there might be two modes:

1.       the immediate effect of what Jesus Christ already completed for us. 

2.       since we have His influence and the power of The Holy Spirit inside us -  sanctification is also an ongoing process of becoming more like Christ, by purifying our hearts and minds, through repentance, prayer, and spiritual discipline. In the Bible, sanctification is mentioned frequently as a calling to align oneself with God's will and cleanse oneself from sin. As seen in the following passage:

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality     I Thessalonians 4:3

 I think on some topics, like this one – wierwille might have had a smidgen of the right notion – the idea of having stuff like  righteousness  , sanctification   , redemption of Jesus Christ – is more along the lines of theory – it’s abstract, logical, and based on assumptions and observations

Whereas practice is applied theory. Practice is concrete, real, usually based on experience and observed conditions. Theory should explain and solve practical problems, and practice should be informed by theory - even looking at the context of the verse - it's all focused on practice:

1 As for other matters, brothers and sisters, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.

3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body  in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.  The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

What 1 Thessalonians 4 NIV  is talking about – is that God wants us to  ACT  SANCTIFIED  – in practice that means avoiding sexual immorality and other sinful behavior...We should ask ourselves how would Jesus Christ act in a situation? Certainly, His actions in the Gospels always exemplified holiness.

In the same line of thought,   doing   righteous  acts   is theory put into practice. According to Wikipedia righteousness is the quality or state of being morally correct and acceptable...that makes me think of  the  2  great  “directives”  applied  –   love God and neighbor :

34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 22 NIV  

4 hours ago, Twinky said:

All I can say is: God hasn't run out of miracles.  He's not on a budget. 

To think otherwise is to need a miracle repair-job on one's brain.

That’s an interesting point to mention, Twinky – which reminded me of something in the blue book The Bible Tells Me So, chapter 5, The Law of Believing, on page 43 where wierwille says:

In every Biblical record believing is always required on the part of everyone having a need, with the exceptions indicated above: certain types of mental derangement, dead people and children.

End of excerpt

~ ~ ~ ~

Since I have tossed out  the PFAL-filter  years ago which made wierwille’s bull-$hit palatable – I ask the following of anyone who still believes in his nonsense:

1.       WHERE are the Scriptures to support the idea that in the FICTITIOUS law of believing “rule book” believing is not required for certain types of mental derangement, dead people, and children?

2.       WHERE are the Scriptures that specify the types of mental derangement that qualify for the exemption from the law of believing?

3.       What about in the cases of mental illnesses and mental disabilities?

 

if you ask me these stupid stipulations of wierwille are just more excuses why the law of believing does NOT work! There is no such law !

 

Now before anyone gets their PFAL syllabus bunched up in a wad – about the category of children being exempted – I realize that on page 42, wierwille cites Matthew 15 NIV

in reference to the Canaanite woman’s daughter vexed by a demon – wierwille explains that Jesus required the believing of the parents for their children.

BUT

Read the full account – click on the hyperlink I provided for Matthew 15 – and note Jesus’ response to the persistent mother

Verse 28 - Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

Jesus praised her great faith – but notice what he says after that -  Your request is granted. That phrasing further highlights the woman’s appeal and it was NOT her faith that accomplished the healing - it was that the Lord GRANTED her wish. Who did the miracle? The Lord did it! Who asked for it ? The mother!

And to reiterate my concern - WHERE in that account or anywhere else in Scripture does it show parents are required to believe for the children?

Waysider mentioned Kristen’s book – and here are a few links you might find interesting:

1989-1998 Timeline: Insanity on Steroids

Why I Wrote My Story -- "Insanity on Steroids"

Cults 3: This week we talk about victor paul wierwille and The Way International

SOCIETY & CULTURE - Cults - E62: “The Way International” - Victor Paul Wierwille

CHARLENE L. EDGE --Author "A Cult Insider's Story"

~ ~ ~ ~

“a final blow to deconstructing all of my beliefs”

That is an apt description of the necessary process – and basically the same idea as the socratic method in a discussion where a lot of it is asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

Beliefs are important – that stuff helps us make sense of the world. From what I’ve read online, some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. And our beliefs - along with experience, observations, and reason even attempt to predict the future: “If I play at the beach all day, I’ll probably get sunburned.”

 

I left during the aftermath of the 1986 TWI meltdown after 12 years of involvement and I imagined the “deconstructing all of my beliefs” as disassembling a huge brick wall one brick at a time and occasionally several bricks all at once – to analyze the validity and necessity of each brick.

Typically, we tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources. But what happens if you begin to suspect that the organization you’ve trusted for years has not been well grounded, accurate or truthful? I love detective  /mystery / sci-fi books, movies, and TV shows. My slow exit of leaving TWI was like binge watching Lost, The X-Files, House of Cards, Big Love, Knives Out, Loga’s Run, The Matrix, Sherlock and the Wizard of Oz – especially the part when Toto pulls back the curtain to expose the wimpy wizard. The various perspectives from others is not what convinced me that wierwille et al was a con – it was simply a matter of trusting my own faculty of judgment – something that was trained out of me courtesy of a harmful and controlling cult  – I did not trust my own thinking, instead I trusted wierwille who seemed to have it all figured out.

