WordWolf

Has anyone who was around in the old, old days checked in?

ANY account, no matter how fragmented, would be very appreciated.....

Most of you are aware that there were 2

types of book that say "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover.

The SECOND type-which came later-were written by committee, and the

research staff wrote 100% of the contents except the introduction/preface.

That's books like "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" and

"Jesus Christ Our Passover."

vpw himself otherwise provided zero percent of the contents.

The FIRST type-which describes most of "vpw's" books-

were the result of taking one book of one author and retyping its contents,

or taking more than one book and inserting chapters and retyping their

aggregate contents.

Almost all of vpw's "signature books" fall in this category.

===========

Ok, then, starting off....

The White Book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today"...

RTHST's 1st edition was Jack E. Stiles' "the Gift of the Holy Spirit",

with a few words moved around.

Its introduction included an anonymous reference to a man of God

who taught him on this subject. That's the Stiles whose book

this was a complete photocopy of.

Later editions deleted all mention of ANY man teaching him

on the subject (3rd edition and later). Later editions also

featured EW Bullinger's "the Giver and His Gifts".

(This book is currently available under the name

"Word Studies on the Holy Spirit.")

The Bullinger book is the source of the 385 occurrences

of "pneuma" in the New Testament.

(Which vpw was unable to even pronounce correctly.)

=========

Juedes documented some of this very well, years ago...

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_sources.htm

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

The "Power For Abundant Living" book was, of course, a transcription from

the class of the same name. The Orange Book's origins therefore are the

same as the origins of the class. In its first iteration, that meant it was

the exact same thing as Leonard's CTC Gifts of the Spirit course.

Later iterations pruned out the Advanced class from the

"PFAL Foundation" class, and filled in the remaining space with

Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible", and culminating the class

with Sessions 9-12, which were Stiles and Bullinger's works on

Holy Spirit.

dmiller:

"I have a few books by Bullinger, including Word Studies on the Holy Spirit

and How To Enjoy the Bible.

Word Studies is the list of the 385 usages of pneuma hagion,

with a short commentary on each verse.

Imo -- everything you have ever heard docvic say about the various usages of PH,

seem to have come directly from this book by Bullinger.

How To Enjoy The Bible has many sections with familiar headings:

*No Private Interpretation*;

*define words by their biblical uage*;

*All scripture .....*;

*context of where it is written*;

*absent from the body, present with the Lord*;

and more."

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

The "original" PFAL (what I call its first iteration)

was a clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail.

Leonard's class had imaginary characters called Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup and

Henry Belocco. (I'm not sure about Snowball Pete or Herman B.)

Leonard was Canadian. Maggie Muggins was a children's television character

easily recognizable by his audience by name.

(As if you said "Captain Kangaroo then said..." or "then Big Bird said...)

Johnny Jumpup is the name of a plant.

Using those 2 names as characters in a class, however, that was straight

out of Leonard.

Herman Belocco probably started due to an inability of vpw to precisely

recall EXACTLY what was in Leonard's class-so sometimes it was Henry,

sometimes it was Herman.

Snowball Pete was mentioned ONCE in pfal, and doesn't match the pattern

Leonard normally used-normal first name, possible normal last name.

This suggests-if I may engage in wild speculation-that this was made up

by vpw in a pitiful attempt at originality.

One of our posters-who took Leonard's class-said that vpw even ripped off

Leonard's speech patterns and style, which made it eerie to hear Leonard

teach after hearing vpw imitate him.

Leonard handled publishing under Canadian Christian Press.

vpw handled publishing under American Christian Press.

Someone also pointed out that one of Leonard's books contains an

introduction that slightly resembles one of vpw's claims.

Expand it, add grandiose claims, and an imaginary snowstorm,

and you have the 1943 promise.

(Leonard never claimed God told him he was unique nor mentioned

the 1st century church to him.)

Leonard never made a claim of a "miraculous" event.

This, however, is from Leonard's foreword to his book "Gifts of the Spirit"...

"One day God spoke to me.

'If thou wilt wait patiently before me, I will give thee the revelation concerning

that which is written in My Word touching these things; the revelation my people

need to bring them out of their chaos and confusion.'

I believed God. For months I waited before His presence in solitude. During those

wonderful days, He revealed the truth to me concerning the gifts of the Spirit.

As He did, these things were proven by acting upon the knowledge thus received,

and by examining the results in light of His Word."

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

In other news....

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's

works,

most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?"

and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?"

Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark"

in addition to the content of the books.

