TLC

Anyone care to say what they think or believe about this? Maybe it's thought to be a trick question of some kind. But the only "trick" in it is to help illustrate the differences some of us probably have (or had) in mind about what these "gifts" are (or, if you prefer, were.)

For instance... When is one (any) of these "gifts" given or received? The difference in answers that can, are, and were thought to be correct are... well, rather varied, to say the least. Why so much variance? Probably because it leaves open both what is given, and to whom. And if the significance of who it is given to is missed, overlooked, or otherwise diminished, for the life of me I don't know how you get what is given right (much less when it is given or received)...

I'd agree, as it could make for a more interesting discussion... but I would have been more hesitant to bring DWBH's background into the picture. (Or maybe not... I dunno.) I don't doubt that there are (and most certainly were back in the first century) a lot of reasons for some more than others to discredit much of what Paul wrote. (Especially given what's written in Rom.11:25.) Paul's gospel different from the gospel message of Jesus Christ? It sure as shoot was (and is.) Think vpw and/or twi made a clear distinction between them? Nope. It was only when and where he/they wanted to. Which (unfortunately) resulted in HUGE problems, both doctrinally and in practice.

Then I take it you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews? (a reference to it may surface later.) I presume you meant to say that it wasn't a part of it. I've sorta gathered that already from things you posted elsewhere on GSC. (Not that I agree with it, by any means.) But thank you for clarifying the perspective you're viewing it from. So are you saying that you're going to pigeonhole everyone viewing it from the perspective of what's written in Romans-Philemon (and possibly Hebrews) as being some carnally minded "I'm of Paul" Christian? Or does a "Pauline Christian" imply or mean something else?

Fundamentally, it seems to me that there is a serious issue of misunderstanding what these "gifts" are and/or aren't. And, I'll also make note of the fact that not everyone in twi, and more specifically, the wc, necessarily agreed and had a "unanimous understanding" in regards to this subject. So, there's a certain degree of caution that ought to be exercised when or if saying "this is what twi or vpw" taught or said it was. I say this, namely because it was evident to me many years ago (before 1980) that I held a different view on certain of these things. However, that said, perhaps there was a more commonly accepted understanding (or perhaps, a misunderstanding) that deserves some kind of notation. More on this later...

Thanks for your post, DWBH, as it brings up a number of points that probably merits further consideration (and more than I am likely to have time for in a short post or two.) In regards to this "singular mistake" (concerning gift ministries), I have to disagree that it was based ONLY on Pauline writings, or that "the entire understanding of the new birth, church polity and liturgy that twit espoused was Pauline." Rather, I see a majority of the problems stemming precisely from the failure to do this. And if no one objects (as it would undoubtedly require noting variances in practice from what is written in scripture), I am inclined towards addressing this in a later post (that I can give a bit more time and thought to.)

I suspect that it's probably easier to notice gift ministries in operation when no titles whatsoever are/were involved. Why? Well, for no other reason than you just aren't looking for or expecting it until it hits you in the face (as it appears to be almost so effortless, there's practially no other explanation for it.) Good luck tryin' to analyze my previous statement with scripture. Does that automatically mean or imply that what I said is wrong? Shoot, I think you can see or find darn near anything on the Internet nowadays. (Or so it seems.) True. But perhaps they are just not understood as well as well as they could or should be. And, I don't see much in your post that is an actual response to (or comment on) this post:

You've gone completely bonkers on us, teach. I'm casting a vote for DWBH's post:

So 7, 8, or 9 is supposed to be okay, but not 1 through 6? why the "break" between 6 and 7? What's the difference? And why think that anyone 6 or less should or would talk to you offline?

It's not a personal beef, nor am I offended by you. Sorry if takes the wind out of your sails, but I actually don't care. It was a very simple and straightforward question that was stirred up because of your statement that you made concerning "the rest of the corp and HQ folks [you] encountered in that time era" (other than two possible exceptions) being "rather authoritarian and cut from the same mold." I presume "that time era" that you are addressing is circa late 70's - early eighties, right? (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong.) I also happen to know just a bit about the corps and staff at HQ during that same time era. I also happen to know just a bit about why people commonly chose to like, listen to, or cater to certain people over other people there. For you to make the comment that you did, is a strong indication to me of what sort of people you probably noticed and/or gave heed to, and those that you (in your own words) plainly didn't. So, I sorta wondered whether you would be honest enough, that when asked, would admit to or acknowledge any possibility of your own "less observant" (to say it kindly) state of mind back then. Evidently not.

