socks

Sure, thanks. I've picked that up, yes. I think you're pretty astute in your estimation that all of this is different for those who had experience with how all this went down over the years we were involved. While that teaching is Vintage Way and actually fairly consistent with what is taught by many other non-Way sources, there's one part that is easy to gloss over and actually freaks a lot of old timers out when they hear that it might not state exactly what VPW taught about it, and that's his teaching on 2:15, "study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that doesn't need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of truth". Once I got it clear for myself my Bible didn't exactly "fall to pieces", simply because my understanding was different, rather it came together right in front of me. Whenever I hear Vintage VPW teachings being repeated, I'm reminded of this. Bear with me if you would. VPW taught 2:15 as a foundational scripture for every Christian, every believer, and his own research and teaching ministry. "Rightly cutting" the Word of truth, described by him as the exact "working" of scripture by the "workman" to properly "divide it", sort it out, parse it out to line up properly "just like in the original". 2:15 is carved in stone for those of us who took PFAL in the 60's and 70's, and who remember that story about Mrs. Dotsie VPW cuttin' that pie of hers so accurately. In fact, further study over the years has led me to some additional understanding on this - first that "study" means exactly what he taught, "spoudazo", or "earnestly endeavor".....so it isn't specifically saying crack open the books and start studying, Paul is saying to "Work hard" to do something......and to be a "workman".....the kind of workman referred to is someone like a laborer or a field worker. We already are told in 2:6 that "the husbandman that labors must be first partaker of the fruits". The workman is a farmer, vineyard tenders, laborers, those growing a crop, tending a field, bringing up a crop, fruit.......so we can read it as "Work hard to show yourself approved to God by being a worker that doesn't need to be ashamed (of his work)..... Rightly dividing is the single word orthotomounta, or orthotomeo per many sources and it means among other things "to make straight and smooth" as well as "to cut straight ways, to cut a straight path, to proceed by straight paths, hold a straight course, and equivalent to - to do right". So we have "Work hard to show yourself approved to God by being a worker that isn't ashamed of his work, making sure to hold to a straight, right course with the Word of truth"...... There's a better translation of that I've worked up, I'm doing this from memory, but that's the basic idea and if put forth that way is truer to the context of chapter 2, which is handling the behaviors and correct actions of a church leader in the church, with others. It's not talking about academic study, it's talking about accurately "handling" God's revealed Word, of how it's lived and taught - not a mechanical process of efforts to set it straight, separate it or literally "divide" it. To this we can consider Isaiah 40:3 "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.", and then John 1:23, ""I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Make straight the way of the Lord"...... Here the word euthyno is used, meaning "to make straight, level, plain, to lead or guide straight, keep straight"....... I'd also have to consider the use in chapter 2's context the usage of the word "husbandman" - Jesus compared God to a husbandman in John 15 - “I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” ........A husbandman cultivates the earth, his plants, and naturally expects them to produce fruit as a result of the amount of effort he has invested in them. Our heavenly Father, the divine Husbandman, seeks to produce fruit through us as we ... abide in Christ. All of which leads me to understand that ll Timothy 2:15 is talking about bringing people to God through Christ, "showing them the way", to make the way to Him clear, to help others through what we teach and what we do to come to Christ. As if to say "here He is, this is who He is, this is the Way".....Remove obstacles, clear the "way", make the path clear and open. Work hard to do that, be diligent in bringing forth fruit. This involves much much more from a person than teaching if they really want to have skin in the game. Timothy is told a lot about that, how to, what to do, what to look for, etc. etc. Teaching isn't excluded, far from it, but it's not limited to public speaking. I'm NOT saying that we should never study the Bible, or never attempt to do the work to allow it to be so clearly and plainly understood that it can literally "interpret itself", nor am I saying that there aren't many wrong interpretations of the Bible, resulting in wrong teaching that makes it hard and difficult if not impossible to come to God through Christ and that those do need to be handled as part of "making that way" straight - but all of this fits very well with the words of Jesus when He said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through me"....

Taxidev, I've spoken to a couple people who were at the Florida Labor Day conference. As to the teachings, I doubt the majority of what was taught would seem foreign to anyone who dates back to VPW's early ministry years, specifically the early Way Corps that were centered at the Farm and heard him in various settings settings ranging from the BRC, "Night Owls" in the Woods, under the "Apple Trees", Corps teachings and the many times he taught on other occasions and I'd also include Walter Cummins' teaching in that mix. The content followed a similar path that he took on the topic of "the Hope" and the presentations themselves, while unique to the individuals presenting, were very similar to his style and the style that was developed later by Craig Martindale, WITH THE EXCEPTION that there's a noticeable lack of the insulting, degrading motor-mouth childish imprecation and meaningless innuendo that he developed in his latter years at the lectern. For example Moynihan's teaching on ll Tim 2:8-19. He held forth in a very compact 30". It's a very simple setting forth of those verses, and in the context of the theme of the weekend, "the Hope", carries some significant, relevant points. It carries the context of what VPW taught to the 4th Corps, in his Timothy teachings, which I was there for as were the Moynihan's who were also in residence at that time. A minor point but worth noting about those Timothy teachings is that the 4th Crops started as a 2 year program and early in the first year the 3 year program was put in motion (which eventually became a full 4 year plan, including a pre-Corps year, a res-year, field "Interim" year and then a final year in res.) The original intention was to complete the study with VPW of both l and ll Timothy with the majority of it being done in the first year, but it extended out over the entire 2 in res years. Walter Cummins handled a lot of material too. My point is that from my standpoint, hearing what Moynihan taught, it's a pretty systematic rendering of what VPW taught, with an emphasis on the 5, arguably 6, encouragements that Paul gives Timothy in that chapter. My point - I'm not a fan of the Moynihan I knew years ago or have heard about from others more recently but I don't really know him at this point and arguably would have to give him the benefit of at least recognizing he finally left/got booted by/extricated himself from that snake pit at the Way. Saying that, I wouldn't have any problem with anything he taught, as one example of what was set forth that weekend. In fact, it's a teaching that nearly any Christian, AKA "Mystery minded" believer as he called it, or "those faithful followers in the household" or whatever context they choose to put it into, would benefit from hearing. Aside from that his presentation style is one that is respectful of both material and audience. What's not to like? It's certainly not the only place that could be heard, but it was the place it was heard that day, there. I do want to also note, I heard a Pastor of a church who is completely disconnected from any Way history, people or teachings - no exposure whatsoever - teach essentially the same thing a few years ago. In fact, I've heard that taught and taught it myself, many times, and covered the same ground, without any specific adherence to anything VPW taught. That's because what he taught, what I've studied, what others have studied, will be pretty much the same in those verses if they're just read and not interpreted or placed into a self serving context to make a point. I've spot checked some of the others earlier that I was interested in, I don't have anything to add really, other than the "simplicity" of God's Word, salvation through Christ, is a living simplicity, not a doctrinal exposition. It's very very simple to understand what we are to do if we simply see what Jesus Christ did and bring the message to others by being the ones who don't simply talk to them or shun them when we think it's necessary but rather prepare, engage and support, which is what Jesus Christ did for the many weak, suffering, hurting people of His time, and for all time.