As a reference point, I acknowledged my viewpoint - a couple of core elements like a belief in a higher power and that the Bible was inspired by God. For all I knew that stuff could be nonsense too – but figuring out the big questions of life, reality and meaning was not the aim of deconstructing my TWI-mindset – even though I had considered wierwille-ideology as definitive answers to the big questions. Some 37 years later – I still believe in a higher power and the divine inspiration of the Bible – those bricks remain in place - and all the dubious bricks of wierwille-ideology have been removed. Not going to get into the scar tissue, therapies, and side projects of unpacking the intellectual and emotional baggage here and now – just want to let you know the journey ain’t over yet – but that’s life – and real life ain’t boring.

 

~ ~ ~ ~

FYI – I reported your concern to the moderators

 

Journal entry March 20^th, 2023, in this day and time and hour:

I had that weird dream again.

It’s 11:45 PM. I’m a grease spot on the shirt of a cult-leader.

He’s looking at me and wondering how he’s going to get me out.

Just for spite I’m going to stay put.

Hopefully others will notice me and think this guy is a real pig.

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I am a little confused by this.

It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.

Could you please cite your source for:
wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.

If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.

*/*/*/*

This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please"  quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.

 

What a horrible idea – I love it!

You’re on your own to verify where in the PFAL class wierwille says that – I know where he says it...it's funny - I usually have a better recollection of what wierwille said or wrote than you do - 

BUT

to play your silly game 

I’ve found something even better in written form – this is even more outrageous than what he says in the PFAL class …On page 7 of the PFAL book is wierwille’s written version of handling Matthew 22:37, 38  - first he quotes the passages and then makes some vague comments:

Matthew 22:37, 38:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

     If that is the first and great commandment, then what is the first and great sin? By simple logic breaking the first and great commandment of not loving God – of loving something ahead of God – hewing out our own religious systems, our own ideologies, our own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to the divine revelation of God’s wonderful, matchless Word.

End of excerpt

~ ~ ~ ~

The first thing that should catch the attention of anyone familiar with this account is that wierwille does   NOT  include verses 39 and 40 which locks in how the first and great commandment is to be interpreted. Instead wierwille offers his own interpretation which proposes merely a subjective reference to one’s own idea of what loving God means. In my 12 years of being indoctrinated by wierwille et al, I can attest to the fact that wierwille has indeed hewn out his own religious system, his own ideology his own thinking patterns – rather than adhering to what’s written in the divine revelation of the Bible.

What?!?!

T-Bone, how can you say that?

It’s easy, I lick my lips and I’m real natural – then I read the rest of Jesus’ discussion with the lawyer…here you go Bible fans:

 

34  But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. 35Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22 KJV

 

~ ~ ~ ~

Basically, what Jesus explains is that the law and the prophets give detailed concrete directions – in no uncertain terms – avoiding any abstract thought that could dilute or rationalize to find loopholes. For example, here’s a few from  Exodus 20 - the 10 commandments  : don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t covet…These are some of the specific ways you honor God and act out of real love for God and neighbor if you DON’T do such things as that.

Note excerpts from various commentaries on verse 40 ( excerpts from Matthew 22:40 Commentaries_Bible Hub ):

Elicott's Commentary for English Readers

(40) All the law and the prophets.—The words are coupled, as in Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12, to indicate the whole of the revelation of the divine will in the Old Testament. The two great commandments lay at the root of all. 

~ ~ ~ ~

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

22:34-40 An interpreter of the law asked our Lord a question, to try, not so much his knowledge, as his judgment. The love of God is the first and great commandment, and the sum of all the commands of the first table. Our love of God must be sincere, not in word and tongue only. All our love is too little to bestow upon him, therefore all the powers of the soul must be engaged for him, and carried out toward him. To love our neighbour as ourselves, is the second great commandment. There is a self-love which is corrupt, and the root of the greatest sins, and it must be put off and mortified; but there is a self-love which is the rule of the greatest duty: we must have a due concern for the welfare of our own souls and bodies. And we must love our neighbour as truly and sincerely as we love ourselves; in many cases we must deny ourselves for the good of others.

~ ~ ~ ~

Matthew Poole's Commentary

And the second is like unto it, commanding love also; so that, as the apostle saith, love is the fulfilling of the law. Thy neighbour, that is, every man, as thyself; doing as much for him as thou wouldst have him do for thee, and doing no more against him than thou wouldst willingly he should do against thee: as truly and sincerely as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets: there is nothing commanded in all the Old Testament but may be reduced to these two heads. This is the whole duty of man there commanded. The whole book of God is our rule, and we are obliged to every precept in it. Moses summed up all in the ten commandments, to which, truly interpreted, all the precepts of Scripture are reducible. Christ here brings the ten to two. The apostle brings all to one, telling us love is the fulfilling of the law. There is nothing forbidden in Scripture but what offends the royal law of love, either to God or man; there is nothing commanded but what will fall under it. Mark addeth, that the scribe applauds our Saviour, as having said the truth, and confessing that the fulfilling these two precepts was more than all sacrifices and burnt offerings; in which he agreed with Samuel, who long since told Saul that to obey was better than sacrifice; and it needs must be so, seeing that all the true value of sacrifices lay in the obedience by them given to the will of God. Christ tells the scribe he was not far from the kingdom of God. He who once rightly understands the law of God, and hath cast off that silly fancy of thinking to please God with ritual things, hath made a great proficiency under that schoolmaster, who, if rightly understood, will show him the need of another righteousness than his own wherein to appear before God.

