WordWolf

It would be nice to hear from everyone.

However, they are well aware of this discussion, and obviously have elected not to participate

at this time-not even to issue a press release.

(This may of course change at any time.)

So,

the refusal to make a response is IN ITSELF a response.

They prefer to keep their position NON-SPECIFIC, nebulous.

They prefer to keep their position OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

The prefer to have people SPECULATE as to their position.

That in itself is an answer.

Congrats and congrats!

(Plus the guts to admit to the karaoke...)

ah-I never watched 'the A team"-not once

was I missing something ?

If you were a teenager when it was airing, you missed a lot.

It was a fun action show with some McGuyvering elements (they often improvised

very effective technology from what was at hand), and they fired

guns and rockets and all kinds of stuff, and managed to stop their

pursuit without even one casualty to them, the military, or the episode's villains.

George Peppard was Hannibal Smith, who was a disguise expert, & tactician.

"I love it when a plan comes together."

Mr T was BA "Bad Attitude" Baracus, strongman, driver, and technician.

He never wanted to fly.

Dwight Schultz was HM "Howling Mad" Murdock, pilot and presumably insane

resident of a VA Hospital, and the reason BA hated to fly.

Dirk Benedict was Templeton Peck "Faceman", con artist and technician.

They had a few different people, not from their original team, who joined

as fifth members during the run of the show.

On a different subject entirely,

I read a different Christian (Tim LaHaye addressing a pre-Tribulation Rapture)

mention this gambit.

He considered it a particularly cheap ploy: to claim that noted proponents for one

position made a deathbed conversion to the opposite position,

known only to one person, and never anyone close to that.

He gave an example where one theologian was claimed to have changed his belief

in one position, and the only proof was an off-hand comment supposedly made to

a near-total stranger, years before he died, whereas he actually continued to teach

his PREVIOUS position for several more years, and even his family heard him to

hold it til his death.

It's an old gambit, to claim soneone SECRETLY held a position different from one

he publickly has held, and there is no documentary evidence for,

to have him support your position from his grave.

Ok, maybe we can agree that half were.

Kenyon & Bullinger was; Stiles & Leonard wasn't.

BUT, the only way I knew about Stiles & Leonard was thru Wierwille.

Do thieves usually volunteer the names of those they stole from?

INTENT....

INTENT....

We can't agree that half were. All Kenyon's books were NOT.

All Bullinger's books were NOT. "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like

""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and

"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?",

complete with the question format.

THOSE were SURELY known to vpw-he read ALL Bullinger's stuff.

But they were left out when he saw to it the Companion Bible was

in the bookstore.

Stiles: the casual references to him say NOTHING of the complete transfer

of the contents of Stiles' book into "vpw's book", which doesn't even

name him ONCE. Further, the early editions of "vpw's book" say a man

taught vpw, and later ones say he learned it all without a teacher.

Finally, the ONLY reference vpw made to LEONARD was buried in one book and

said the man was "not good with The Word", which is a GUARANTEE that twi

people will have no interest in him. This was a deliberate lie, as Mrs W later

pointed out that he taught them plenty of "Word", and that the "original pfal"

class was Leonard's class with vpw's name on it, NEVER MENTIONING LEONARD.

Why take Stiles' name off Stiles' book and put your own instead?

Why bind 2 books of Bullinger together, strip his name, and put your own instead?

Why take Leonard's name off Leonard's class, and put your own instead?

INTENT....

INTENT....

(edited to correct the name "Leonard".)

No,

that's BA Baracus from the "A-Team."

They always had to trick him to get on a plane,

usually by drugging him, occasionally by hypnosis ("Eclipse!") or something else.

Sniper got the target with one bullet at range!

Sheriff Bart replies to a whispered suggestion from Miss Lilly Von Shtupp with that line.

Go, Ca Dreaming!

"Captain. I think I've found something."

"Transmit another copy of Starfleet's ship recognition protocols, and tell them to read it this time!"

"I am Locutus of Borg. You will respond to my questions."

"The uncertainty principle will not help you now, Stephen. All the quantum fluctuations in the universe won't change the cards in your hand.

I call.

You are bluffing and you will lose."

"Wrong again, Albert."

Descent

ST: TNG

Guest appearance by Stephen Hawking, the ONLY person in Star Trek history to play himself.

Correct!

Descent PART ONE.

Troi got to say the dangerous "I've found something" line and not die

(unlike the old redshirts of ST:TOS),

Picard revisits his old "Locutus of Borg" name when interrogating a Borg (unsuccessfully),

and Data has a poker game on the holodeck with Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton,

and Stephen Hawking.

Stephen Hawking becomes the only person to play HIMSELF on an episode of ST,

AND wins a poker hand against Albert Einstein.