Not so. Perhaps you've never been deceived. Or, maybe you just haven't yet figured out that you have been. (or, maybe you've learned more in the nearly 9 years since this was posted...)

Probably off topic, but I'll risk posting it anyways. I don't believe that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil resulted in man becoming like God. (That was a lie, much like "thou shalt not surely die.") As far as what was written in the stars, maybe it was more like a road map... not necessarily dictating the exact path man would go, but there to guide him in the right direction no matter what pit or hole he might encounter or fall into. What you see or get from it largely depends upon what enlightens it or what perspective you view it from. Which is perhaps not unlike much of scripture, as well as many other things we cross paths with in life (including TWI.)

heck, I thought he was rather polite about it (compared to some other rips...)

After reading that comment, I've a question to ask you, MRAP. (That is, if you dare give it some thought, or can be honest enough in your answer.) Do you really think you could or would have given any real thought or attention (much less the time of day) to any corps or HQ folks back then that weren't in front of a podium, didn't have a "rev" in front of their nametag, or weren't otherwise associated with some kind of soapbox or pedestal?

Why not take some initiative to Google Earth it and just count 'em? I'll even give you a shove in right direction: 40°28'26.85" N 84°19'37.50" W

This sounds simple enough, but it may not be complete or sufficient enough. I realize that some here (perhaps many, or even most) don't seem to give much credence to the dispensationalists viewpoint, but it does allows for certain differences in apostles if there were difference in "the doctrine" they were sent to reveal. Paul plainly identifies himself as "the apostle" to us Gentiles (Rom.11:3), and proclaims (in 1Cor.3:10) that "as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon." Yet, Eph.2:20 says what (at least some) other apostles and prophets have done (or do?) is included in "the foundation of the apostles and prophets." So, is anything built upon "the foundation" thought to somehow still be a part of the foundation, or is the foundation that Paul laid only a part of the foundation... as in, a different section or part of the house? (feel free to add comments or weigh in on it.) Not only is the most excellent way, perhaps it is the only sensible way.

The short version of it is that I think your recount of the situation, the loss of 501©3, and (coverup) reason for the meeting that never was appears to be correct. (I guess H.E.'s two sets of books (and I'm not referring to double entry accounting) might have been put to a real use after all, eh?) However, rest assured that what I mentioned wasn't mere scuttlebutt from corpse kids - none of which existed at the time (excepting LMcD's), unless you're labeling all "lessor informed" corps as such - or staff who wanted to be "in-the-know." I'm inclined to think that in all likelyhood, it originated with and was perpetrated by one or more of the trustees. (As mentioned previously, it may have been overheard in the EOB building.) I could be wrong, but for some reason I though most of the Krugerands were sold a few years afterward (though, believe it or not, some of us still own them...) As for the "marked for encampment" comment, the thought seems to be less clear, but it was possibly before your entry to 4th wc, in some small, non-public meeting with vp (undoubtedly a result of some of the buy in to that JBS shinola.) Well, as already noted... way, way too much "secret stuff" to make any sense. edited note: the "still owned" K's were not a part of TWI's stash.

Given that it was only (more or less... and evidently, much less than previously thought) rumored, there's nothing to indicate that it was anything more than that.

No, not like that at all, really.

Well, probably stuff from before 77. Some things are just hard to pinpoint an exact time or place for. Might have been rumors in the EOB building. So many "secret things," it's really hard to get anyone to remember, much less keep track of them all. But I suspect very little of it didn't start with vpw, as some of the JBS stuff must have worked its way into his thinking by 73, or 72.

All of the Corps ("they" had our names already - supposedly) were earmarked for concentration camps.

So, you didn't hear and weren't privy to the "too many key people" (of those that were heading up the takeover) suddenly died, and that's why it didn't happen?

Well, I'm more specifically referring to the event of 40 years ago.

Speaking of conspiracy theories and the John Birch Society, I'm curious is anyone (perhaps DWBH has some untold insight into this question) happens to know the specifics of who all might have "suddenly passed away" after "the meeting that wasn't" in the spring of '76. After all, that was the reason touted as to why none of the dire prospects for our country came to pass (being a result of our combined efforts of prayer and believing)... Just wondering if there was any basis whatsoever as to why the "get ready for it" never happened

If that first part of that's true, then I suppose you should vote for Hillary.