Charity

Thanks Rocky. As I said last night, I knew right after I sent that reply to Mike that I had wasted my time and words, in other words casting pearls before swine. I thought it better to let him live on his own little island with his beloved collaterals than engaging with him any more. I even wondered why he bothers to post on GSC for the same reason - he's wasting his time and words. However, after reading the posts this morning to Mike from you, WordWolf and OldSkool, I fully understand what you mean when you say Mike is hijacking "threads for a purpose diametrically opposed to the website's purpose." It's so he can still promote twi and pfal which is why people have to then confront and correct his false and evasive posts so no one will fall for them. I also can see the ploy he uses by "agreeing" with some things on GSC and saying how he sincerely wants twi to change in these areas (with his help of course) when what he really wants to do is keep a foot in the door so he can continue his spiel.

Thanks for your reply Mike. I did an online jigsaw puzzle after my last post and I was thinking all the while that your reply would basically be what you said in your last 2 paragraphs. I see, therefore, that no more discussions with you are needed when it comes to the collaterals as you believe they are inherently perfect. That only leaves you with the knowledge that "many of the practices and traditions and teachings of all the TWI administrations have inherent human problems" which you admit are difficult to change. You have decided on your course of action as to how you can perhaps help these changes happen and in the meantime, you are happy with what local fellowship you have now. So again, I see no further need for discussion on these matters with you. Let me know, however, if there are any real changes at HQ. God bless you Mike.

Mike, I cannot see this ever happening because of the corrupted ministry traditions, practices and doctrines which continue to this very day. It are these things that cause TEMPORARILY new students to "morph into permanent ones." This belief is based on my experiences in and knowledge about twi. 1. There was harsh judgment and subsequent consequences for anyone who questioned what twi taught. Why do you think "after still more time" in the ministry, so many people did not see or if they did see, did not stand up and speak about the error in twi's "Great Principle?" It actually took people leaving twi before they could openly question, discuss and realize the inaccuracy in this or any other doctrine. 2. You wrote, "After a short time, the new student can learn to use the collaterals for herself to see the Epistles and the rest of the Word." Okay, now the new student no longer needs to be spoon fed pfal by teachers, but she still has to use the pfal callaterals if she wants to see the Epistles and the rest of the word for herself. In other words, the umbilical cord is still there. I'm not sure what "use the collaterals" even means, but almost everything new I learned throughout my years in twi was from their other classes, Sunday Night Service (SNS) tapes, the monthly way magazine and new book publications (all of which I had to pay for). BTW, isn't the current twi doing some type of the old "Word over the World (WOW)" ambassador program? I went wow "a short time" after taking the pfal class (about half a year later) because of the spiritual growth I was told I would experience. It's been almost 50 years since my year on the field, so I don't remember a lot of details, but what I do remember is that the year was basically based on pfal - living with other pfal grads and all of us witnessing and teaching from the collaterals and trying to put pfal classes together. Like I said: umbilical cord...still there. 3. You wrote, "Then, after still more time, any Bible version can be opened far from any collaterals, and the matured student receive nourishment. Mike, you know this is only allowed if this new "nourishment" agrees with twi's doctrines. If not, your leaders will not be happy campers. The first time I really studied something "far from any collaterals" by myself, it was about tithing. After 12 years, I dared to think of myself as "mature enough" to do this. The nourishment I did receive was to learn that the "law of tithing" doctrine in "Christians Should be Prosperous" was not only inaccurate but also detrimental (harmful, damaging, hurtful) to believer's financial, mental, emotional and spiritual well-being. Mike, I highly doubt that much has changed since my involvement in twi.