Unfortunately there aren't very many religious organizations that don't ask for money and all seem ready to accept it. Some teach the tithe as (insert any number of doctrines here), others sell products. Most accept donations. Jesus Christ accepted donations but He didn't fund brand a "worldwide ministry of hope and deliverance" or whatever and run it with donations. By all appearances He and His followers lived pretty basic lives, didn't accumulate possessions, buy land or property or invest or for that matter, loan. To me it IS a fundamental issue if a religious business asks for and accepts donations from people. The IRS doesn't require a group of people who form a "church" let's call it, to apply for any exempt status or to classify themselves as anything. In fact, it's only after a certain amount which I think is $25K that they recommend an organization file. If they make over a $1K on unrelated activities they have to file. There's nuances to it all and a lawyer or good accountant could advise on best steps to take but the truth is, if a group of people wanted to meet formally and informally to share their faith and paid their own way doing it, the government doesn't want or need to know about it. Once a group of people "form and file" with an external licensing agent (IRS) they can accumulate and use tax free income and those giving the group money can deduct it from their taxes. But there''s no need to do any of that to read the Bible, study it, teach it and conduct activities around a shared common interest. Compare a small group of Christian believers to say, the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts can be tax exempt, and are asked to file now using a 990-N form. But a group of families don't need to be tax exempt to get together to camp, or learn carpentry skills or build go-karts and have picnics and sleep overs with the kids. The issue of "mammon" and serving God is huge - today many churches of all types would consider it persecution if their tax exemptions were threatened, I'm sure. The real question isn't why do they have it and who's being served by it - it's why do it at all? When a Church like The Way restricts it's members from giving anywhere else and penalizes them, socially or otherwise, if they do, is that really in the spirit of our laws, or the Bible's teaching for that matter? This is all so embedded in our country's religious culture it's difficult for people to see a way out. Which is exactly why as of 2020 I will be fully set up to receive any and all offerings from anyone, for anything they believe in, don't believe in or would like to consider either way, including money, precious metals, cars, recreational vehicles, homes, property or anything else you'd be blessed to share with someone who, like me - socks - could accept and use in a fashion that will reflect the appropriate "no strings attached or accepted" philosophy of giving. (For all who have recently left the Way and are still working out what it's like to decide what's funny or not for themselves, that last paragraph is meant to be a joke, comparing accepting money from those who....well, just give it a day or two and if it's not funny to you, it's not. Enjoy the rush of fresh air freedom brings!)

Yep. I would go with saying most churches today are a form of "religious business", and especially so for small, localized groups like The Way Nash, ie anything that calls itself a "ministry" or a fellowship and that then declares itself tax exempt. The Way was supposedly all about "the church in the home". There's no part of that which requires legal protections or definition. People meeting to do as they believe is correct, within the laws of the land - what's to declare to the government about? "God bless America" indeed. The Way Nash received "donations" from all over the country, from people meeting in their homes who basically felt they wished to give and support the work of a ministry they were being taught by. Big deal - right? Well, yes, since The Way had declared itself tax exempt it needed to answer to the government for those donations so as not to pay taxes on them as income. So being a tax exempt "church" actually required them to be as tied to governmental controls as if they were just licensed as a business, maybe even more so. Without being cynical or judgmental, I think it's just obvious and logical to recognize that when a Wafer group splits off from the main mother-ship and forms their own group and gets recognized as a "tax exempt church" the primary reason is so that money can be received to support the church operations and not get taxed. That's business. Non profit, charitable action can happen without forming a legal entity to do so. Jesus told His followers to give Caesar what he's got coming, and do the same with God. I might actually debate Him on the former, while accepting the latter, but that was His position and in many ways it makes sense. And arguably if Caesar had given a pass for traveling Rabbi's maybe He would have put in for it, being the Messiah and all though, I kind of doubt it. We do know what He said though and that He paid temple taxes. He also accepted financial support and had a close follower manage "the bag" accounts. (Who tragically but interestingly turned out to betray Him and got paid for doing so. ) In short, Jesus actually appeared to steer clear of "Imperial Entanglements" unless they came to Him for help, as did the soldier seeking help for his servant.