~ ~ ~ ~

 

Expositor's Greek Testament

Matthew 22:40. ὁ. ὁ νόμος κρέμαται. Jesus winds up by declaring that on these two hangs, is suspended, the whole law, also the prophets = the moral drift of the whole O. T. is love; no law or performance of law of any value save as love is the soul of it. So Jesus soars away far above the petty disputes of the schools about the relative worth of isolated precepts; teaching the organic unity of duty.

~ ~ ~ ~

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 40. - Hang all the Law and the prophets; i.e. all Scripture, which is comprised in these terms (comp. Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12); in other words, all the revelations which God has made to man in every age. The clause is peculiar to St. Matthew. It signifies that on love of God and love of man depend all the moral and religious, ceremonial and judicial precepts contained in the Law, all the utterances of the prophets, all the voices of history. Scripture enunciates the duty to God and our neighbour, shows the right method of fulfilling it, warns against the breach of it, gives examples of punishment and reward consequent upon the way in which the obligation has been treated. Thus the unity and integrity of revelation is demonstrated. Its Author is one; its design is uniform; it teaches one path, leading to one great end. Matthew 22:40

~ ~ ~ ~

End of excerpts from commentaries on Matthew 22:40

~ ~ ~ ~

Unlike phonies like wierwille who could talk a good walk but never walked the talk – being the hypocrite that he was - John the Baptist called people to more than talking a good walk or ritual – he told them to change their behavior:

7 But when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to watch him baptize, he denounced them. “You brood of snakes!” he exclaimed. “Who warned you to flee the coming wrath? 8 Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God. 9 Don’t just say to each other, ‘We’re safe, for we are descendants of Abraham.’ That means nothing, for I tell you, God can create children of Abraham from these very stones. 10 Even now the ax of God’s judgment is poised, ready to sever the roots of the trees. Yes, every tree that does not produce good fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire.

Matthew 3 NLT

Several other translations reflect this same idea; God who knows us and sees us - even in moments when we think no one is watching and no one will know – looks beyond our words and religious activities that may fool others – God sees if our conduct backs up what we profess – He judges our words by the actions that accompany them:

New International Version
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

New American Standard Bible
Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance;

Amplified Bible
So produce fruit that is consistent with repentance [demonstrating new behavior that proves a change of heart, and a conscious decision to turn away from sin];

New American Bible
Produce good fruit as evidence of your repentance.

~ ~ ~ ~

Mike, in case you ever wonder why your sales campaign for PFAL and PFAL Today are in a slump, I’ll give you some honest feedback – since I have no dog in this fight of yours. You come across as a gung-ho sales rep who is unfamiliar with the very product you are peddling…but who knows - for you to say of wierwille’s statement  as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please – “I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class” may be a sign you are in denial of being a fervent admirer of a hypocritical pseudo-Christian harmful and controlling cult-leader who is dead. Currently your idol remains idle in the ground of unholy grounds at The Way International. 

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

I am a little confused by this.

It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.

Could you please cite your source for:
wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.

If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.

Holy $hit, Batman - the Joker forgot a key element in the first session of PFAL !!!!! You know old chum, he was always chiding us for missing stuff in PFAL - lo and behold it's happening to him!

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

*/*/*/*

This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please"  quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.

first session of PFAL

wonder if they covered it in PFAL Today.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

*/*/*/*

As far as VPW interpreting the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment I absolutely LOVED that interpretation the instant I heard it.

oh now you remember! figures you'd love it - the principle is self-referential - wierwille twisted around another way too - ANYTHING DONE IN THE LOVE OF GOD IS OKAY..."as long as you love God" = "anything done in the love of God" = assume you love God...it is totally divorced from some clearly stated directives - like the 10 commandments = thou shalt not steal, lie, commit adultery.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

As a child Catholic, I spent a young lifetime trying desperately to keep track of the many grades of sin, to my endless confusion.  That one line in the class gave me my money's worth.

I have seen other Catholics react similarly to this one line in the class.  It really is SHEER logic.    Count VPW's interpretation correct.

 

no thanks - you can though - it's a free country.

23 hours ago, Mike said:

Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.

The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.

It's almost a tautology. 

It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?

 

 

23 hours ago, T-Bone said:

You are very wrong! It's not almost - it's not even close!!!

Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). SIMILAR: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words…in LOGIC a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

The passage merely states the ORIGIN of the prophecy - plain and simple. You are adding assumptions!

the point of genuine honest hermeneutics is to discover what the message meant to the original recipients -  which most Bible scholars assume is how God wanted it to be interpreted. That necessitates expertise in the biblical languages / syntax and ancient biblical customs - and good old textual criticism as well...that was all ignored by wierwille's mindless and careless plagiarism which side-tracked PFAL students with his erroneous delusional ideas.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Yeah.  It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice. 
One saying relates to the Word being issued,
and the other relates to the Word being absorbed.

I quoted your first post on tautology and then my reply with internet definition - your use of the word in your first post and here is a misuse of the word tautology - besides the fact that you misinterpret / make up some silly thing how there is a relation.

 

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message.

The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden.

NOPE ! no such issue is implied in that verse or in all of Scripture...you're reading into it!