:)

Go, Raf!

Hm.

The magic of the internet at work.....

====================

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/august/10.72.html

"Bad Judgment

Ruling imperils faith-based programs around the country.

Just when you think you've heard it all, along comes an even more distorted public characterization of evangelicals.

According to a recent critic, the belief held by evangelicals and Prison Fellowship (PF) in the "substitutionary and atoning death of Jesus," reflects "a legalistic understanding of the sacrifice of Jesus, [which] is not shared by many Christians." So much for the central tenet of every historic creed and confession of the Christian church.

Where is this critique—in The New York Times? No, it's the finding of U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt in deciding on June 2 the lawsuit against PF brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The judge declared unconstitutional the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Iowa, a program started by PF.

Startlingly, the judge devoted a dozen pages to analyzing evangelicalism and PF's statement of faith, apparently determined to separate evangelicals from other Christians. Evangelicalism, he wrote, is "quite distinct from other self-described Christian faiths, such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and Greek Orthodoxy." It is also "distinct from other … Christian denominations, such as Lutheran, United Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian."

Evangelical Christianity, he found, tends to be "anti-sacramental," downplaying "baptism, holy communion or Eucharist, marriage, [and] ordination" as "appropriate ways to interact or meet with God." (The charge of downplaying baptism will surprise my 20 million fellow Baptists.) Moreover, we are "contemptuous" of Roman Catholic practices, a conclusion sure to amuse my colleagues with Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

To sum up: Evangelicals are a fringe cult inherently discriminatory, coercive, and antagonistic to other Christians.

Ironically, just days after the judge's decision, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons reported a desperate need in prisons for "highly structured programs which reduce misconduct in correctional facilities and lower recidivism rates after release."

This is precisely what InnerChange does. It has a proven record of rehabilitation—8 percent recidivism for graduates, according to a University of Pennsylvania study of a similar program in Texas. This compares with more than 60 percent recidivism nationally. The commission understands the urgency of these programs, because this year, 600,000 prisoners will be released. Within three years, more than two-thirds will be re-arrested.

Bad enough that the judge ordered closed a program that has proven successful, imperiling thousands of faith-based programs. Even worse, he expanded the Supreme Court precedent in Lemon v. Kurtzman. A careful reading of his opinion leads to the conclusion that even if state funds are not involved, any close government cooperation with "pervasively sectarian" groups is unconstitutional. Such a broad standard could easily be applied to church services or evangelistic events not only in prisons, but also in hospitals, military bases, or any government facility.

But the most alarming question is why the judge chose to write a sociological analysis of evangelicalism—something I've never seen before in any case. And why would he so inaccurately characterize evangelicals as a fringe cult? After all, we make up between 33 and 40 percent of the American population, drawing from scores of denominations, including many millions of Catholics.

Whatever the reason, by distinguishing evangelicals from all other Christian groups, Judge Pratt supported his finding that we discriminate and coerce conversions—despite the fact that every inmate testifying in the trial denied any coercion. InnerChange is voluntary; at any time, inmates can drop out. Many participants are not Christians.

Think of the consequences if this definition survives on appeal—enshrining in federal law a definition of evangelicals as a narrow, mean-spirited minority. This ruling could be cited in cases where pastors publicly denounce homosexuality or pray in Jesus' name on public property. What will prevent a court from deciding what is and is not legitimate theology, according to the trendiest, most politically correct standards?"

(snip)

==================

This is under appeal.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/j...y/128-52.0.html

"Imprisoned Ministry

The future of Prison Fellowship's rehabilitation program, and other faith-based social services, are in the hands of an appeals court."

"Last month's federal court decision declaring unconstitutional a prison ministry run by Prison Fellowship has placed the status of other faith-based initiatives in question. Fallout for other Christian social services is limited for now while Prison Fellowship appeals the ruling. The appeals process could reach the Supreme Court.

• Related articles and links

In 1999, the state of Iowa partnered with InnerChange Freedom Initiative, a biblically based rehabilitation program designed by Prison Fellowship (PF), to reduce recidivism rates. Inmates from nine state prisons are eligible to apply for a transfer into the two- to three-year program.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt issued his verdict in a 140-page decision following a three-year trial that included a personal visit to the facilities of the disputed program. He ordered InnerChange to disband within 60 days and return about $1.5 million in funding it had received from the state of Iowa.

PF president Mark Earley said the organization is preparing to post bond and file an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he is confident the judgment will be overturned. PF says that advocates of InnerChange and its upcoming appeal include Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), Ted Haggard, James Dobson, and Rick Warren.