Thanks Bolshevik, I've been doing more thinking on this. According to John 16, Jesus is the "source of or behind" everything that the spirit of truth would say and do. This was the same deal with Jesus and his Father. Jesus, after he received the spirit of God when he was baptized, always said that everything he did and said was what his Father showed or told him to do and say. The point to this is that the focus is on the "source" from whom all knowledge and power originates. Now compare this to what the article found on twi's website (as shown on the first page of this thread) says. "The great principle (GP) we see from these verses is that God, Who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit. Your spirit teaches your mind. Then your spiritual power becomes manifested in the senses realm AS YOU act or AS YOU speak out." Where is the focus placed? If I edited the above as follows - "The great principle we see from these verses is that God, Who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit. Your spirit teaches your mind. Then your (His) spiritual power becomes manifested in the senses realm AS YOU act or AS YOU speak out as you listen to and obey God... - you'd get is "God, Who is Spirit, teaches His creation in you. Then His spiritual power becomes manifested in the senses realm as you listen to and obey Him." We're still in there, but God, not us, is the focus. It's like what's been posted time and time again - twi wants the focus to be on us because they know our focus is on them as our teachers of the accuracy of God's Word, all of which replaces the absent Christ. New question is if it's significant whether the spirit of truth is an "it" as in twi's GP or an "he" as in the Bible.

Great metaphor - I think these students are just waiting for a missed hit so they can go chasing after the ball.

I enjoyed reading your explanation of twi's "GP," despite the dizzying effect it had on my neurons . Now if we can only figure out what Jesus really meant in John 16:13-15 so can can party hardy . 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”

You're quite right about women being abusive as well. Thanks for the insight.

I remember going through something similar to this on “the absent Christ (TAC)” thread concerning how during my way ministry (twi) years I had come to minimize Christ in my life. This practical error stayed with me for decades after leaving twi and I knew all along that something was missing in my Christian life. It turned out to be a “someone” was missing and that was Christ. Now still having a twi-mindset about the holy spirit, I feel once again that something or someone is missing. The way twi changed the “he” into an “it” when referring to holy spirit. As a result, I always pictured the spirit as being a gift-like package and therefore an “it.” This led right into the broken-cistern teaching of the “great principle” where we must operate “it” - the gift in order to manifest the power. So Jesus and God have been “out there” in the heavenlies and my 2-way relationship with them has to go through this gift of spirit that is inside me. See what I’m saying? I had an “it (a conduit)” inside me and the “persons” of God and Jesus outside of me. So now I’m thinking after reading your posts and those of others that the holy spirit cannot be an “it,” especially if “the work of the Holy Spirit is to manifest the active presence of God in the world, and especially in the church” as you said. What if all three of them lived inside us - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? They are all one in purpose so it would be detrimental to separate the spirit of truth from the other two as I was doing. Although they work together as a team, I think they each have a vital “role” in helping us to walk in love and in power. I’ll have to think more about this - what their ”roles” are according to scripture, so I can then know them better and confidently reach out to them in times of need. Make sense?

Could be. This meeting with Stiles happened in the late 50's or early 60's I think. It was more common for men, religious or not, to have that dominating, controlling or oppressive attitude toward women. But the book, The Way-Living in Love, was printed in 1972 and he purposely added those demeaning beliefs about women in at that time when they had nothing to do with his topic of speaking in tongues. It's just so revealing that this was the same man who drugged and raped, sexually used and abused women and yet was still idolized by thousands of unknowing people. So much spiritual darkness.

I haven't read the article yet but the name of it makes me think of a few of vp's quotes from "The Way - Living in Love" that T-Bone posted earlier. ”The next morning, I still hadn’t left town. I went to breakfast at the hotel…a woman came over to me, and said, ‘I think God sent a man here to meet your need. Meet me at 9 a.m.’ I thought, ‘Women never tell the truth.’ ‘There aren’t going to be any women around when I get the holy spirit.’ then Stiles turned to his wife and said, ‘Honey, I’m going with VP.’ She said something to him like, ‘How long will you be?’ And he said, ‘That’s none of your business.’ That was it, my opinion of him as a man went up 99 percent. His stature increased in my eyes, just from the way he handled her.” What a mean male chauvinist pig he was.

Thus the . Thanks Mike.