"Studies in Human Suffering", later called "Job: Victim to Victor",

was taken from Bullinger's book "the Book of Job".

That became a large chapter in one of the "Studies in Abundant Living".

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

Please refresh my memory, and adjust it where I'm remembering incorrectly.

After the first few years,

ROA was held on-grounds. (Rental fees for site: $0.)

90% or more of the total setup was performed by way corps and staff who were already there,

staff receiving regular pay, corps working for free. (Setup cost: $0.)

That includes pipes for showers, rows for Tent City, stages, etc.

I'm not sure if the big tents were set up by twi'ers or by contractors,

and what the cost for the tent rentals were.

(I know the Big Top was not owned by twi-no idea about the other stuff.)

There was an admission for the week for the event.

There was a (small) fee to take a shower on-site.

Housing was either a tent onsite in Tent City, provided by you (cost to twi: $0)

a large tent for corps or intl outreach or whoever, provided by them (cost to twi: tent rental)

RV on site (which was charged a fee to the user for all services)

or staying in a hotel offsite (cost to twi: $0.)

Camping supplies were staffed by twi'ers and sold at retail. (Earning a profit.)

Food services were staffed by twi'ers and sold at retail. (Earning a profit.)

The bookstore was staffed by twi'ers and (always) sold at retail. (Earning a profit.)

Events were either the keynote teachings or performed by volunteers

(musical groups, etc.) (cost to twi: $0.)

===========

So,

except for the tent rentals,

twi incurred NO expenses,

and provided no free services except a few of the group tents,

and a place to pitch your OWN tent.

Since those staying in the tents paid for showers and bought all food (retail)

from twi, even that turned a profit-and people DID pay for the entire event.

Seems to me that for a "non-profit" organization, twi-as always- turned a tidy

profit on the event. Rental of the tents could not POSSIBLY match the admission

fees alone, plus the bookstore sales-retail and food sales-retail

turned a tidy profit on their own.

(Anyone who thinks they didn't after giving it thought, well....)

Does anyone remember differently?

Am I overlooking some great expense incurred by twi?

Ok, electricity, I expect, cost something, since the main tents and stuff

had full power.

I'm surprised no one in "power" suggested giving depressants to children with 'inconvenient' needs. They could have even marketed their own brand, maybe along the order of, say, "Doulos Downers."

No need.

They advocated kicking out any child with 'inconvenient' needs.

One recommended using a stick and giving the beating of the child's life at the

FIRST infraction, then telling him the second time will be worse than this.

Another recommended fostercare or putting them up for adoption

(I forget which).

A third recommended abandoning the child in the woods or by the roadside

(I forget which.)

Someone curious can look them up- I read all 3 of those here.

http://www.oneishy.com/personality/personality_test.php

:)

IMO ROA should have been handled like other large conventions with hotels and convention staff to do the dirty work. There should have been no tent city or muddy parking in cornfields, etc. We began staying in a hotel room year after year (if you were lucky enough to find one.) In that part of Ohio at that time they were all pretty lousy.

When we were "strongly encouraged" to go to BOTH Corps week (nicknamed Score Week) and ROA it was too much. We rarley went to both, just a week in the middle of both.

VPW was furious at those of us who did that. Then they had the nerve to ask us to take off work and come to Ohio and work for two weeks! I never agreed with that. I rarely worked. I was one of the ones who protested the very idea and simply did not show up for my assigned work duty.

Word in Business was more my style. Even then we had to work because we were Corps. Sheesh!

We talked about this on the "vp and me in wonderland" thread.

Here's what lcm said-in italics

and my commentary-in boldface

"Incident of Way Corps going home after Corps Week but prior to the ROA."

"Corps Week was when the Corps got together,

and was when the Corps did the set-up and assembly of all the physical details

needed for the ROA.

(Setting up Registration, the tents, Family Tables, food stands...)

So, these Corps did setup and met together, then went home.

They worked for free for the week preceding ROA."

"Dr heard about it and reproved everyone in the corps household for the problem, for not helping to put it on."

"Setting up all that stuff doesn't count as "helping to put it on"?

That was a week's free labour!

"Reproved" them?

He should have THANKED them for the free labour!

After all,

there WAS an admission, we DID PAY for setup,

so things COULD have been done with local workers,

providing work for labourers locally.

Of course, that would mean vpw would have to accept

seeing money exit. "

"He reminded everyone of the commitments that they had made regarding a lifetime of Christian

service."

"They served a week of hard labour. What about that?