Earley said Pratt overstepped his constitutional bounds by ruling the program unconstitutional even if it accepted no state funds. Earley said the judge ignored the voluntary nature of InnerChange, which allows inmates to quit without punishment. "Based on this judge's ruling, the only way to improve this program is to move it out of the prison," said Earley. "And there are not many escapees that we can minister to."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) filed the lawsuit in 2003 on behalf of inmates who said InnerChange discriminated against non-Christians. "It certainly makes sense that Christians want to help prisoners," said AU executive director Barry Lynn. "What does not make sense is for the state to pay. The government simply cannot support and promote programs that are essentially religious efforts to provide service and convert people to a particular religion at the same time."

Secular service, faith-based approach

InnerChange embraces a transformative—rather than therapeutic—model that was developed by Charles Colson. Inmates who participate in InnerChange can attend Bible studies and worship services along with non-religious classes such as substance abuse counseling, and academic and life skills training.

In 1997, when President George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he oversaw the introduction of InnerChange in his home state.

PF leaders met with President Bush in the White House in 2003 to discuss the results of a University of Pennsylvania study that concluded InnerChange graduates were half as likely as non-participants to be reincarcerated within two years of their release.

But when the study sample was broadened to include both graduates and those who dropped out of the program, InnerChange participants were reincarcerated at the same rate as the control group that did not participate in any rehabilitation program. (The program has a 58 percent dropout rate.)

After meeting with PF, Bush told then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to look into the possibility of implementing InnerChange in federal prisons. Bush also proposed a $400 million, four-year initiative to reduce recidivism in his 2004 State of the Union address.

The Bureau of Prisons is currently running a multi-faith rehabilitation program in five federal prisons, but it has temporarily withdrawn its request to implement a single-faith rehabilitation program in six federal prisons, for which $3 million had been appropriated.

Separating out the sectarian

Charles Haynes, senior scholar of the First Amendment Center, believes the InnerChange case is "the most significant case to date" for faith-based initiatives, because it may lead to legislation in Congress that will mandate additional oversight. Haynes says state authorities should perform "audits" to make sure faith-based programs are not using state money for sectarian purposes.

"Right now, there are a lot of religious organizations that fall into this gray area," Haynes said. "There are programs where it is really difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is the religious and what is the secular part of the program."

The state of Iowa funded 40 percent of the InnerChange program. Those funds paid for InnerChange's designated "non-sectarian" expenses such as office supplies, an employee appreciation dinner, and 82 percent of the program director's salary.

InnerChange programs in Arkansas—dedicated one day before the Iowa ruling—and Texas are privately funded, while programs in Kansas and Minnesota receive some state funding. About 1,100 inmates are currently enrolled in InnerChange programs.

Earley said that the recent ruling strikes a blow to the religious liberty of inmates and emphasized that Muslims, Wiccans, and Druids have all graduated from the program, which does not require inmates to convert to Christianity.

"Governments don't have the money or the willpower to provide rehabilitative services for prisoners that work," Earley said. "By definition, their programs are secular. If they are denied the opportunity to partner with faith-based organizations, we are in for a darker future when it comes to the prison system in America.""

================

Prison Fellowship responded.

http://www.pfm.org/generic.asp?ID=2416

(PDFs and stuff.)

I expect (and would appreciate) the admins moving this to the DECAF forum in a day or so.

"..a Federal Judge ruled Evangelicals not a legitimate branch of Christianity in September.."

I can't ask the person who made this comment, since they don't read or post here.

However, I ask YOU guys. Has anyone HEARD such a thing?

It sounds like nonsense to me on the face of it.

I'd like whatever news or even vague second-hand reports any of you can pass along.

I have nothing useful to add here.

I hope you consider at least some of us here "family", but I'd expect you to maximize your remaining

time with your (genetic) family. I'm glad you at least have some time to reach closure on a few things,

since not everyone has that chance.

On Monday, I emailed John Lynn and John Schoenheit ... John Lynn emailed me back asking for a link to this thread which I sent to him. Hope he responds to all this and gives his side of the story.

If JAL was REALLY unaware of this discussion UNTIL YOU E-MAILED HIM,

my view of how well-informed he is of things he should be aware of would drop again.

As it is, I think he was already aware of it, and you've prompted a response,

which is to the better.

Maybe THIS time he'll stay and DISCUSS, rather than make a "drive-by post" like he did

the LAST time, announcing that he would refuse to engage us in dialogue here or on any

other board, and only communicate PRIVATELY.

JS, I have no knowledge of him on which to base a comment, and he has never posted here.

(Or at least not under his own name if he HAS, which is his privilege.)