Thank you, T-Bone for your humility and honesty when sharing on GSC. Two verses came to mind after reading your post. 1) But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere (*simple) and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Cor 11:3 (NIV) *Bible Hub gives the Greek word for “sincere” as haplotés meaning singleness, hence simplicity 2) in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the **unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not *dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:4 (ASV) * Bible Hub gives the Greek word for “dawn upon” as augasai meaning beam forth **I’m taking the word “unbelieving” and applying Rom 10:14a (NIV) to it: “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?” __________ Thank you, T-Bone for your humility and honesty when sharing on GSC. Two verses came to mind after reading your post. 1) But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere (*simple) and pure devotion to Christ. 2 Cor 11:3 (NIV) *Bible Hub gives the Greek word for “sincere” as haplotés meaning singleness, hence simplicity 2) in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the **unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not *dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4:4 (ASV) * Bible Hub gives the Greek word for “dawn upon” as augasai meaning beam forth **I’m taking the word “unbelieving” and applying Rom 10:14a (NIV) to it: “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?” __________ That is how I feel about most of my time in twi. I did not hear about a “sincere and pure devotion to Christ” nor did the “light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” beam forth. Instead their devotion to Christ was deluted to the utmost degree and the glory of Christ was obscured all because of their laser focus on all things "vp." Who orchestrated all this? Both verses reveal the answer – the serpent’s cunning and the god of this world. What does that say about twi?! I trust Psalm 40:1,2 for deliverance from all things "vp": "I waited patiently for Yahweh. He turned to me and heard my cry. He brought me up also out of a horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings."

I've tried to figure out what GP means in previous posts and the best I can come up with is 'general practice.' Can you give me the answer? Thanks!

Hi T-Bone, Since receiving the holy spirit is essential for our ability to walk in Christ’s love and power, I believe it is important to understand what Jesus is saying about the spirit of truth in John 14-16. I have broken your previous 3 posts into part (A) and part (B) A) You’ve used the following words to define a general principle of how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit inexplicably work together: - Teamwork - Collaboration - Fundamental interrelationship - Supernatural partnership I am mindful that you used the word 'inexplicably' to describe how the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit work together in each of us. In other words, how the 3 work together is inexplicable - cannot be explained. B) In reference to I Corinthians 12, 13 & 14, you indicate it’s the Holy Spirit who does the distributing and empowering. You also said to study these chapters without the PFAL-filter and leave the rest up to you and the Holy Spirit. My questions for each part are: (A) Since all of the terms used in this part require a relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who is the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit have a distinct existence making it a partnership or team of 3? (B) Since I Cor 12, 13 & 14 suggest a "working" relationship between the Holy Spirit and a believer, are we to have a personal relationship with the Holy Spirit?

Reading twi's article both was emotionally and physically sickening. It so reinforced the doctrinal and practical errors that robbed believers of having a personal relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The gift of holy spirit that we received from God through Christ was changed five times into "your spirit" placing the emphasis on the believer's ownership (as mentioned in #2 above). This negates the "interagency" you spoke of in #1. In John 17:21, Jesus says, "That they (those who believe in him) all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." We know this is only possible because of God's spirit being within the believer. With regard to #3, the command or exhortation that we "operate the gift" (which is likened to driving a car) is so impersonal but it was stated seven times, as was the number of times that the emphasis was placed on us and not God or Christ. The following phrases were used: when you act or as you speak out (2x), as you decide and believe to do so; as each believer wills or maturely deliberates; by our freewill decision; and it is up to us. The 7th phrase incorrectly states "God energizes (energeō) the power as we believe and decide to act." This was in reference to Eph 1:19 which says nothing about "as we believe" or "deciding to act." It does say, "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe," but according to verse 17, this believing is totally dependent upon God giving us wisdom and revelation so that we can know him better. How can we know God better, or let God work in us and Christ live in us when the focus is all on "me, me, me?" I'm still learning about these things but I know this short article is wrong, wrong, wrong at least 14 different times! Time to read OldSkool's post again about t he story of God and his people having always been, is right now, and will always be a love story.