HOW - with a capital H capital O and a capital W - are translators going to translate the Bible from the original languages if they go by  YOUR   forbidden to attach a private nuance rule? what the hell does that mean? How stupid - the way you twist Scripture all around.      Please do some due diligence on a refresher course in grammar and logic - and quit trying to make Scripture fit into your stupid thesis.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

*/*/*/*

It is a settled issue to me. 

In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it. 

and yet here YOU are contaminating the hell out of the Bible with wierwille-infused ideology! FYI: wierwille-infused ideology is wierwille's personal perspective - no ifs, ands or buts about it!

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident.

see my previous remarks on grammar and logic

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation. 

Mike's interpolation. Peter talked about the origin of Scripture...refer to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible on this - this is one of the things Bullinger got right and wierwille the incompetent plagiarist screwed up and got totally wrong in PFAL!

Don't whine about it to me. I didn't make the PFAL class. Go talk to someone in the complaint department. I think his office is located in the ground near the fountain of muddy waters (the fountain feature - NOT the musician  )

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice. 

 

maybe if wierwille had absorbed the Bible in a private personal way he might have behaved a lot better and not abuse and exploit Christians.

Oh Twinky that’s tough to think about. I’ve never had to put a cat down - but having adopted rescued dogs we have gone through the agony of  is it time?  when we see them having issues in their older years. The vets we go to are really sensitive to both our needs / bond and that of our fur-mate. As with humans we should think about their quality of life too. It’s a tough call . It’s funny how there is such a bond - and even when they’re gone. Tonto and I on occasion will recall something odd, distinctive or tender about any of the dearly departed paws - they still live in our memories. 

 

On 3/17/2023 at 8:20 AM, chockfull said:

Yeah that’s a good point - harboring guilt is just another form of bondage that is a secondary impact.

It is a fine line for me honestly evaluating and yet moving on and holding fast to the good and living as a son of God.

You are right on in that imagery.  What ship am I allowing to dock at my dock and live in my harbor?

TWIs desire is for that to be a whitewash ship.  And to “come on home to where the Word is”.

My path currently is to light a Chinese junk on fire and sail it into the ammo supplies and blow it up.

Maybe I’m too far leaning to one side on this. Maybe we shouldn’t blow up the ammo because we need it for hunting.

Yes I see Gods hand on my life protecting through the insanity and providing a table in the presence of my enemies.  That is truth also.

 

On 3/17/2023 at 3:46 PM, Charity said:

Godly sorry might be something to consider as well.  Paul spoke about the godly sorrow the believers of the Corinthian church had after receiving Paul's first letter to them.  Sorrow means to experience deep, emotional pain (sadness), i.e. severe sorrow (grief) which is probably why verse 10 says there's a worldly sorrow that produces death. 

2 Cor 7:11 lists how much good came out of their godly sorrow: diligence/earnestness; clearing of yourselves (an apology); indignation/anger; fear/alarm; vehement desire/longing; zeal/concern and revenge/readiness to see justice done. 

Paul then says, "In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter."

 

 

It's important to note that the word "guilt" is not used.

 

 

Some great points – thought about that a bunch…harboring guilt…godly sorrow…in the mishmash of internal conflict I experience on and off – I don’t let myself get too wrapped up in it – I figure it’s stuff I’ll be sorting out for the remainder of the journey in this life…not to get into comparisons to belittle my fervency for promoting TWI, but I think about what inner turmoil Paul probably had in the harboring guilt / godly sorrow conflict:

9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed… I Corinthians 15

One of the biggest reasons why I keep coming to Grease Spot to share my experiences, observations and feelings is to soothe this mysterious personal discomfort – and I think it must be over that harboring guilt / godly sorrow conflict – what a battle it can be sometimes…do I really believe God has forgiven me for my zealous cult-years of financially supporting and faithfully serving a harmful and controlling cult? Maybe that doubt fuels my let-me-try-to-make-it-up-to-you routine. I’ve always had this reciprocal thing about life – a desire to compensate for negligence on my part or how I treated someone unfairly.

We seek meaning in life. When I served in TWI, I had this blinkered view that I had only one great purpose in life – to serve God through The Way International. After I left TWI, I became aware there’s more to life than being stuck in a rut as a sales rep for a cult. I’m a multipurpose kind of guy now! I need my wife and kids and they need me. I need my neighborhood and they need me. I need Grease Spot and Grease Spot needs me.

I found this funny demotivator poster years ago – so I ordered a small framed version – and it hangs on the wall above my desk. I reminds me of one of the many reasons why I post here:

8 hours ago, Mike said:

What is likely lacking is you witnessing all this pretty first hand, like I did...What is obviously lacking in your knowledge of the Schoenheit Paper are the 14 punches after the simple doctrine.   It is those 14 appendixes that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as hey tried to suppress it all.

Those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations were PICK-UP LINES that oodles of ministry leaders and non-leaders, male and female used to get laid in the 1970s and 80s.  It was the appendixes that were needed to squelch the TVTs that were running rampant through the ministry...Yeah, the doctrine part is pretty simple.

 

 

What explanations do our minds wrestle with when we struggle to reconcile sinful behavior by leadership with what we consider biblical doctrine? And is it possible there is an unspoken double standard that leadership holds to? Some rule, principle or doctrine which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people.

