Larry N Moore

There are several examples in the Bible where God gave someone a special gift or calling and it was misused and ultimately hurt many of God's people. Hmmmm...David comes to mind.

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.

Larry, I do not know what you might be looking at but perhaps you simply don't have the correct "impression".

love ya

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

My books are dated JCOP "fourth impression 1981" and JCOPS "second impression 1983".

My books predate those years.

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: WordWolf.

· View this post

· Un-ignore WordWolf

Gee, that doesn't sound like the "posting with kindness" that at least is the GOAL of posting here.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/main2/forums.html

"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.

In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.

Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.

All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks...."

I gave a short opinion. Why you perceived some sort of less-than-polite action from it is beyond me.

I perceive you have intelligence and maturity, which you may choose to exercise as you see fit.

I would ask you to so choose.

Thank you and have a nice day.

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.

At a guess, I think he'd remember if that was it, since we've posted that here before and discussed it.

But he'll have to say for sure if it was.

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

Actually, the story that goes around is that the original performance was

M**phy and H3yw**d Ch@p3311 doing a single routine.

They matched for height and so on.

After lcm watched "Staying Alive"-or to be specific, the "Satan's Alley" sequence,

he announced they were expanding it to a full-length production.

(It coincidentally resembled "Satan's Alley" in many ways.)

Early in the production, lcm declared that it was SUGGESTED to him that he play the lead.

I believe that someone may have uttered those words.

HOWEVER,

I believe he hinted around until someone uttered those words,

then seized on them as a mandate to grab the limelight,

his lack of talent notwithstanding.

The production would have been less painful to watch-although no more sound doctrinally-

if he'd limited himself to the coach-narrator role that explained things between dance numbers.

Well, that's nice but, more information than I think anyone here really gives a dang about.

She has the right to her privacy.

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?

I meant some time in the ministry. :P

Have to leave again.

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. ;)

So you have some time in I can see.

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 . . .

To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound debt. This seventh edition has been read and studied carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual ability. To all of these I am most grateful.

. . . which comes closest to your inquiry.

Doesn't Wierwille actually say in at least one of the books that it was a great big collaborative work, but in the end the contents are his responsibility? He's telling you how the book came about. Anyone have that? I'm pretty sure it's either JCOP or JCOPS.

Larry,

I agree with others on not making this a trinity thread so will expound on that another time where and when appropriate.

At your leisure my dear lady.

But as to thinking more or less of Jesus Christ based on if he were a part of God in flesh form my experience with twi was they said with their lips they respected and wanted to be like him (or do greater works was stated also) but they conveniently forgot him when it served their purposes to teach things that would not be his example. I was a part of that group for over 18 years and saw a few things. I don't know you or when you were a part of them so I can't speak for what was taught when you were a part of them.

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. ;))

Born and raised. But South Florida now.

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

8 million people are out of their minds?

Oops! You must be a New Yorker. ;)

Well, a sucker may be born every minute.. but not everybody can be convincing enough to sell them the Brooklyn bridge.

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.

Definitely not. but thanks for checking. I'll try to find it tonight.

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.

Some people seem to be able to just turn on the light, and wowser.. they could sell you an iceberg in the middle of the winter.

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."?

There are quite a few people who had this kind of charisma.. could draw in a very large crowd, and used it for evil purposes exclusively.

True.

Others used it for evil when they weren't using it to communicate the bible..

True.

others, plain didn't do any evil with it, just good.

True.

And then others used it originally for good and ended up using it for evil.

I wonder how much of it really is connected to our concept of christian gifts of the spirit, or holy spirit.

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 . . .

If my research is a wrong dividing of God's Word, then I stand before God as an unapproved workman. Either way I accept full responsibility. I have checked God's Word hundreds of times over, and thus I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus Christ is not God but the Son of God.

. . . is the one you're referring to?

We make judgments on things that require judgment. We make observations on things that don't require judgment. You may judge the sky to be blue, but to me, that's merely an observation, not a judgment.

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.

