oldiesman

I'm glad you're so happy.

Using your definition of "expected", this is what I know so far: twi didn't/doesn't expect folks to tithe in order to participate in fellowships. They DO expect folks to tithe to participate in classes, as shared by some folks during their experience of the more recent years. You really can't say it was required. Paying the mortgage is required, or you lose the house. Paying the car payment is required, or you lose the car. Paying the grocery bills is required, or you don't eat. Paying the tithe was not required... because folks still got to participate if they didn't do it.

I am a lazy person, I admit that. Especially in this heat. "Roll out those lazy hazy crazy days of summer..."

Expected, yes. Required, no. I liken a "requirement" to something like the paying of dues. If one is a member of a club or association, one may have dues, and if those dues are mandatory, the failure to pay them results in the mandatory cancellation of one's participation.

Are you asking me, huh? :D I don't know, perhaps it was a way of finding out where one's commitment was at? I don't condone it.

Sharon you are a genius. If you love Malamutes and Huskies, Eight Below is your film. :)

I know that. But let's be accurate with our terminology, ok? A requirement is a requirement. If there was a requirement to keep on tithing in order to take some classes in the '90's, then let's use that qualifier and be accurate.

If someone asks for a check instead of cash, and you do it, it doesn't prove much. What proves something, I believe, would be if someone DIDN'T write the check after being asked, and then see if there are any consequences, such as being kicked out of twig, and so forth. No doubt there were some folks in twi that, if you let them push you around, they will gladly.

Not mine. I first took the Advanced Class in March of 1978 and just before then, hadn't gone to fellowship for 6 months.

I suspected this too. I knew all along that giving money was expected, even in the early days; but never an actual requirement to participate.

I think the concept was first discussed in PFAL and Christians Should be Prosperous. As far as it becoming law and "required", I haven't a clue. I was under the impression that giving money in twi wasn't ever "required", but I could be wrong as I wasn't around past 1991. I never heard of anyone actually getting booted out for not throwing money in the horn of plenty, which case may indicate it being an actual "requirement".

Your talk of callousness contributed to the derail. You are always free to start a new topic on it, if you want. :)

I don't know Tom, when twi does it, some folks might refer to that as "loving bombing" to get your loot. Can't you SEE the evil decepting of those WOWS? Seriously, thanks for the nice word about the WOWs. :)

When someone has opinions and ideas and won't accept anything different, we call that having opinions and ideas and their "take" on things. When twi has opinions and ideas and won't accept anything different, we call that brainwashing.

I might agree with your assessment had I not added the smileys.

You have no sense of humor. And I think John Juedes is a Spin Doctor. For instance, he doesn't allow any opinions other than his own. Doesn't have any use for them.

How would you know that my memory is selective, if I say the sole context of the statement made was what I recollected?

Another point that I believe has some merit was something Mike said a long time ago, that these books of Vp's were basically "workbooks" for PFAL students, and not designed for the general public. Books that were designed for the general public, for example, like Jesus Christ is not God, had endnotes and a bibliography. Yes, it would have been better had he given proper written acknowledgement, even in his "workbooks".

Don't you remember one of our admonitions to preach to everyone once before someone even gets a second hearing? Shake the dust off your feet if someone doesn't believe? That happened to me oodles of times. The idea was, more folks won't believe than believe so don't waste a lot of time on unbelievers.

If this is true, why did he tell us in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"? Why did he have printed in the books he "sought enlightenment from men of God scattered across the continent"? Why did he have some of the books he learned from in the Way Bookstore, for all to read? (with the exception of Leonard & Stiles who he credited verbally) That doesn't sound like someone not giving credit or trying to hide where he got his information from. The fact is, he did give credit where credit was due; he just didn't give proper written acknowledgement.

As I recall, the saying was made in the context of witnessing, that's all. When we go out witnessing, we do not have to defend truth, we simply are witnesses to it. We preach and teach.. but to stand there and defend and argue all day is wasting time and energy. Like speaking in tongues. I can argue all day with someone trying to defend SIT, whereas all I have to do is teach what I know and be a witness to its benefits. There are folks who will not believe, no matter what, so why get in defense mode? Of course, if one chooses to argue all day, well, that's their chosen course.

Then what the heck are you complaining about? Good lawd. As Craig would say, quit complaining and GET B-U-S-Y. :o :lol:

This seems to be another imaginative way to talk about VP's failure to give proper written acknowledgement. Yeah, it would have been much better had he referenced these men better, but I think it wouldn't have changed much back then, or even now, if he did. It has been about 33 years since I was first introduced to PFAL, and in all that time, I haven't heard anything from any of Wierwille's sources, independently, apart from twi. Nothing is stopping them or their ministries/movements from knocking on my door, if they so choose. In other words, up to this point, I probably wouldn't have known anything about Leonard, Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger, Daily, Jones, Cliffe, et al., if it weren't for Wierwille's ministry and teachings. Why that is, I don't know. Maybe that was God's plan all along for me. But I certainly don't consider Wierwille's teachings as carjacking others. Why should I think that way? All others are still free to flourish on their own, if that is what God intended before Wierwille supposedly carjacked. As opposed to that I think Wierwille has honored these men by teaching some of their stuff.