Hello BlueCord! Wikipedia may well be correct in their interpretation of their policy and guidelines. I've been through this ad nauseam in other unrelated areas of Wikipedia. I'm not sure I agree how they're describing their position but - well, take a look at a couple other entries for organizations that are very publicly labelled "cults" by many people including former members - Scientology's page opens with this line: Scientology is a body of religious beliefs and practices launched in May 1952 by American author L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86). LDS/Mormons open with this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), often informally known as the Mormon Church, is a nontrinitarian, Christian restorationist church that is considered by its members to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus Christ. Yet if we look up "Cult" on Wikipedia we read a very broad discussion of the topic that starts with this: And so on and so forth.... To your intent and point however, it could be appropriate to say something to the affect of the Way being considered a cult by many (for the following reasons)....etc. etc. Whether anyone believes that to be true or not, it has been a fairly consistent accusation historically since it's growth in the 70's and as such would simply be a statement of a significant fact reflecting a concern of society in regards to new religious "movements". So the logic is kind of like saying "John Lennon once said that he felt The Beatles were more popular then Jesus, given the reactions of their fans around the world to their music".....as opposed to saying "John Lennon said The Beatles were more popular than Jesus"......both statements are "true" but arguably the first statement gives more information. The Wikipedia page covers a great deal of information on The Way and in my opinion does a decent enough job - but you'll notice that while there's mention of Martindale's "sexual misconduct" and other issues, nothing's mentioned of that being an accusation made against his predecessor. VPW gets a pass on that - and that's buggy to me from a historical standpoint but - I get why that's probably the case, ashis accusations don't have any legal or formal record and Martindale's does....so a writer would be on safe ground to note LCM's history as it's a matter of court record, but VPW's problems with it such as they may have been - are not. Still and all it has become a very public part of the Way's history, of that there's no question. And while reading it I think there's a very telling few lines about the Way West and East, and the era of Jim Doop and Steve Heefner.....it's this part under the paragraph "The Way": "Some of the groups he met later incorporated as The Way East (based in Rye, New York) and The Way West (based in Mill Valley, California), groups that utilized Wierwille's PFAL class in their ministries.[10] Wierwille also recruited a number of new members on his trip, marking a period of large growth for his ministry. Wierwille later merged The Way East and The Way West into The Way Inc., now the Way International.[21][22]" That very succinctly describes what happened, and the results of what they're calling a "merge" indicates the intent of VPW to grow his ministry's assets into a larger organization. But calling it a merger is like calling a shi t storm a reason to buy more toilet paper. Clearly the writers of the Wiki page are giving VPW a pass and making the earlier history of the Way dust free, while lightly covering the later problems that more people alive now are likely to know about. Anyhoo - don't sweat it. Peace!!

This one?

Hmmm. no. I'm not kidding. Was I not clear enough? Let me try again, more seriously. "So is that correct - did LCM's legacy amount to "0" for EVERYone, whether they continue to maintain some, all or any part of what they were taught by The Way....?" I'm going to put your answer as a "Yes", my question/statement is true. So far everyone appears to agree. Thank you for your response, it's appreciated. If anyone reading disagrees or has other thoughts or perspectives please feel free to respond! Thanks!

Speaking of Refesteration and Revilery, here's a question fer y'all...lemme see if I can make this make sense...I was thinking about it after reading that one of the principles of the STFI/Truth of Tradition ministry had left and was teaching something radically different than what the group teaches. It made me wonder - would those who leave that group refer back to their roots and the points at which they left the herd by name and by date, for instance using the name of John Schoenheit or John Lynn or whomever....since they're branching off from a group that built their doctrinal platform by the hands of a few people, it would make sense if they did. It might also make sense for them to reach even further back or for that matter, to skip people altogether and just start from "scratch" so to speak, from "The Word" and not what their previous founders and bible-pounders taught. Or from some other point of reference that they consider important. Likewise, today there are groups, ministries, fellowships and otherswho are carrying forth the teachings of Dr. Wiewille, by name, both in part and whole. Refaced PFAL classes, reworked teachings and books, in whatever form, some people openly favor all or some part of "what they were taught" and are willing and ready to keep the candle burning for "What Doctor Taught".... But - I never hear of anyone referencing or building their platform from what Craig Martindale taught - and he redid the Way's "Foundational" series class....yet there seems to be a vast void of anyone who references him directly as "What Rev. Martindale Taught" or as a way of calling the fold together around something he taught in the past....it seems no one sees a point of his involvement as a milestone date or event in a positive way. And I could see why - I personally can't think of anything he did or said that's worth remembering, other than some personal communications I might have had with him, but nothing on a deeper scale. I was only involved for a short few years after he took over but others were on board with him for many years.... So is that correct - did LCM's legacy amount to "0" for EVERYone, whether they continue to maintain some, all or any part of what they were taught by The Way....? Your responses are welcome.