What a blessing it would have been if vp had done what you wrote about above. Not only did he not do this, but according to the POP, he did the opposite. If Geer spoke honestly about his conversations with vp shortly before he died, vp criticized the actions of so many, many top leaders and blamed them for what was all "wrong" in twi. Even when he admitted that there were times when he was not successful at something he was doing, it wasn't because of him but because of the lack of "spirituality" of those around him who didn't give him the supported he wanted.

Ain't that the truth

I know this thread is about the importance of considering evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admitting to the possibility that you could be wrong. My posts have focused more on those people who find this practically impossible to do because unlike the majority of posters on GSC, they have not left twi and/or are not aware of how toxic Waybrain thinking can be. If I should find it difficult to consider evidence and/or admit I might be wrong on a different matter, it helps to understand why this might be. The article you mentioned is excellent. One thing it says is, "Disorganized attachment has both emotional and cognitive effects. Emotionally it can lead to disorganized or trauma bonding – a powerful, entangled bond – with the caregiver." The word "co-dependency" came to my mind when I read this. (Mental Health America describes co-dependency this way: "People with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive." Without an understanding of co-dependency, a person will not recognize that he/she is in a co-dependent relationship with cult's leaders. This "powerful, entangled bond" will prevent people from considering the evidence provided to them by those outside the cult. I feel Johnathan Swift's quote is conditional, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." It's kind of like saying you can't get blood from a stone.

Thanks, I have edited my post.

You mentioned from the article: "disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats." These all describe why a follower was "not reasoned into" joining and staying in a cult. I interpreted the word "reason" in Swift's quote, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" to mean "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" and logic to mean "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (or factually sound)." I think someone who is exposed to disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats could become quite defensive with people who are trying to reason with them about their loyalty to the cult's leader and their unwillingness to leave.

I like the framework Twinky. Not allowing arguments as such would prevent strong emotions from arising and overtaking a participant as can happen in some debates, political or otherwise.

We do a lot of things based on emotions - no problem whatsoever with that. My question was in the context of my whole post (reason, evidence, etc.) "The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side." "Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position." Have you seen this happening both in religion and politics.

There's a saying that religion and politics (r & p) are two things that are not to be discussed in polite conversation. A quote by Johnathan Swift in 1721 may give a possible reason for this, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." Another reason can be the strong emotions that are attached to our beliefs in both r & p. Applying Swift's quote to r & p suggests that one reason for our refusal to consider the other side is because the side we stand on was never based on reasoning. We know that with both r & p, a charismatic leader can prevent "reasoning" from happening. With twi, a lot of people were drawn in because of the "cheerfulness experienced when first attending fellowships" (as was outlined in a thread), or the "love bombing," or the promise of answers to their questions, or a number of other factors. These were all done so we would take the class. How much time went by from our first fellowship to signing up for the class where what we were taught morphed into our own personal beliefs. Many of us did not reason into these beliefs, we simply accepted them as truth because of all the hype given to it and vp and twi before, during and immediately afterwards. It's why we could not be reasoned out of them by concerned family and friends. I believe something similar to this happened a couple of years ago outside of twi when a charismatic person got many to believe in something that was not based on actual evidence. Nevertheless, thousands of followers (aka believers) eventually acted very grievously, not because of proven facts but because they believed their leader (who many thought could do no wrong). The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side. Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position. In my experience, I think one reason is fear - fear that if what I believe is wrong, my whole way of life based on that belief will fall to pieces. I think that's why a lot of people won't consider the evidence about twi until they realize that what they have believed in is beginning to cause them pain or cognitive dissonance in their life. That's when their minds become open to reason and to considering the evidence. Anyone have other reasons why we attached strong emotions to our close-minded beliefs which were never grounded on evidence in the first place?

johniam wrote that 'Christians should be prosperous' was one of the good things vp did. That one I did work out for myself and it was one of the main reasons I left in '86 after being accused by some high-rank leader that I was professing to know more than vp and who then walked away like I wasn't worth his time. I might look into '4 crucified' on my own after all.

John S. continues to teach four crucified. https://spiritandtruthonline.org/resources/the-four-men-crucified-with-jesus-christ/ John Juedes wrote an article that refutes it but I was too tired at the time to read it closely. I'll go back to it at some point.