I think it was Flags of Iwo Jima, or something like that. Look, the perspective of the Japanese soldiers is an unexplored part of history. But it is not up to your judgment to determine whether the U.S. and the Japanese militaries were opponents during World War II. That's not judgment or perspective. That's history. We fought the Japanese. Just like it's history that there was a collaborative effort to put some of Wierwille's books together. Not disputable. No one's arguing it.

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).

There's an old saying: you're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Hmm . . . yes I've heard that said. I believe it was a politician who said it. :)

Challenge my opinions all you want. But that's not what you're doing here. You're challenging facts, which itself is fine. If you need more proof, good luck finding it. I don't. I think it's fairly established.

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 know that from first-hand experience.

My condolences.

I think you're growing on me.

A word search depends on inputting the correct word.

Oh heck Raf -- I know that. It's not like I just started employing the technique.

Crack open the books if you're really going to look for the comment, rather than declaring it to not be there.

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.

quite possibly because he gives gifts to ALL. It's just, part of the package.

I could use my "gifts" to be quite destructive..

but I choose not to.

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.

Your mistake is thinking that there's a judgment call to be made here.

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.

This method of putting at least two of those books together is not subject to someone's judgment or opinion. It's history. It's indisputably how it happened. No one argues otherwise, because even Wierwille admitted it.

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?

Valid point. There's a slight difference in style between the red book (Order My Steps) and the blue book. I was making one point in conjunction with several other points, which you chose to pick apart rather than put together. No single point I raised is proof of anything, but the whole picture is what I was going for.

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.

Ah, but you missed something significant. Order My Steps, among the last books Wierwille wrote, definitely has plagiarism in it, which bolsters the point I made that the more direct hand Wierwille had in writing a book, the more likely you are to see plagiarism in it. So it's not a matter of improving. It's a matter of him having a direct hand or having a less direct hand in the writing process.

OMSITW was one I didn't spend a lot of time digesting. You may be right.

You didn't look hard enough. I'll find it later, assuming I get a chance to dig these books out.

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.

But the presence of this paragraph is likewise indisputable, and it was in a book, not a magazine. Now, my memory isn't perfect, so it's possible I'm mistaken about the context of the statement. But if you have time (and the books handy), sheck the intros of all his books. The last paragraph of at least one will contain the statement I'm referring to. From there we can tell whether I've mischaracterized it (a distinct possibility).

Again, the weight of evidence supports the article's statement about how certain books came about. I'm not trying to vigorously defend every statement made therein.

No, but you're making a fine effort (of defense) and I appreciate that.

You mistook my paraphrase for Juedes's words.

You're right -- I did.

I often wonder if VPW had been content to be a country pastor without the need for a grandious image, how much good he could have done in his congregations life. He definitely had a gift for drawing people to him, and I think that there was in him a desire to know God, and a desire to help others. Too bad that he allowed the sin of pride to lead to that slipperly slope wherein much of the good he could have done was never allowed to come to fruition.

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?

Some see in part and some clearly...

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.

Trust John S as much as you want or don't want.

Well, that goes without saying. It's something we all do.

But put all these things together:

Undisputed article about how the books were put together.

This would tie into this . . .

Testimony on GS from at least one former member of the research team.

. . . and I would say the testimony of one former member of the research team is insufficient in making a judgment call.

Distinct differences in writing style and especially footnoting in VPW's books.

Everyone's writing style can go through changes. I know mine has over the years.

The virtual absence of plagiarism of published works in JCOP and JCOPS, along with the heavy presence of footnotes and citations missing from other works.

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.

VPW's own intro describing at least one book as a collaborative effort for which he takes ultimate responsibility (I may be oversimplifying it).

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.

The weight of the evidence suggests a process not unlike that described in John Juedes's web site (the link I gave earlier).

I'm still making my way through that article so I won't comment on what it has to say.

I don't think it was necessarily dishonest for VPW to list himself as the author of those books, although as Juedes points out, it may have been more accurate for him to list himself as editor.

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.

In that way, they "concocted" the whole book, but not without a heavy VPW thumbprint.

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.