And is it possible a whole church could have such lower moral standards than the secular world that it even freaks out unbelievers? Such was the case in 1 Corinthians 5 NIV . Paul observed the flagrant disregard for the moral standards of the Word of God  - - and even the Gentiles! But for the Corinthian church, their immorality was probably considered part of a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church - - in other words, doctrine. 

Doctrine – no matter how simple – is man-made. It is what people think how certain passages should be categorized together and what ideas are to be abstracted from that. doctrines could be right, partially right, a teensy weensy bit right or twisted, distorted, fictitious or flat out dead wrong. 

 

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is  "catechism".

Often the word doctrine specifically suggests a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. Doctrine may also refer to a principle of law, in the common-law traditions, established through a history of past decisions.

From: Doctrine - Wikipedia

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

The word translated “doctrine” means “instruction, especially as it applies to lifestyle application.” In other words, doctrine is teaching imparted by an authoritative source. In the Bible, the word always refers to spiritually related fields of study. The Bible says of itself that it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). We are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”

Biblical doctrine helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8).

However, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” The apostle Paul wrote harsh words about perverting the gospel with false doctrine: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”(Galatians 1:7–9).

from: What is doctrine? | GotQuestions.org

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

You refer to the 14 appendixes of Schoenheit’s Paper that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as they tried to suppress it all. I think those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations, whatever just barely showed there was some correlation between the antinomianism running rampant throughout the ministry and the deliberate omission of biblical morality in wierwille’s ‘doctrines’. This is  NOT  a question of what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg . It is simply that wierwille laid the groundwork driven by his own moral depravity.

 

What is the Bible?

I believe it is simply a theological message – concerning the metaphysical realm and perhaps the desires of a higher power. To use it in arguments over doctrinal squabbles trivializes the message. I am as guilty as anyone else on this point – maybe more so since one of my hobbies is systematic theology.

But the Bible is NOT a textbook of theology…or a user’s manual…or any other pet description we christen it with – it is what it is – there’s no changing it – we just have to accept it for what it is – a compilation of ancient documents that many considered inspired of God…should I criticize my cat for not being a dog? Darn - you mean the Bible is not a religious textbook? correct.

 

wierwille often talked about interpreting the Bible in context – but I’ve come to the realization he often filtered the Bible through some other context…But if you think about it – the context of the Bible is the languages and cultures that produced it…to ignore those is to proceed in a slipshod manner toward something foreign to the original intent of the Scriptures.

 

When I was in TWI – I assumed the purpose of Bible study was to affirm the creeds…beliefs…ideas as taught in PFAL.

Don’t get me wrong – creeds…doctrines have value in that they help us to focus on what’s important.

But again, I bring up the what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg conundrum – maybe we should not be so laser-focused on pet-doctrines we’re familiar with – instead, have more of an open-minded approach - and for starters just get the big picture - the overview.

It’s been some 37 years since I left TWI – at first I plunged into systematic and biblical theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy in general - and I still keep up on that stuff – but more importantly some things that coincided with those studies was a growing concern for developing a relationship – not with a book – but with a person, Jesus Christ!…needless to say, this approach gives me a strong sense of fulfillment - like this is what life is really all about - building relationships with God and people. 

I was never interested in becoming a pseudo-Christian Bible scholar or snake oil salesman anyway.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.

The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.

It's almost a tautology. 

It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?

 

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

It would help if you remembered WHICH tapes.  I have heard similar things, but I can't remember where.  The collaterals do not have any of these kinds of comments, though.  

The reason I ask for your sources is because I like to check the context on things like that.

Someday we will have searchable transcripts for the SNT tapes, but that is a long process. I have friends working on it.

 

35 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL  AND  the collaterals.

But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.

Yeah I show you by context that wierwille had debauchery coming out the wazoo!

 

 

Right off the bat in session 1 of PFAL, wierwille asks what's the greatest sin a person can commit, from which he launches into  HIS  OWN  INTERPRETATION  of Matthew 22 on the greatest commandment - wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

wierwille not only offered HIS   OWN   INTERPRETATION of Matthew 22  but essentially encouraged others to use the same self-referential interpretation - it's in the first part "as long as you love God and neighbor " - AS LONG AS YOU ASSUME YOU LOVE God and neighbor...a person can have the best of intentions but commit the worst acts...it is common knowledge to those who are not fooled by wierwille's duplicity, that one of his go-to lines to justify sexually molesting women was rationale to loosen them up spiritually - for their own good. that's some next level evil sick  $hit ! 

30 minutes ago, Mike said:

It would help if you remembered WHICH tapes.  I have heard similar things, but I can't remember where.  The collaterals do not have any of these kinds of comments, though.  

The reason I ask for your sources is because I like to check the context on things like that.

Someday we will have searchable transcripts for the SNT tapes, but that is a long process. I have friends working on it.

Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL  AND  the collaterals.

But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.

Yeah I show you by context that wierwille had debauchery coming out the wazoo!

 

21 minutes ago, Mike said:

I've told the story here so many times that I abbreviated it here this time.  I was a twig leader and the people NEEDED to get the subject looked into. I did not feel qualified, and would never have wanted to research it on my own. I had to do it for them.

Something about your rationalization sounds soooooooo familiar:
10Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel: 11“I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.

12Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”

13When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”

14But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

15Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

16“Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”

“Tell me,” Saul replied.

17Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”

20“But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”

22But Samuel replied: “Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

23For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you as king.”

24Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”

26But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”

1 Samuel 15 NIV

 

perhaps you inadvertently provided a distraction to your people - instead of looking into the bigger picture of wierwille's erroneous theology - you offered a diversion to keep their minds busy.

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have also told the story here several times how Schoenheit TWICE implied to me on the phone that no such bad influence made it into the collaterals.

Don’t get me started on all the morally depraved implications of wierwille’s licentiousness that runs like a red-light-district thread throughout PFAL  AND  the collaterals.

But hey, if you want to further derail your own thread – feel free to bring up a collateral topic and I bet I could easily correlate his twisted use of scripture and doubletalk to show you what I mean.

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

Earl Burton handles this some in the Festschrift book they did for VPW in 1982, but it is a little too boring to keep me awake.

The way I handle this is I figure if the people who WROTE the scriptures were to divorce their own thinking from what God was telling them to write, then people who READ the scriptures are not to inject their private thoughts into it either.

It's almost a tautology. 

You are very wrong! It's not almost - it's not even close!!!

Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession). SIMILAR: repetition, repetitiveness, repetitiousness, reiteration, a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words…in LOGIC a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

The passage merely states the ORIGIN of the prophecy - plain and simple. You are adding assumptions!

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

It is also self evident. What good is it to read God's Word without getting HIS interpretation, and being side tracked by self generated ideas?

 

the point of genuine honest hermeneutics is to discover what the message meant to the original recipients -  which most Bible scholars assume is how God wanted it to be interpreted. That necessitates expertise in the biblical languages / syntax and ancient biblical customs - and good old textual criticism as well...that was all ignored by wierwille's mindless and careless plagiarism which side-tracked PFAL students with his erroneous delusional ideas.

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

But I have no stomach for tracking the sexual sins or bad character of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

yet somehow you seem to TOLERATE the  INFLUENCE   of bad characters like victor paul wierwille who had a track record of persistent sexual sins ! 

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

With the “Schoenheit Paper on Adultery” I have somehow received (against my will) a long-suit in tracking the history of that document.

how is that possible? 

were you brainwashed? water-boarded? drugged?

On 3/18/2023 at 11:08 AM, chockfull said:

This is an honest account of a genuine Christian in the research department that wrote a very simple word study paper on “adultery”.  The timeframe of the paper circulation is documented.  Fog years when Geer was an advisor to the BOT - Walter Cummins still around.

Makes you wonder what is the point of biblical “research”. wierwille et al have typically obfuscated the differences in disciplines - word studies and textual criticism tend to look for the original meaning. Whereas the wierwille / TWI tenets has Its own brand of skewed systematic theology - which strives to make a coherent and CURRENTLY RELEVANT doctrine out of what wierwille intuited with generous proportions of fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism. 

 

If I had paid better attention to wierwille’s butchering of simple grammar and logic in PFAL, I probably would have noticed his departure from what a passage meant to the original recipients.  

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

II Peter 1 KJV

So take note at one of the first HUGE RED FLAGS in PFAL. Bullinger as well as many modern translations understood II Peter 1 (you can check out other translations if you click on the Bible Hub hyperlink above ) refers to the ORIGIN of Scripture and NOT to the INTERPRETATION of Scripture…and to make matters more confusing wierwille goes on to say it should be understood to mean that no one should interpret Scripture because Scripture interprets itself.  

 

I bought into wierwille’s nonsense - and without realizing it, I accepted wierwille’s interpretation of Scripture as if it was the original and true meaning of the Bible. Boy, did I miss it it! Mike chides us for how much we missed in PFAL - oh I see it now .   I missed all the con games. 

 

Relative to this point about adultery - I’ve heard wierwille teach on mention of adultery in NT passages that it’s referring to “spiritual adultery” i.e., shacking up with other gods. Again note the pivot from the original meaning of a word to twisting it to fit into his depraved systematic theology.

8 minutes ago, waysider said:

I think, maybe, we invented the secret decoder ring, ourselves, by perhaps trying to read something into the scriptures that the original authors never intended to convey.

I agree!

1 hour ago, Mike said:

No. Very wrong.

Schoenheit was not at HQ in 1978.

The paper was squashed in fall of 1986, sez Schoenheit himself, by Walter and the BOT.  I can find where he says this. It is in a short summary. Vpw had been dead for some 18 months when the paper was squashed and the ministry meltdown started.

Check your sources.
You and they got it very wrong.

 

Check Penworks.

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Here is Schoenheit's account of Sept 1986.  Background of the paper (by Schoenheit date unknown but probably late 90s or early 2000s):

*/*/*

My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. I had no reason to doubt her as we were friends and she "had her head on her shoulders" in life. I started asking around to girls I knew always got to ride on the motor coach, fly on Ambassador 1, get "back room" duty instead of housekeeping or grounds, etc. Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. I would ask them why they thought it was okay or why they were told it was okay and those were the reasons I got, so that is why I answered those specific questions.