John Schoenheit emailed me yesterday and below is his response. I'm sure he won't mind me posting his response, as it does contain some useful information with no personal info. about anyone:

Dear Phil,

I am glad you contacted us. You cannot believe everything you read. However, the PAC has been disbanded, and we are studying personal prophecy more closely. You know, if you read some websites about speaking in tongues it sounds terribly ungodly (and a Federal Judge ruled Evangelicals not a legitimate branch of Christianity in September), but that does not make it so. I have written a book on prophecy, I would suggest you read it, it will help you separate truth from error a bunch on this topic, and if you have questions, just call or write. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to write me.

Merry Christmas!

John Schoenheit

I assume the PAC means the "Prophetic Council". So that is gone.

Seems like personal prophesy is still around but they are examining it more closely, which I think is a good thing under the circumstances.

Looks like JS is refusing to engage in dialogue as well. This does NOT reflect well on them OR the

organization. What's his explanation so far (which looks to be ALL the answer he's giving?)

"Don't believe everything you read, and buy my book."

We also have confirmation that they really WERE running the railroad by means of this

"personal prophecy" thing at least for some time, since there was a "Prophetic Council."

Complete with an acronym.

They've been using it for HOW many years, and NOW it's being studied more closely?

I have an off-topic question that I will spin off into a new topic (not CES/STFI related.)

How do you ''study'' personal prophesy???? :blink:

You can examine the letter of how a doctrine is defined.

You can study the accounts in Scripture (to see if they apply AT ALL and/or are being applied CORRECTLY.)

You can review how a doctrine is being disseminated.

You can review how a doctrine is being PRACTICED.

And BEFORE putting one into practice,

you can examine its official definition, study the accounts in Scripture, state how it is to be

taught and practiced.

Seems THOSE steps were glossed over in CES/STFI regarding personal prophecy-

or else we wouldn't be having this discussion.....

There is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

Personally, I'm in the mode of watching, praying and waiting.

Remember how vulnerable you felt when you realized that TWi wasn't what you thought it was. For me there was a real mixture of pain, disbelief, denial, loss. I'm sure that there are folks that are reading here that are going through this again - some of them are maybe saying, "NOT this again!"

I'd say that in our quest to know what is happening we should temper our words with compassionand wisdom. Remember that in some ways we really normally wouldn't know any of this at all - it's kinda like peeking in on someone through a keyhole just because we can.

This bears repeating.

[WordWolf responds in boldface.]

Well, after reading through this thread for several days now, I thought I would take some time to respond. My name is Matthew, and I worked for CES for nearly 6 years. I was in charge of the publications, audio visual, and IT departments for the ministry. I have seen many people and things come and go over the years, and thought perhaps my two cents would be appreciated, if not necessary at this point.

[Hello, Matthew. The input of those with information here is appreciated.]

I would like to start by reminding everyone of Proverbs 18:13 which says, "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

[i like that verse. This messageboard exists largely so that people can "hear matters"-that they

have information they would not otherwise have-and thus DIALOGUE (2-way information)

they would not otherwise have.]

Personally I am appalled at how many of you have judged these matters without knowing even a fraction of the truth.

[in anything in life, you will only know a fraction of the details. I only know a tiny but of what

Charles Manson did, and I'm confident he's nuts and a danger to society. If you wait until you

know EVERYTHING before you take action, your house will burn to the ground while you await

reports. I'd say everybody here knows a LOT more than they did a few days ago, and many knew

a lot more than you THINK they did. This is the dawn of the information age. It is harder and harder

to keep information (secrets) from leaking out, especially if you're trying to cover it up.]

One of the reasons I have never posted on this board before is because it saddens me so much to see how much pain exists within many of the members here. But sadder then that is the bitterness with which many of you approach life--so full of critical judgment, yet so lacking in grace.

[see, now you're judging and only know a fraction of the details.

Does pain exist within many of the members here? Some, but less than you'd make out.

Many are still healing from damage done by twi, twi leaders, twi members,

and twi offshoots.

Many MORE are not so much healing as they are healed, and have moved on.

In almost all cases, their lives have advanced since them-some with professional help,

some without, all living one day at a time. To hear some people's caricature of the GSC,

almost all the members spend all their free time hating on people, especially reliving

all the bad experiences in twi. No, we just POST here, we don't LIVE here. You have

no idea what we do off of here, unless we tell you. Do you know anything about me working

with someone on a tv show? Of course not. It has nothing to to with twi or the GSC, so I

haven't posted anything about it. (No, you can't have any details.) That's one of many, many

examples of the things you DON'T know about us. If you even explored more of this board,

you'd see where we trade jokes and have fun as well, without even leaving the GSC.

As for many of us being judgemental, well, duh.

A lot of this seems to be what would be expected- people left one group exercising undue

influence in lives, and formed ANOTHER group exercising undue influence in lives.