That's a good recap, DWBH, thank you. So much of what I've seen as well as heard from others says that the Moneyhands are a very damaged couple who are not interested in helping much less "restoring" anyone unless it serves their own purposes. Taxiperson, you're on the right track. Remember, in the "old" days everyone used to say that The Way was....Jesus Christ, and that we were followers of the Way, of Jesus Christ, not people. That has a practical application and requires you and I actually do it, and understand that Jesus Christ was and IS the Living Logos, and it is through that Word that we understand and have a perspective of God. God magnified "His Word" above His own name, which puts the Living Word as the thing that we must live to see and follow. Men and women will always want you to follow THEM, as an aid, a means to better do that....their "ministries", so called, if given by God are in SERVICE to God's people and will always magnify Jesus Christ, making His Way clearer. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word, indeed....and it's that "faith of Jesus Christ" which is complete and full and all that we need to rely on and identify with. Yes, thank God we have a written record to read and learn from - but we must always remember that the Way of Christ is straight, simple and easily intreated, not burdensome though we may choose to bear the burdens of others as Christ has our own - it's loving, forgiving and only requires that we subject ourselves to God's forgiveness, knowing that we need it - we need the broken ends of our lives brought that together and "restored" - so we can live for God. The Way was so subtle replacing the simplicity in Christ with the complexities of it's own religion, born out of The Way Corps program which ultimately drilled down into every fellowship The Way held for many years. Ultimately in order to be true to God, each person that came out of the Corps program had to divest it'self from the authority of The Way in order to make any use of what they'd learned. I for one did learn a great deal and I do not understate the value of the experiences I had, including of course the mistakes I myself made and those of others that affected me. It's far outweighed by what I gained. This in no way values bad over good, error over truth or ungodliness over true faith. However everything I am today is the sum total of what I have been and done up to this point, and it will never be the perfection that God promises through eternal life wholness, in Christ. Still I persist! There's really nothing else to do but that. PEACE!!

I fielded a couple questions recently on this group and their communications. I only know what I've seen online but note that it's Moynihan who says - 'nothing happens without leadership, and when we have great leadership things happen greatly'.... Given the last few decades and what they've being doing, I'd have to agree - it appears obvious that In the absence of anything close to "great" leadership in the Way ... nothing great has happened for many many years, unless you count leaving being great. In which case, now that they've left, perhaps...."great leadership"....might develop? I won't develop that idea further but this is why you can't trust what so many people say. They just don't really think about what they're saying but sometimes the truth comes out anyway... Also the woman who emphasizes that the 'self governing, self propagating' aspect of the home fellowship has been "slowly taken away" is showing how blind they really are and have been. It was not slow, and for practical purposes once the 'Way Tree' was installed as a functional organizational tool that's been gone, going back to the early 70's. I would say that since Dr. Wierwille really hit the road looking to promote his newly filmed PFAL class, the organizational model of close corporate level control over everything has been in place. Certainly since the late 70's it's been impossible for any smaller ministry units like "twigs" to be truly self governing unless it's in strict "cooperation with the next higher level" of leadership. It wasn't slow by these peoples' timeline, some of them didn't even know about the Way until the 80's......edits were made to the pamphlet "First Century Church in the Twentieth" when it it went into the New Dynamic Church "The Green Book" that left out key parts of the early Acts model of growth. All classes related to the "Way Tree" and ministry outreach hammered the point of maintaining accountability to what the New Knoxville "leadership" said and did at "The Root". Allegiance to the "man of God" was promoted and the idea that you HAD to stand with him and the Way to be a "true believer" became essential long before Craig got a hold of it. (that's why Craig was able to step so easily into being a self serving Hitleresque President, the frame work already existed to keep all control within the BOT's, he just exercised it to a greater degree across all parts of the Way. ) Likewise for years and years there was a growing development of process and procedure for local fellowships to support the Way Nash by giving TO them and supporting them in all ways but little to no development of process and procedure for the Way Nash Trunk/Root level organizations BACK to support local fellowships - except in products and merchandise. The products of the ministry were books, classes, tapes and visits and assignment of Way leaders and teachers to live in areas where the ministry had work. But there was no real tangible connection to allow for the local expanding churches/twigs in a state to have autonomy amongst themselves. Everyone followed the same ministry calendar of events, parallel classes and concurrent meetings, plus attendance at all larger state and multi state meetings, reviews f the Way Magazine being done week after week, the SNS teachings being reviewed in twigs week after week - the only way or reason a local fellowship coordinator could be assured of exercising self governance was to just not tell his "next higher" level of leadership, to hide it. Which oddly was something even Dr. Wierwille advised regarding certain things....! Slowly taken away, indeed...............ah, kids, lotta things, but you gotta see it in the original to really appreciate it. It was hardly "slow" - it was actually rather quick, starting in about 1971 and moving forward from there.

Yes, that's it! A very bizarre flick, and at 11 years old, seemed kinda kinky. Wacky! AOS - We drove up with another couple for the premiere weekend showing. Stayed a night, and were back home Monday. We all discussed it for a long time on the way home - and remember we were broadly pro-the-ministry, and weren't looking to trash it. I had friends involved, and really really wanted to like it, to learn something from it, to be encouraged the Ministry was moving in a healthy direction that we could all grow with. Plus this was seeing our new Pres Craig in action and saw it to be something of a harbinger of his future. Buuuuuuuuuuut...outside of the dancers trying to do their best I thought it was a terrible production. It had no natural rhythm or flow that carried the viewer, no real story being told, no narrative quality, texture. Considering I was very well schooled in what they were trying to communicate I felt I knew less about the topic after seeing the production - seriously, the imagery was, to put it into a word, "corny" and took away from the realities being referred to. It removed all sense of horror from the reality of a rebellious adversary working contrary to God the Creator's will. It made it seem like an academic exercise - given Craig's failure and that he was about to have his defeated "Adversary" tying a plastic bag around his head while being drug into quicksand, he was being cavalier at an almost Shakespearean level. In the Way we were taught to see God as the sum of the things He does for us. We lost the magnitude of His glory, the breadth of His will as Creator by reducing it to words and definitions we could parse. We knew the greek nuances of the words that told us that God was beyond our highest perceptions but ignored what that meant and how it might affect our actions and attitudes. AOS was a perfect example of Craig's "flat earth" view of spirituality. Lacking grandeur and scope, but struggling with every wiggling drop of sweat to communicate. Anyway, I'd never show that to anyone. We never watched it back home in our fellowship. It eventually was shown locally buuuuuuuuut I barely remembered it. There was an incident on the road trip home from Ohio that has lived on our memories as one of the more hilarious travel stories we accumulated but that's another story. Anyway. Yeah.

