Larry N Moore

Yes, I concur. David, I believe, repented. Funny though, that despite their screw-ups God still loved them even though He allowed to let their screw-ups be recorded.

Thanks Eyesopen. In the future I'll break out my hard-copies. Perhaps I didn't include the sections you cited. My books predate those years.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: WordWolf. · View this post · Un-ignore WordWolf

Well, I was wondering when you were going to get around to actually citing the rules. (Did you happen to notice the full names listed on the header?). Look WW, maybe it's best if we just choose to ignore each other. Since your very first response I sensed a certain degree of -- hmm -- aggression in your replies to me. I don't know if you just don't like having someone disagree with you or if you have some god-like attitude but, let's just make a deal to avoid each other.

Fine. Then why don't you just keep your trap shut and afford him that opportunity. Dude you're wearing my patience out.

Well, that's nice but, more information than I think anyone here really gives a dang about. Now that's odd for you to say since if anyone were to look at some of the full names brandied around here the same concern doesn't seem to be an issue. Nor do the rules of the forum specifically state that posting full names is prohibited -- unless there are a set of rules posted somewhere that I haven't seen. Now can we drop it or would you like to have the last word?

Don't you have anything better to do WW? Sheesh! There! Are you happy now that I edited it?

That's what I was referring to -- some thought I should have left TWI years before I did. I think I briefly thought about it about the time CM was installed as President and perhaps more seriously when I saw him in "Athletes of the Spirit". Which reminds me of Mxx Gxx. She lived in my area -- very sweet and talented woman but even her expertise couldn't do a thing for CM clumsiness. I might have asked her why she didn't discourage him from taking the spot-lite. Oh well, I'm seriously going off topic now and before another spot comes around and smacks me upside the head I better split. ;)

Yeah, well -- besides being called old and senile some have also said I have a streak of stubbornness.

Raf, although the exact wording doesn't match yours in regards to the responsibility aspect I was able to find this . . . . . . which comes closest to your inquiry.

At your leisure my dear lady. I would never think of discounting your experiences. I was not in your shoes, so I can only see things from my own perspective. Fwiw -- I was introduced to TWI when I was 15. Took the PFAL when I was 16 and left TWI in 1995. I'm now 52 years old (and some might say old and senile. ;))

Then you must be one New Yorker who came to his senses and got out.

Oops! You must be a New Yorker. ;)

That's probably 'cause even suckers know the Brooklyn bridge isn't worth buying 'cause it's in New York and they say New York although a nice place to visit, no one in their right mind would want to live there.

Ok. Raf, if it's going to be too much trouble for you don't bother. We can let this one go if you like.

Unfortunately, that's saying more about the "buyer's" naivety than about the "seller's" talent. Was it P.T. Barnum who said -- "There's a sucker born every second."? True. True. True. And then others used it originally for good and ended up using it for evil. Well, studies have suggested that many talents we have are inherited. I wouldn't exclude genetics having a major role in these so-called "God-given abilities".

Well . . . OK, if you say so.

Raf, is it possible that this statement . . . . . . is the one you're referring to?

Ok, true enuf but, when you making the declaration that the sky is blue you're making a judgment. Are we on the same page as to how the word "judgment" is defined? Perhaps not. You're right about the title of the film. History is never written without bias and bias is contributory factor in formulating our opinions. (Note: bias is not necessarily a negative connotation). Hmm . . . yes I've heard that said. I believe it was a politician who said it. :) Well, methinks we have a difference of opinion. What you see with your own eyes or hear with your own ears may not necessarily be a fact. The mind filters what we see and hear through a prism of our biases. There's no avoiding it. The "fact" that many others share your perspective does not a fact make. I think you're growing on me. Oh heck Raf -- I know that. It's not like I just started employing the technique. I didn't declare "it's not there." I think I even conceded that there's a possibility that it is there and asked that you let me know if you find it. If you do -- GREAT! If not, then -- no big deal.

Yes, I can agree that God possibly gives all of us "gifts". I'm not convinced of it though as it regards talents. However, if VP was given the gift of charisma to draw people to God's Word and it was a gift given to him by God then it served it's purpose. The question becomes -- Was it the ultimate purpose? I suppose since the actual subject of this thread was played out long ago and if I didn't revive it this current line of discussion can be seen as no great disservice to WW.

That's no mistake, my dear Raf. That's the way we operate -- meaning it's human nature. Everything you see or hear involves making a judgment. Well, I've quite aware of how "history" can be revised or is influenced by bias. For instance: I believe there's a new movie out -- don't know the title -- which looks at WWII from the perspective of the Japanese. Do you think it will mirror what our (U.S.) historians write about the period? I appreciate and understand how it takes several pieces of the puzzle put together to see the "grand picture". However, I think I should make it clear that I'm not interested in nodding my head in agreement with what you or others say (even if I do agree). I'm more interested in challenging your opinions. Surely you don't object to that? If you do then, consider yourself just a carbon copy of leaders from TWI in that regard. Many of them, also, didn't like to be challenged. I know that from first-hand experience. OMSITW was one I didn't spend a lot of time digesting. You may be right. Well, I just let my computer do the work for me by doing a word search of VP's books. It found no matches for your assertion. But please do let me know if you find something. I hate it when my software doesn't work as I expect it to. No, but you're making a fine effort (of defense) and I appreciate that. You're right -- I did.

That's an interesting wonderment. I wonder if his "gift for drawing people" is something God gave him. I've read where some religious people think that even singing or writing or etc., etc., etc. are gifts from God. If God gave VP a "gift" -- I think it's called charisma -- then you have to wonder -- Why would God give such a man a gift like that if the end result was he was going to use it to deceive so many?

And some just don't see at all. DrWearWord, I'm sure your heart is in the right place but, your words are difficult to understand. May I ask how much time you actually take thinking through how you want to communicate what's in your heart? I've looked at some of your posts over and over again trying to discern your meaning but, frankly my dear man I'm having trouble being successful at it. However, I do find that to be an interesting challenge. You sorta remind me of Kenyon's writings. He, also, had some very enlightening things to say but, unfortunately for some of us it took more effort trying to decipher his meaning. I'm one of them.

Well, that goes without saying. It's something we all do. This would tie into this . . . . . . and I would say the testimony of one former member of the research team is insufficient in making a judgment call. Everyone's writing style can go through changes. I know mine has over the years. All that would go to prove is it's possible to improve. Originally all the books of SIAL were small pamphlets which were later combined into the four books. It's understandable that others would help in the process of determining which pamphlets to include in which book and the order they would take therein. You mentioned this in your previous post and I took the time to check it out. I found no such statement. It's possible it's in one of the Way Magazines of that time period -- didn't check them. I'm still making my way through that article so I won't comment on what it has to say. I think I can stipulate agreement with this. Although I would have to wonder why Juedes would say "it may have been . . ." rather than "he absolutely should have. . . ." Thanks for your reply.

To that I can agree. The impression that WW was giving me is that VP wrote none of the book but simply endorsed what the staff came up with. I'm on my way out to get a hair-cut. When I return I'll give the article from John more attention but, let me ask you something -- correct me if I'm wrong about John S being on the research staff. If John had something to do with the writing of the books in question and WW is saying the staff wrote the books then how can I possibly trust him (John) to be honest? It would be, in my mind at least, like him saying -- "I was lying to you before when I was a member of the research staff but, trust me -- I'm not lying to you now." His credibility becomes questionable. This is a quandary but, not something I'll lose any sleep over. I thank you Raf, for your well-thought out responses.