That it's caught before we have rapes and druggings and other felonies may be more that

this is coming to light SOONER rather than LATER.

(Imagine an expose on twi including inside information from the late 60s and early 70s.

It would have saved a LOT of people a LOT of heartache.)

So, we view religious structures-and religious authority- with great suspicion.

There's a BIG difference between that and being "full of critical judgement."

If you CLAIM to speak for God, you should be expected to be worthy of such a title.

What's next, condemning the bearer of bad news for "speaking negatives?"]

I do not discount all of the people on here who are genuinely seeking truth and attempting to honestly sort through the current situation with CES. Yet, too many of you care only for another reason to shun "religion" and shun organization. I think it is a pitiful way to live, and for my own conscience sake I had to be honest about my feelings towards this board and some of its members before posting anything in regards to the CES situation. I have no doubt I will be "flamed" in this thread because of my opinion, but don't waste your time as I won't respond to it. If you take offense at my opinion PM me and I would be happy to talk to you.

[A) I haven't posted my opinion on this thread yet because I had nothing new to add to the discussion.

B) We don't need ANOTHER reason to shun "religion" and "organization"-we've had enough for a few

lifetimes EACH. That we have reasons to mistrust THIS one is relevant to this discussion-

so we're discussing it. That's what we do in discussions here. This board is typical of discussion

boards in that respect-we discuss that which is relevant to our topics, and sometimes people

disapprove of the topic, or the discussion itself. Just another day on another messageboard.

Of course, if YOU are the one disapproving of THIS messageboard, then THIS messageboard takes on

special meaning to you.

C) You've passed judgement on how we live based on skimming a handful of posts on one thread on one

messageboard.

Some people would be appalled that you have judged our lives without knowing even a fraction of the truth.

They might even accuse someone who did such of being full of critical judgement.

D) Nice how you've already labelled any disagreement with you as being "flaming." BTW, I am disagreeing

with you. I am not "flaming." Rarely does this board actually get into "flaming." "Flaming" is when the

posts engage in insult-tossing and ignore content. There's plenty of boards where you can find "flaming."

Some are unmoderated, some are moderated and permit some flaming if the flames are against people

who disagree with the admins. Here, flames are put out without regard for taking sides. And free speech

is permitted more than most boards in the interest of having the truth come out. It's a hard stance to take,

but it's the policy here, like it or not. BTW, it's THAT policy that made it safe for you to post here without

worry your post would be deleted or edited into oblivion.

E) If I disagree with your publicly-posted opinions, I will reply with MY publicly-posted opinions, and my own

reasonings for disagreeing with them, if I have any. Then others (you, me, anyone reading) can compare

the posts and see if mine had merit, and if yours had merit, and so on. If you don't want me disagreeing

with you publicly about your opinion, don't post your opinion publicly. I leave people's UNPOSTED opinions

alone-they are free to THINK as they darn well please. Even the ones I disagree with loudly. I've even

requested others do the same, in the interest of civil discourse. So far, they've agreed.

Whether or not you'd be happy to talk with me is a separate issue, and I see no reason to pursue it,

certainly not from one post.]

I resigned from the office in early November for one very simple reason. I no longer trust Mark and Karen Anne Graeser. Mark is a very different man these days, many will attest to that. As more facts have come to light, I have seen that there are a handful of others who are not to be trusted with leadership positions. However, this ministry is a God-fearing, Christ-loving ministry and for six years I have seen nothing to contradict that fact. I only see now a few people who have found that they can no longer run from their sins and they are being held to account for them.

[What is the difference between "the people who run this organization" and "this organization"?

If the people at the top are corrupt, it has become a corrupt organization.

Who needs an organization anyway? It's a handful of legal documents, some licenses,

some trademarked names, and some pretty Photoshopped images.

Either an organization is useful or it is not,

either it is corrupt or it is not.

Taking an abstract like "the organization" and saying

"it's a great organization, but the leaders stink" is ridiculous.

We've heard this with twi LOTS of times, and STILL hear it.

Either it's being run right, or it's not. ]

Yes the prophetic has been abused, yes people have been hurt, and yes it probably went on to long. Everyone always wants to ask why. The answer is simple. Life is messy. You criticize us now when we take too long to do what you would think is right, and you would certainly criticize us if we removed everyone from the ministry who committed even the slightest infraction. We are, in many of your eyes, in a lose-lose situation. It is for that reason that I write not for many of you on this board, but to the partners and contributors of CES who are already coming here trying to find answers.

[Well, you're writing to "everyone who reads this." You HOPE the ones who are paying CES/STFI salaries

read this and agree with you.