To add: I'm sure there was but it doesn't ring any bells. It likely ran around 2 am, right after the "Shepherds Chapel" and the Bahai Events Calendar for that month.

When I was a kid going to Cat'lic school, we used to get summer Movie passes to a local theater, and it included weekly cheep matinee showings. Sold a lot of popcorn and soda, I'm sure. They would show all kinds of fringe stuff in the matinees with an emphasis on cheesy horror and sci-fi flicks. (back when there were 2 movies plus cartoons and news reels) There was a movie I saw then that I would bet you've heard of - "The Mask". It wasn't the Jim Carey movie but the plot was somewhat similar - there was this African witch doctor kind of mask that would give the person wearing it wild hallucinations, visions of alternate dimensions which of course had a scattering of weird looking women in tights and tattered colored clothing, dancing around being menacing - I don't remember all the details but I've never seen it shown anywhere since then. It was so odd - it could have been an early reference to the coming DMT and LSD movements. It was in 1961 or so I saw it, and it's now available through some streaming services. Anyway - I wonder if anyone else has ever seen it? AOS and all the undulating dancing "spirits" reminded me of that movie's look and feel when it goes into the hallucination sequences when the person wears the mask. So few have ever seen that movie it barely qualifies for cult classic status but it's really a fringe-gem. Anyway, figured you might like to know, if you haven't seen it, might be worth a shot.

Speaking of that tune.....I re read Craig's July 1994 letter to the Corps covering the current status of his "Homo Purge". In it he added a PS that is really a commentary on his entire future as Pres' of the Way. I wasn't involved in the Way at that time, wasn't getting corps-espondence or Happy Ho Ho' Holiday cards, so I only saw this later as it was shared by others. It went out that year a month before the August Corps Week and ROA, I'm not even entirely sure if there was even one that year but it sounds like he was gearing up for a real rip roaring time in the tents that year if there was. Anyway - he notes early in that letter about VPW's "older standard" he had taught of dismissing anyone who was "caught in the act" of - well, I guess "being homo". Craig says they can no longer "wait" for that kind of thing. (I picture him pacing and fidgeting day after day at his desk, "did you get 'em?? did you see 'em?? No??!! Keep at it, we have to catch them IN THE ACT!! and GET PICTURES!) ....He ramps it down to "genuine spiritual suspicion" guiding the noses of those in "leadership"... ( I really struggle even writing that word in regards to the hose-pumps that ran the Way at that time, so I get where he's going with his sense of disgust). So the ethical rubber met the road in VPW's time only if you got caught breaking a fundamental rule of his organization. Craig is clarifying that back in the day he understood that whatever you could get away with was okay by VPW. Just keep it down, manage your stuff, take care o' business and have a nice day. He might not like it, it might not even be "off the Word" but hey. So Craig wanted everyone to get out their genuine suspect-acles and eyeball everyone for homo-nistic influences. I shudder at that thought - no unnecessary offense is intended to anyone including myself but the Way had a lot of people in the Corps who couldn't tie their shoes if they didn't have someone to tell them why and then had practiced doing it a lot...I'm not trying to be mean but it's the truth...plus a growing percentage of the "leadership" at the Way by that time were those who were too corrupt to pass up the emerging opportunities it's failure was offering...Yikes!! Knowing now that Craig was looking down the lane at a sh it storm of biblical proportion his PS to close that letter is telling - it read: "Howard Allen said quite a thing to me by way of a note the other days, when he said that he never saw Dr. Wierwille work as hard as I do to keep the household clean...." and he closed it by saying "so either get on or get scared to death and get out." Of course he didn't - why do you think that was, genius! Craig was so busy busting other people from his elevated perch of judgment that he couldn't see the irony of a man who enjoyed the privacy of his own sexual activities looking under every rock to smoke out the activities of others. Kinda bad form as that kind of thing goes, you'd think. "No honor amongst those thieves" to be sure.

Hi WW. I think we can say that no, VPW did not cite his sources in a consistent, professional or scholarly way that would allow a reader of most of his work to track it. I used those three words deliberately - there are some references here and there but there is a notable absence of him foot noting sections of what he published under his name that were clearly and closely identical to other work of other writers and doing it consistently or in such a way that it would be on record. Nor did he observe professional and legal best practices in that area, nor educational standards. He did talk about them, at times. He referenced Bullinger, Leonard, etc. etc. but never in a way that credited them, nearly always making note that they had all somehow stepped into error at some point or stopped "believing" God at His Word. I think one of the likeliest reasons he did that was to support his claim that God would teach him like no other since etc. if he would teach that to others. If he referenced huge chunks of his ideas and language used to express them to others having it first it would erode that claim. The best thing he could have done was invite all critics including those he quoted, to question and negate his work if they so desired and then let the pieces fly as they might. That would have suited his two-fisted mans-man motorcycle riding personae he promoted. Instead he talked about it in ways that allowed him to "credit" them while making sure the listener understood they were not fit to judge his ultimate use of their words. Matthew 5 – "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." "Honesty" is a moving target for a lot of people. In the Way it's reserved for "the truth of God's Word". Everything else to them is a "fact", unreliable and invalid. Facts are ignored and replaced by "what's the Word say?"....and of course the Word says to be honest and truthful in regards to our "facts". Jesus taught His followers to pursue honesty through clarity and performance. Say what you mean, mean it and do your best to do it. We're not going to perform a 100 per cent of that all the time, we know that, but any effort to redefine that blurs the reality Jesus led us to.