In the midst of interviewing the women I suspected might have had sexual relations with leadership, I had three different women tell me I would be killed if I tried to stop it. The first time I thought it was a totally stupid thing, but by the third one I really stopped and thought about it. David had Uriah killed for the same reason. To protect my work I sent it to about 7 people I knew and trusted (I do not remember the exact number or all the people now) sealed in an envelope inside an envelope with instructions to "go public" if I ended up dead. I told them that the paper was going to be sent up proper channels, and not to share the work with others. As you know, The Way had strict guidelines for handling research, and at that time I had been in the Research Dept. for six years, loved my job and believed in the system even though I was beginning to have doubts about the integrity of the leadership. I handed the paper in to Walter Cummins in late September. It just sat on his desk. One of the people I had given a copy to had been hurt by the sex stuff and really wanted it to "make an impact." She went to Ralph, who, of course, knew nothing of the paper (like I said, I had not gone public). Ralph talked with somebody (who?) and the next thing I knew there were all kinds of meetings about the paper and all kinds of untrue things being said about me.

On October 23d I was "released" from The Way by order of Chris Geer. It was a Friday. I had a lot of friends at HQ still. On Monday at noon Walter got up in front of the staff and told some made-up lie about me violating department procedures and thus being let go. A friend snuck out of lunch and called me to let me know what was said (I did not ask for that but he did it anyway). I got right on the phone with Walter and told him what he did was wrong and that he should not lie about a brother to all those other Christians. I asked to meet with him face to face but he refused. After that there was a huge witch-hunt and more lies were told about me than you can possibly imagine. Even really weird stuff like I believed in the Trinity and the dead being alive.

Because I still had friends around the country, I got some requests for my paper. Since I was no longer on staff, and since my "belief in the system" had really taken a blow, I mailed it to anyone who asked. By that time the Trustees and Corps Coordinators were starting a rumor that the paper personally attacked Dr. Wierwille and taught all kinds of false doctrine. Corps going home for "ho-ho relo" were told if they read my paper not to come back in residence. It was also stated that the paper had devil spirits and anyone who read it became possessed. Well, that all backfired because as people read it they could tell that what was said about it was lies. And so there was an escalation of people challenging the leadership and leaving The Way.

In time I hooked up with Ralph Dubofsky, Tom Reheard, John Lynn, Mark Graeser, Robert Belt, and some others and CES was born. It took a while for the smoke to clear, but when it did all that was left of us was John Lynn, Mark Graeser and myself, and we have been together ever since. The Lord has been leading us, and now I think we are turning out some really first-class stuff.

Ok maybe so - I assumed it was the adultery paper - 

 

But 

 

after reading the introduction (the section I quoted below) it got me wondering if the Advanced Class 1978 ‘tirade’ was related to an early form of this paper - perhaps some preliminary work he had done - as this excerpt below indicates he did a “little study” on the subject, during his last year in residence …the fact that Ralph and Vince had come to him in 82 or 83 makes me wonder why  they went to HIM   - were they aware of some work he had already done? If anyone has more details on this it would be great to share about it…and maybe I’m making a big deal over nothing because the ‘78 incident was over some other research - anyway here is excerpt:

 

Foreword: In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery. Ralph and Vince wanted to know what I knew and if it would help them. I was genuinely surprised at how little I knew about the subject from the Word of God. This paper is the result of those years of study.

Actually, I had done a little study before Ralph and Vince came to me. During my last year in residence in the Way Corps, I was alone in my bedroom when a girl whom I had always thought was attractive came in looking for Diane. She thought that Diane was there and I was gone, and she came in wearing an "exciting" black nightie. I was surprised at how strong my desire was to make love to her. As I struggled to control my mind, I realized that I did not have a scripture to grab onto for support. I literally was not completely positive as to what the Word of God had to say on the subject. I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law that proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. If anything, the marriage relationship is even more important now, during the age of Grace, because it portrays the Great Mystery.

From: CES website Adultery Paper

6 hours ago, Mike said:

I reported here (on the Jumping to Concussions thread, I think) that I had a preview of what I thought Penwork's complaint would be. 

In 1977 or '78 I had a conversation at HQ (as I posted here) with two members of the Research Dept who were in the 7th or 8th Corps.  They told me that the Research Dept was not doing real research. 

They evidentially said enough to other people to get themselves fired in a big splash at Emporia where they were located.

But I heard what they said and kept quiet about it, thinking it through for years.  I added to this pondering some rather wild and perplexing things VPW said on SNT tapes about searching for manuscripts that back him up. I said I had lots of ups and downs with my respect for TWI and VPW, and this was part of the down side.

After 1998 I finally understood the 1942 promise much better, after years of pretty much ignoring it. That was when the whole set of Research Department questions I had been harboring and pondering got answered.

I wont be shocked at Penworks' revelations.  I had been thinking about them several years before she noticed them, if my calculations are correct. This is why I am reading it so slow.  I am 99% sure I know the ending. We will see. It is getting more nostalgic for me, because the place where I am at in her book is when I got into the Word in late 1971.

 

3 hours ago, Mike said:

This may have happened to some topics, but it doesn't jive with what John Schoenheit wrote himself in the beginning of his paper on adultery. 

There is an odd note where he says that VPW had asked Vince and Ralph to research adultery or fornication in the early 80s, but they did not know how to begin it, so they asked Schoenheit for help.  

Now, eventually, that Schoenheit paper was squashed and hidden by fear saturated leadership, but it was over a full year after VPW's death.  Thank God, the squashing and hiding were the most brainless cover-up job in history, and the paper got out.

 The paper was squashed by wierwille himself in 1978!

 

My wife and I were at Advanced Class 1978 - married couples were separated in sleeping quarters and in Twig placement.