And yes, NOW CES/STFI is in a "lose/lose" situation. It didn't get there overnight. It got there slowly

through management policies that guided them there. This didn't just happen a few months ago,

this unfolded thru events and history. Life IS messy. Why did policies dictate this direction?

Why were bad decisions made?

And why does CES/STFI discourage open communication like we have on the GSC messageboard as to

how policies and decisions affect people?

Also, please spare us from black/white thinking criticisms. Most of us don't say ALL leaders are

corrupt, or ALL organizations (even religious ones) are corrupt. We wouldn't say

"fire everyone at the first mistake" either-despite your labelling us so. We would expect response

to be commensurate with the level of infraction. You might try dismounting from that High Horse

and looking at us with a level gaze. You may find we are equals-intelligent, literate Christians who

think for themselves, and are worthy of respect.

(And if you don't, you may STILL find us your precious brethren in Christ, to be valued and

treasured, and thus worthy of respect for HIS sake if not our own.)]

The ministry has always been like a family to me. And like any family there are problems, and you don't run off members you disagree with, even when they cause hurt and pain. You extend love, grace, and forgiveness just as Jesus Christ would do.

[but harmful leaders should be permitted to retain positions of leadership where they can

CONTINUE to make harmful decisions? Is that part of your position?]

This was granted many times to the Graesers, yet now it has become obvious that they are unwilling to change and repent for the evil they have and are currently causing.

[so, it looks like you ARE saying just that. Many of us got enough of that from twi, and

learned our lessons already, and are less than eager to repeat them with a new group and

a new name. "The lessons repeat until they are learned," as one signature around here quotes.]

The board members (with the exception of Tom Resner) are most certainly holding them accountable and I have seen nothing to suggest that they are in agreement with Karen's view of the prophetic, let alone the brazen and manipulative manner with which she carries out her so-called dreams from God. For those of you concerned about CES' view of the prophetic I can assure you that a handful of people hardly represent the ministries views. It pains me to know that she has been allowed to be so hurtful with so many people. But one person's sin is not going to drive me away from a ministry, especially not when so many people are holding her feet to the fire.

[i'm curious how great this organization is when this was perfectly acceptable until the last few days,

when the information explosion hit-here and elsewhere. Nobody was held sufficiently-accountable

UNTIL NOW if it got all the way to the top and has been going on for years, and there's been no official

clampdown on the activity. If this was a ministry that forbade smoking, for example, nobody would be

allowed to keep smoking in meetings, or even in front of other members (since members can then find

out), and they'd face sanctions if they did this (private "cease and desist" sessions, and continuing would

mean stronger measures like not advancing in the group, and possible firing if it kept happening.)

So, seems like the organization has found this PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE

(since they did NOT find it ACTIONABLE)

until the hue-and-cry was sounded.

I still haven't heard any official statement saying that the disastrous "Momentus" program was a bad idea,

and that anyone's sorry it was ever undertaken, and most of us can agree it was a bad idea.

(I'm not interested in reopening that discussion, but you're welcome to make a new thread to reopen that

discussion if you see fit. My point is that it was harmful to the brethren, and was then SWEPT UNDER THE

RUG, and never addressed in public like it's some embarassing family secret.

Looks like someone's interested in DOING THAT AGAIN.)

So, one maniac can't stay in power without the consent of the OTHER people in power.

You're asking us to trust the people that tolerated things for years-

only changing that when the public became aware of them-

and THEN expressing outrage and deciding to act.

I expect MORE from leaders. I expect them to ANTICIPATE possible problems,

and RECOGNIZE EXISTING PROBLEMS without needing to hear about them on the World-Wide Web.

Some of us seem to be saying that. ]

Nearly all of the concerns I have seen on here are completely unmerited with no real evidence to back them up. Should you be concerned about the way Elizabeth was treated? Absolutely, yet neither was she innocent in the role she played. Should you be concerned with the way some people are choosing to view and use prophecy? Absolutely, but none of you has the right to make blanket statements and far-fetched assumptions about how the ministry was run by this so-called prophetic guidance.

[People were being hurt by leadership in God's name, and this was permitted to continue.

That's a statement of fact.

This is NOT difficult to see at the most basic level.

One need not make blanket statements or assumptions to see that.

And if this group WAS "RUN" this way, then most of us would call that "incompetent."]

It never has been, and because of the men and women who are taking a stand against Mark, I believe it never will be. In fact, perhaps to the dismay of some here, I believe that CES will stand stronger then ever when all is said and done. Thankfully, I don't claim to be a prophet and so that's just my opinion, and I will stand in it if I am wrong.

[i believe it is not premature to claim that if there is ANY improvement, it is largely BECAUSE the

pebble down the mountainside of the GSC resulted in an avalanche HERE that swept across the

membership of CES/STFI. Which, of course, is MY main objection.]