I'd taken PFAL in 1969 (or late '68, sometime around that time frame) I didn't vote in the survey. I can't say how well I "know" the book. I doubt I could pass a test on any but the most obvious references. I knew Elena W and thought she was a sweet person, kind and thoughtful. I just don't remember much about the book other than it was about the Way, and covered a relatively short period of time. It's been so many years I honestly don't remember any details. I know it meant a lot to a lot of people at the time but I never really felt like it represented "me" or my thoughts and impressions, wholly and to the point I'd say here, read this, it tells our story. I don't mean that as a criticism or as praise, it's just how It seems to sit on that shelf of my memory.

Old news story, see below for an old news clarification. https://www.christianpost.com/news/brian-houston-hillsong-youth-pastor-naked-cowboy-nyc-church-164824/

Interesting topic, mrap. Not new but I'll give you my 'pinion. For the sake of this discussion I'm only including 2nd generation Off shoots, started by those directly taught by Dr. Wierwille. I'm not familiar with 3rd and further out although I'd say that for better or worse they seem to digress so far from his direct influence that it's no longer a viable comparison. There's a lot of that in the earlier generations too though, like John Lynn, who has deviated so far from the basics of PFAL that he's not a reasonable comparison (despite the fact he assures his followers that Dr. Wierwille would be "pleased" by his work, nothing would be further from the truth I'm sure)...so in reality he's a perfect example of the need to be cautious since he's a textbook example of someone directly taught by Dr. Wierwille who's reinvented both history and teaching to equal a new thing. I might say he's either a pathological liar or extremely mentally damaged. Perhaps he's just a well meaning do-gooder. Whatever the case a person would be advised to evaluate him as a person and by his actions when considering if what he says is true or not and even more importantly to know how to accept him as a member of the Church - I for one would give him all the love and forgiveness accorded me by God through Christ, but would never put him in the position of being a Teacher. It would be unfair to his well being and potentially others. But this isn't about him specifically although he comes to mind because he's currently recovering from illness and had had so many ups and downs and a range of experiences in his lifetime. To a great degree you have to consider the character and conduct of an individual when you evaluate their work. Some Christians over emphasize that, others under. I'd contend that behaviors and conduct and the resulting characterization of the individual drawn by their actions is important and should be factored in at this front end when considering whatever it is a person does or says. Mathew 7: 15-20 - Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Deut. 18:22 - When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. Matthew infers intent - outwardly they act like sheep but their intentions are those of ferocious wolves. How do I find that out? By their actions. If we are comparing a fruit bearing tree then Jesus is saying that a bad tree won't yield good fruit. Ultimately they'll be cut down and removed. So he wants us to look at the tree, the person, and see what fruit it bears, what are the products of what it does, what it brings forth? Then judge by that - which you can do because the judgment is really already made and you only have to recognized it. Today Christian thinking accepts our lives of growth as manifestations of God's grace and mercy, without which we'd be condemned. So we see each other do good things, bad things, and we are compelled to forgive as we have been forgiven, and deal with grace and forgiveness with others. How much? Jesus said - a lot. 70 X 7. As many times as it takes. Does that then mean that when a person, a brother or sister in Christ teaches in God's name in error or in pride or for self serving reasons, that I am to forgive and accept them? The New Testament covers that too - all can be forgiven but not all are to be given freedom and access within the Church to speak for and on behalf of God. Deuteronomy speaks to that, the prophet who does not speak for God. The NT says to speak directly to each other, confront, include others, don't accept second hand information or rumors, don't promote gossip, require witnesses, multiple witnesses and proofs - why? To waste time? Be nice? No. To be sure you're right and that both they and those affected have the best opportunity to understand what's going on and how to correct it. Paul encouraged Timothy to watch out for Alexander the coppersmith because he did Paul "much harm". Paul also warned about those who would try to sneak in and defraud the church. Why, so they could defraud them? No, so they could collectively avoid being harmed. Paul also instructed Timothy what to look for in church leaders, the elders, deacons, over seers, "servants" of the Lord of God's people....he said look for honest people, men who are spoken well of, who have good reputations, who care for their families, work care for the needs of the church, who have some maturity in the faith. Basically he wants honest, reasonable people who are faithful to the church and who don't lie, cheat, steal or have ongoing problems with things like that. It's impossible to evaluate the teaching without evaluating the teachers. A person may be teaching something completely correct, biblically accurate, but not be living by the biblical teachings themselves. Worse yet, they can be lying about it, creating chaos in the church over it, hurting others without concern if they disagree with them and worse yet stuck, expecting to have their words honored over their actions - which is counter-Christianity. That's anti-Christian, it's the opposite of what Christ did or taught or what anyone who suggests their mature enough to teach "God's Word" on His behalf should be exemplifying. In order to do what the Bible teaches us to do there has to be discussion and communication between people. Will it all be right, good, even useful? Of course not. But if no one tries, no one talks, no one will know. When the news is good, we speak it. When it's not - do we ignore it? Reinvent it, translate it into something that sounds better? The Church isn't someone's personal organization that they run and manage as they see fit - its a newly minted reality where all are brought together in unity through Christ, and God fills us all through Christ. Notice how evil tries to segment and silence the individual, prevents inquiry, refuses to accept criticism, denies responsibility, blames others, prefers a vacuum. That's not the Body of Christ, the "Mystery" in living action, where each individual has God working and willing in them to both have the will and the desire to do as God wishes. Trash talk gets old and endless rounds of gossip damaging and hurtful. But if the Church doesn't make some effort to protect and warn itself and others - Who will?