 

Tonto (my wife) got into an argument with the Twig coordinator who emphatically kept making the assertion that one could only become born again of the wrong seed by addressing Satan directly at an altar and saying something along the lines of “Satan you are my Lord.”
 

As ridiculous and petty as this sounds the ‘report’ of this egregious argument went all the way up the mini-Way-Tree-of-Advanced-Class-’78  - and no surprise, was more fuel to add to the fire - Skyrider was a branch coordinator at the class and had mentioned on another thread TWI memories about the 8th corps guys who had gone rogue on a research paper - if I’m not mistaken this was the infamous adultery paper . 

 

At a branch coordinators meeting wierwille and Craig went on a tirade over any TWI-believer challenging wierwille doctrine and questioning leadership…

…later they doled out another confrontational-rant to the rest of us at the Advanced Class going over the same infraction - challenging wierwille doctrine and questioning leadership...

 

I think cult-leaders tap into the PT Barnum  principle  - have something for everyone…”I am disappointed in how little you believe the Word” says wierwille from the pulpit - and poor dumb schlubs like me who never feel like i measure up anyway to wierwille’s standards will automatically draw on memories of any recent failures, mistakes , shortcomings to support his assessment of my believing.

 

…weird how a browbeating by cult-leaders can be ‘appreciated’ on different levels - branch leaders probably saw the main thrust was over the rogue research paper - and peons like me who felt it was mostly about my wife noting the lack of details in wierwille’s teaching on the nebulous unforgivable sin…so to sum up the message to my wife - coming straight from the top was "leadership is always right, you're wrong, so shut up". 

 

so make no mistake - wierwille squashed the adultery paper!

Raf, thanks for starting threads like this. 

 

Is this the after party of the thread? If so - I’ve got a few afterthoughts:

1. After mulling over this thread - I must admit or rather concede to Raf’s main point - religion has a vaccine for the reason virus.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

2. To push the analogies further - seeing reason as a virus suggests almost something like an independent agent that lives in the host (mind) . In the nature/ nurture motif there’s a somewhat blank slate in my mind - as a child there’s people and experiences  - all from which I learn to think, understand, form judgments, etc. this helps me to explain or justify actions, events - seeing correlation of cause and effect in the real world.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

3. Religion has a vaccine - and it comes in various prescription strengths. On another thread    my post on 2nd wave - differences  comparing just two of the many brands of Christianity out there - I got into the differences of fundamentalism from evangelicalism. Fundamentalism can be distinguished from evangelicalism by three general ideas:

 - Biblically, fundamentalism is totally hostile to the notion of biblical criticism in any form and is committed to a literal interpretation of Scripture…Evangelicalism however accepts the principle of sensible and trustworthy biblical criticism and recognizes the diversity of literary forms within Scripture…

  - Theologically, fundamentalism is narrowly committed to a set of doctrines – some of which evangelicalism regards as peripheral or even utterly irrelevant such as dispensationalism…

   - Sociologically, fundamentalism is a reactionary counter-cultural movement – whereas Evangelicalism is a cultural movement focused on relevance and has a loose basis for self-definition.  The element of irrationalism often associated with fundamentalism is lacking in evangelicalism which has produced significant writings in areas of the philosophy of religion and apologetics.
 

 

My point in showing these differences is to show there’s a sliding scale - or vaccine prescription strength depending on the tenets, interpretive standards of a group or even the individual.

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

4. I appreciate the input / viewpoints of all Grease Spotters - and especially the atheists! Why? If it wasn’t for Grease Spot I’d probably still be stuck in a fundamentalist mindset - or worse - having a mishmash of disjointed belief systemS (plural - cognitive dissonance of TWI-mindset, a budding interest in philosophy of religion and a strong pragmatic approach to life).
 

So on a sliding scale of a religious vaccine I don’t believe I’m at the extreme end like I was in TWI. I thank Grease Spot for helping me be more grounded in reality. 
 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

 

5. I honestly don’t know what drives my “faith” - my passionate interest in philosophy of religion, my prayers and hopes…for all I know any of these feelings or sense that I have a relationship with Jesus Christ could be wishful thinking…why do I keep at it? I like to keep an open mind - I will pursue something I think is worthwhile until it’s proven pointless. Like law of believing in TWI and a lot of their other nonsense. I wasted 12 years taking a full-strength vaccine…I’m more discriminating now on a lot of things…UFOs? Ghosts? I am mildly curious- but on stuff like that I have not had any conclusive experiences - so anything I come across info wise I run through my vetting process - to take it off the table or leave there as tentative awaiting more info / proof.

1 hour ago, Mike said:

he only advantage I see  (so far)  in this idea is it is a reminder that there is a lot of spiritual stuff going on behind the scenes in the spiritual realm that we do not see. 

I think the scriptures largely shelter us from most of the details of this, but every now and then they give us a peak at a few of the details.

The Bible itself is ONE BIG REMINDER of a lot of invisible spiritual stuff happening . I think your theories are more of an unnecessary risk than an advantage, because you insert your own opinion of who is winning, assume others have the same impotent life that you lead, and trivialize God to something less than sovereign and all-powerful, besides the fact there is usually an unhealthy fascination with the devil - much more so than what Scripture says about Christ disarming the enemy’s power and authority:

6So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, 7rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.

8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces a of this world rather than on Christ.

9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh b was put off when you were circumcised by c Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you dalive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 

16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

Colossians 2 NIV