Any questions you have regarding the ministry and how it was run, I would be happy to answer. In six years, I believe that I understand the hearts and motives of the leaders in this ministry. This has come both by listening to their words, and watching their actions. I believe that I can fairly represent the true issues at hand for those who actually have a desire to know.

God bless,

Matthew

[The only questions I have would be PUBLIC ones, and you've already said you WON'T reply to those.

This may be just me, but I've noticed what may be the beginning of a trend so far.

Twice we've heard from people claiming to represent CES/STFI as insiders

(JAL before, SirValiant now)

and BOTH times, they claimed in their initial posts to eschew public discourse and would ONLY

communicate when they could control the microphone.

(I am excepting Jeff, who is an obvious exception who might prove to argue otherwise.)

Do they really think this will end discussion,

and is this a healthy way to run a railroad?]

It being about a week, I'm posting one.

"Woman, please! I am not from Havana!"

"Captain. I think I've found something."

"Transmit another copy of Starfleet's ship recognition protocols, and tell them to read it this time!"

"I am Locutus of Borg. You will respond to my questions."

"The uncertainty principle will not help you now, Stephen. All the quantum fluctuations in the universe won't change the cards in your hand.

I call.

You are bluffing and you will lose."

"Wrong again, Albert."

One thing I've read-and agree with-

is that God will REPEAT messages to you.

The Old Testament didn't have a guidebook on dream-messages because they were not COMMON.

Dreams were common, but messages from God IN a dream are not.

This does not mean they are unheard-of, just that most dreams are NOT.

I would agree that MOST dreams are the subconscious clearing out the previous day,

or otherwise addressing issues to itself.

One key to understanding if a dream is a message from God, however,

is that God will use more than one avenue to communicate a message to you.

Did you get a dream and think it was from God?

Well then, pay attention. OTHER information will arrive from OTHER avenues if God

is trying to communicate to you.

Otherwise, it was just a cool dream.

"Captain. I think I've found something."

"Transmit another copy of Starfleet's ship recognition protocols, and tell them to read it this time!"

Fun and games on Ceti Alpha 5!

This was "Space Seed."

The first quote was the explanation of Khan's parting comment upon exile.

"Have you ever read 'Milton'?"

The second was Khan demonstrating his brilliance with manipulating people.

Once again, I whole-heartedly agree with everyone and thank you for reassuring my feelings about this whole situation. Something I have been wondering on a side note, not involving myself, but....Does the way frown upon people using anti-depressants or similar drugs? do they think it makes them weak or anything along those lines?

Got it on the first try.

The belief system, founded by vpw, is a Word-Faith variety.

That means you alter reality by your "believing." You speak it, and God's REQUIRED to bring it to

pass. So, if bad things happen to you, first of all, your believing was deficient, which is how

the bad thing arrived. If it stayed, you failed to believe sufficiently to push it away.

So, it's always your fault.

What about drinking on occasion? What is their take on these matters?

that led to his death. However, a lot of local legalism can make for a "dry" area.

Of course, if the local leader is a boozer, then, by golly, it may be all right in that area...

Also, does the way express anti-semetic viewpoints, such as "endorsing" the 13th tribe or other books?

I named the books above. They've quoted from them. And yes, the kids really DID reduce a

Holocaust survivor to tears and called her a liar. They were "carefully taught."

What about thoughts of Mass Suicide?

What about "tithing", what if someone has never tithed up to this point?

If you're not giving 10%, "God won't even spit in your direction."

You're expected to exceed that- 15% or 20% is more common,

although it's not a mandate on paper.

(Most stuff isn't actually a mandate on paper-it's still expected.)

There are alot of others, but I can't think of them at the immediate moment. The whole secrecy thing is what first raised my eyebrows about the ministry. I asked her, Well how do people become members? How do they find out fellowships and events are going on in the area? And when I challenged her of why the only thing on the website was an address, she said it was because of all the outrageous people who call and harass them......Its so simple to me, maybe I have alot better head on my shoulders than her....I don't know, it is just amazing to me how someone who went to college, reads a wide variety of books all the time, etc. can have such a blind eye to the simplest things....

It takes years of educating someone that way...

Re: "The Two Babylons", by Alexander Hislop.

I personally did not see them promote this SPECIFIC book in the bookstore.

However, it is the basis for the later book

"Babylon Mystery Religion", by Ralph Woodrow.

That book, heavily footnoting Hislop's book, is basically

a much lighter version of Hislop's book.

Years later, Woodrow discovered there were many errors

in Hislop's book, and wrote a sequel

"The Babylon Connection?",

which repudiates the previous book.

("I was wrong, and here's why...")