I've seen how some of them re invent their resumes for the benefit of employers who don't understand that "spiritual perception and awareness" is a really valuable skill. I'd love to hear their answers to interview questions like "what do you think your greatest weakness is?"....how do you make "I can be a hateful lying bastard if I don't like you or I think you've done something to question my authority" sound good? I lost track of what they Way offered as training. Back in my day it was Howard Allen or Harry Wierwille going on about keeping a ledger, writing lists, saving money, that kind of stuff. I learned some practical things that I was able to use later, but if I hadn't continued my education I'd be seriously ham strung. Public speaking and life coaching is big amongst ex-Wayfers from what I see - but unless someone has some real experience and a thick resume why would you want them teaching you that stuff? Anyhoo.

Thanks. If I may, I'm going to string together some thoughts I've had about that, not new by any means. Retirement may very well have been what caused this latest diaspora. That idea has been in the seeds of the Wheaties many of us were eating when we left years ago. At the core of any issues the Way has is how they view authority and make decisions. "Spiritual" leadership trumps everything else for them - common sense, practical issues, planning, a "multitude of counsel". Nothing spells really spirituality for them like going against the grain. It's in the DNA there. Even though they believe this "world is not my home, I'm just a - passing through", they work 24x7 non stop to earn their rewards. Once they convince someone that 1. their immediate well being depends on them doing what they tell them and 2. their eternal future "rewards" are at stake too....they're pretty much in their pocket. Organizationally, a single person can drive the whole thing into an iceberg and then blame everyone else from their lifeboat as the whole thing sinks. They think that's the right way to work, to run a business like the Way, to manage people, etc. etc. It does take a certain kind of person to embrace being right all the time and the burdens that comes with that. Someone else always has to be wrong, but it's never personal. It's just business. So odds are that at some point any one person is going to be in conflict with the decisions of the organization and will be unable to affect the outcome, let alone change the decision. Everyone in the Way has reveled in how smart they are, how much better they live with the "accuracy and integrity of God's Word" that they and they alone have. Yet they live like weasels fighting over the same garbage can, year after year. It speaks for itself, really.

Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Faith in God and Jesus Christ is the Way to go, annio, and your personal realization of that is real and profound. Savor it. Own it! It's yours. Sometimes the work we need to do most is to remove the barriers we and others put up that obscure the path we're to follow, the Way of Jesus Christ our Savior. The good news is that God draws us all to Himself through Christ. The change you seek can only be good. I heard something last week that's stuck with me and I'll share it with you - it was the statement that "to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe that you're forgiven"....that the fundamental foundational thing that God wants us to do is to come to Christ and know that forgiveness, His grace and mercy, that finally we are at peace with Him by doing nothing more than accepting the peace He offers directly to us. I've been thinking about that this week when I pray and it feels...."good". Really good. All the best to you - there's a song by a band named Dawes, titled "A Little Bit of Everything" and the final verse captures another idea I'd share with you and that is to enjoy the life God has given you! Every bit of it, to it's fullest. I believe we witness to God's magnificence as Creator when we make everything we can of the life he's given us. Peace! "All these psychics and these doctorsThey're all right and they're all wrong.It's like trying to make out every wordWhen they should simply hum along.It's not some message written in the darkOr some truth that no one's seenIt's just a little bit of everything." (Taylor Goldsmith)

Back there in the back back, the question about 'all men being liars' and if Jesus Christ was a man did He lie.... It is an excellent question! and one that allows vigorous discussion, discussion that ultimately leads to a greater appreciation for who and what Jesus Christ was and is. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he decided not to lie but decided to tell the truth. One could probably say it would be against his "nature", abnormal. (Example - I love my wife. I have never once in the 50 years I've known here said anything to anyone else about her that is critical or negative, and I have literally never whined over a beer with a buddy about how lousy she treats me. Why? First, she doesn't treat me lousy, second I don't have lingering negative feelings about her and lastly I would never go to someone else and tell them something we hadn't already worked out, because - I just wouldn't do that and have never had to do that. It's against the nature of our relationship and how I think about her. So it's a choice but it's not a difficult one to make. I just don't do it. Other things, not so much, so I'm not perfect in this regard by even the slightest bit but in regards to this I don't think of it as perfection I think of it as natural. I see Jesus, the Son of God, as having God's intentions and thoughts, His "will", foremost in his natural inclinations.) So - for a baseline, let's consider two verses we've all probably heard in relation to this and if not here 'tis: Numbers 23:19 - God is not a man that he should lie, neither the son of man that he should repent: hath he said and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken and shall he not make it good? And Psalm 116:11 - I said in my terror all men are liars. And to expand the topic a little Matthew 5: 33-37 - Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 4 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. So - if Jesus was a man, part of humanity and with the faculties and capacities of humanity he clearly had the human faculty to, if not the capacity, to "Lie" and I would extend that to mean something different than telling someone their horrible haircut looked fine, or that Martha's lentil soup tasted good when it didn't. If Jesus dealt with his family and friends in the order of life and it's affairs to any degree I could probably assume that while he didn't get too wrapped up in things outside of his scope and interest he probably developed social skills to maintain a gracious presence in all his relationships. That's a guess, but it's arguable. On matters relating to God and our relationship with God Jesus was more specific - as in making oaths - don't use the values of things outside your range of authority like "by God I'll be there no matter what", or "as heaven and earth stand today, I will pay you back tomorrow" or such things. Just say what you mean and then do it, don't promise, as any number of things can, might and will change whatever it is you're swearing to do or be. Yes/No, and go with that. To me the answer is simple, if it's true that Jesus didn't lie it's true because he chose not to. A good example is the series of questions asked him in the desert after his fasting, in Matthew 4. We begin to see in the life of Jesus a different frame of reference than whether he would lie or not. We can examine this scenario in light of his humanity since the questions address things that he could choose how to respond and he didn't actually answer them all directly - And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. He didn't answer no I can't or yes I can to provide proof of who He was, rather he answered by saying it was not most important. In fact for all three "temptations" he didn't argue whether he was able to do them, rather he placed them in a different or correct context. Imagine if he had said well, I could get angels to help me sure, but that wouldn't be profitable, as angels have better things to do. No, they do, you know that, I'm not going to waste God's time or theirs or - no, I'm sure they would if I asked but...." etc. etc. etc. Another place it says the people were amazed when he spoke to them with "authority" rather than like the teachers they were used to hearing. Like the time the man asked him to settle an inheritance squabble and Jesus told he wasn't a judge over him in those matters....who wouldn't want Jesus settling whether or not you get the vacation home or the dog house, in the will? He stayed out of it - "not my job, sorry". Anyhoo - did Jesus lie? No. Why? Because he chose not to. How did he accomplish that is another question really, but given that he was the Son of God, sent forth as the Living Logos and fathered by the Creator whatever genetics produced him were above average it would seem. It's not a case for having an "Uber Jesus-Man" like Martindale created to get Jesus down to his level, rather Jesus was literally "the son of God". And the bloodline of Adam is a non issue in this question IMO, as all men were under the "curse" at that time, and while you had a "believers line", it didn't endow any of those people with the ability to not be in sin and subject to the fruit of sin, death. All mankind was then born of a "human nature" that would ultimately die if not reborn as we see later, through Christ. David states this in - Psalm 51:5 - Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me... Romans 5:12 - Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned... Romans 3:23 - for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... And of course 1 Cor. 15:45 - "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. Peace, beautiful people!