People in twi probably can still quote "Babylon Mystery Religion"

but are unfamiliar with the sequel, since it contradicts their theology.

Both vpw and lcm (Presidents 1 & 2) hated the Roman Catholic Church,

and could rant at length about it.

(lcm, for example, announced the Pope had an aircraft carrier and

was getting ready to convert everyone to Catholicism at gunpoint.

This was about a decade ago.)

The antisemitic books promoted-and carried by-twi include

"Myth of the Six Million." This claims the Holocaust never happened,

or was wildly exaggerated.

So does "the Hoax of the Twentieth Century."

"The Thirteenth Tribe." This book claims all the "Jews" are actually Khazars,

and the current Jews are not related to the Jews in the Bible.

(This has been disproven with genetic tests.)

That's not directly anti-Semitic, but it's used as justification by antiSemites.

That would be something like

"I did not mean to offend you. I offended you nonetheless and I am sorry."

That's an acknowledgement that my action, well-intentioned though it was, was incorrect in some

fashion-or at least offensive.

I've gotten those other apologies, and they're always indictments, as in:

"I'm sorry you're unable to control your emotions and not be offended while I do

what's right."

twi and ex-twi aren't the only ones who do this, BTW.

I HAVE, however, spotted this more among the religious than non-religious contexts and peoples.

You'll have exactly what you say you have. Believing is not governed by what others say, but in and by what you say. It doesn't matter one iota what others have to say to it, but by what you say to it. That is the law of believing.

In other words, WTH's trying to sell you on the "LAW of Believing" again.

I, too, was specifically Marked and Avoided six years ago. But in the past year I have had folks who are still active around town acting like nothing happened. I've even been encouraged to initiate contact with some old friends at HQ.

My response is much like yours... excuse me, I am not the one who turned my back on them. If they want to be so friendly all of a sudden they can start by approaching me with a sincere and heartfelt apology!! Nothing less is acceptible. Period.

How typical of the abusers to turn things around and make it seem like you are shunning them if you don't act like nothing happened. My advice: be willing to forgive if forgiveness is asked for, but otherwise don't fall for their act; don't give in!

If they don't show any remorse for their past misdeeds, it's clear they think they were justified

in doing them. That says a lot.

All the MOG's borrow from one another and take from one another without giving the other MOG credit - at least to the other MOG's satisfaction - even when they do. Some MOG's don't even recall just from who or from where they picked their stuff up!

That's one reason not to trust self-professed MOGs.

That's why the plagarism charge goes along with the territory of being a very highly successful, charismatic MOG - especially when a lot of $$$ are involved. If you think otherwise you're either deluded, naïve or both.

will be so arrogant as to pass off another's works as his own, so lazy as to fail to cite his

sources, so vain he will break the law and think nothing of it.

You may call that naivete if it makes you happy.

I call it "having standards", or "character", depending on the context.

The plagarism charge is one "less charismatic" MOG's pi$$ a$$ ($$$ properly supplied) way at their attempt to appear superior in front of someone who is a "more charismatic" MOG.

No, it's finding out someone committed a crime and exposing it.

Charisma and MOGs have nothing to do with exposing crime.

Sure - there are people who really think they are "enlightening" others by advancing and pushing their tired, worn out argument forward.

Continuing to expose lies-especially lies others try to hide, whitewash, or get others

to believe-is an ongoing process, with its own end.

Labelling it doesnt make it less valid.

It DOES, however, telegraph one's OWN agenda- "distract from the plagiarism".

If you ask me, this is one sermon the church would be better off :sleep1: through. When it comes to the Word of God, none of them really have anything original to say (or write) about it anyway. Carry on, ya-all.

It's not a SERMON, it is a warning. You know, like lots of guys all over the Bible gave.

God seems to like when His people are warned.

Feel free to sleep all you want- but some of us consider it high time to wake from sleep.

I hear what you're saying, Wolf, but I've just not found the need for either a third-party firewall or anti-virus stuff. I maintain over a dozen XP machines. Most of the users have admin privileges on their machines and have been properly trained not to install untrusted software or to open email attachments other than .pdf's and images. I have had no virus or security issues for about 3 years.

That's avoiding undue risks, but to not use an antivirus and firewall to me seems to be skipping

what I consider the bare minimum for security, even with the updates.

I like making it as hard as possible for someone to intrude.

(And I manage it with freeware.)

ZoneAlarm and AVG are good, but not everyone needs them. Assuming you already have an external NAT router/firewall with stateful packet inspection, I think that trained users can get by fine with regular updates and the Microsoft tools.

Presuming trained user, and presuming the external firewall with stateful packet inspection,

I expect the risk would be less. I would STILL use a firewall/antivirus, though.

At the minimum.