Hi folks greeting Twinkster et al. Of things related to King David, Mrs Bathshebah and her sadly deceased husband Uriah - There's a few things askew in the PFAL representation of the story as well as how others have related it's implications later.... 1. The record itself says nothing to make us think there was some form of kingly rights to unmarried or virgin women, and of course nothing like that covering married women. Doesn't mean it wasn't so, it does sound like the kind of thing a male ruler might come up with but I don't really see it in the Bible and history around a "David" is kind of scant, so.... 2. This is easily seen in the way David is written to have handled his hots for Mrs B - it was all clandestine, and handled behind her husband's back and in such a way that he ultimately was killed. So of course, there's no open law that David's invoking otherwise he wouldn't have had to hide it. 3. Nothing in the Torah says anything about special dispensation for any "king" in this area. There is that law about not coveting your neighbor's wife or any of his stuff though, so there's that. 4. When VP teaches this he did IMO speak as if it was some kind of understood law of the land at that time, but I'd agree that he could have just as easily been pontificating about the general idea that sure, David was king and could basically abuse his authority in any way he wanted since he was the ruler. As a teacher myself of that record over the years I have never taught it that way myself. If you're a proponent of reading what's written, there's no need to cover that because it's not written into the record. Rather, it's written into the record that this was a "crime of passion", and David fell victim to his own lusts. 5. Nathan reacts that way to David's authority later when instructed to go reprove David - if David get's pissed at him it could be lights out. Which is a very interesting aspect to Nathan's "conversation" with God to say the least. 6. I never once thought of anything in the record or in the way VP taught it in PFAL to be an indication that what he was describing as David's behavior was somehow an indicator of how a leader of any kind today could act. It doesn't make sense and wouldn't have made sense at the time - the entire record indicates that at that point the character David was F'ING UP ROYALLY and about to bring death on Uriah and his own family as well as the nation he governed. Or as the Bible says - "But the thing David had done displeased the Lord". Why or how could anyone think that's a good thing? In the time I heard, saw, knew and worked with and around VP from 1969 through his death I never heard him teach this subject matter as a means of saying that he himself somehow might have - what? - access to all the unmarried women of the Way because David did, or something akin to that. I never heard that connection made by him. I've never really understood how this connection's been made - maybe others did hear him talk about it or they heard the teaching and figured it somehow sounded like a good idea or something. I don't know. Have fun peeps!!! Stay frosty!!

Had to say in passing one more thing - after all these years and tears, these R and R people ("rest and relaxation"?) are being said to have "noticed" and "seen" some things that were wrong. It sounds so normal - like "I went outside and noticed that the air was a tad chilly." But under these circumstances saying they "noticed" something wrong is like saying they went outside and "noticed" the snow was piled 3 feet high in the streets and it was so cold their breath froze....and as if it had just happened and was such a surprise! Or like saying...the people in Houston "noticed it was raining and decided to call it Hurricane Harvey". When I saw the video of those people going on about how what they had "seen" was so wrong, I LOL'd. Really, I don't usually LOL like that but that day I did, and I went to my study (AKA "The Garage Shoppe") and laughed even more, upon reflection. Why did you LOL so, socks? you might ask. Well - read on. The Way's been in a rag tag dyslexic nose dive for decades. Then this. Lurking below the exodus and the bladdy-blah the question wafts by.... What was it that really sparked the exodus? I'll stop, with that question and call it a year. But for those of us who have seen and heard this merry-go-round going round and round so many times over the years we know there's usually something going on a little deeper down that not everyone knows yet. Something that made it personal.....finally. Peace!!! See you round!

Howdy Penworks! DWB, thanks and much the same to you, appreciate your insight, as the years pass.