Further, when did 'a lifetime of Christian service'

become synonymous with

'involuntary servitude for life at the whims of twi'?

I don't remember MANDATORY ROA attendance

being required in the corps signups-did anyone sign such a document?"

"Every corps person needs to plan ahead one year or more so that they can be a part of

these events. They need to be able to be a part of ROA and corps fellowship."

"It occasionally came as a surprise to those people who never actually

WORKED for a living

(vpw went straight from school into pastoring,

lcm went straight from school into the way corps),

but REAL jobs have REQUIREMENTS and RESPONSIBILITIES.

All these people made arrangements for a VACATION WEEK from work

(for some of them, this was their ONLY vacation, or was unpaid leave),

paid to travel to hq on their own from all over the country,

and WORKED for a week, unpaid.

Now you have the nerve to say

'Not good enough-work MORE for free!'

NO!

These people have families to support, jobs to perform, and lives to maintain.

If they leave, it's because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to, simp!

At the very least, you owed them profound thanks.

To insult them after they worked for free

is lacking in character, lacking in integrity,

and lacking in Christian values.

So, to you who said this, I say

'F* you, AND the motorcycle you rode in on!!!!'

Or,

as Andy Kaufman once said,

''You, sir,

are a f*ing @$$h*,

a F*ing @$$h*,

a F*ING @$$H*!!!! '"

=========

I would expand on it now, but really,

I think that once you've said that, you've said it all.

...It wasnt the ROA that was special--there is something about a gathering together of people away from the pressures of the world around any common interestthat rejuvenates and reinvigorates and reinspires people

There are still plenty to go to if anyone has a yearning for that sort of thing. I personally like one or two a year.

I find I prefer the get-togethers that happen in a hotel with air-conditioning,

but I like one or two a year also.

"So, something I've never understood...... What made the WOW burgers that darn good?"

"Two things........1) Being really hungry and 2) Wierwille said they were (good).

Just another "buy in" to wierwille's charisma."

I'll add a few more reasons.

3) Decent sized-slab of meat (a Wendy's Double), broiled.

4) Someone mentioned how the get-together made stuff nicer.

That's true here, too.

I had a virtual twin of a WOWburger at a get-together last month.

Tasted great.

And until tonight, I hadn't figured out what it reminded me of.

5) They were the OFFICIAL Burger of the Word Over the World Ambassadors.

They were a BRANDED product.

6) Add the 5 reasons together, and toss them into the stories of people

who attended & had a good time.

Then it is raised to iconographic status, like a beefy version of the Holy Grail,

or a Krabby Patty or something.

So now you almost HAVE to try one just to see what all the commotion was about.

I related a similar experience about buying a designer latte when visiting an

internet cafe some time ago. "I felt it enhanced the experience," I said when asked.

There were similar attempts to lionize the chicken.

Don't believe me?

I think I still have a copy of the Way Productions tape with

THE SONG ABOUT THE CHICKEN somewhere.

Never suggest that anyone or anything in twi was/is not superior to anything NOT in twi.

That one was certainly active as of the 80s.

I ran into that little brick wall myself.

I'm not sure which personality test you took and I can't remember the specific name of the test, but every time I took it before TWI I was an ENTP and by the time I had become entrenched in TWIt doctrine I was an INFJ. Pretty telling.

I went from craving and loving interaction and companionship with others to preferring to be by myself or at least invisible if I had to be out in public.

I went from looking forward to learning how others think, live and whatnot to judging folks because they weren't interested in TWI and "the more abundant life".

Jung-Myers-Briggs test.

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes1.htm

From what I've seen,

"the best of times"

was either (or both):

A) when I was new, didn't know the "behind the curtain" details,

and before it got a lot more legalistic

or

B) when a bunch of us just went off and did stuff because we enjoyed

each other's company, before that became mandatory

Seems everybody has the same answers on that.

(Except for a few who say it was always the best of times.)

THE BRIDGE BUILDER

by Will Allen Dromgode, 1934

An old man, going a lone highway,

Came at the evening, cold and gray,

To a chasm, vast and deep and wide,

Through which was a flowing sullen tide.

The old man crossed in the twilight dim;

But he turned when safe on the other side

And built a bridge to span the tide.

"Old man," said a fellow pilgrim near,

"You are wasting strength with building here.

Your journey will end with the ending day:

You never again must pass this way:

You have crossed the chasm, deep and wide --

Why build you a bridge at eventide?"

The builder lifted his old grey head:

"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said,

"There followeth after me today

A youth whose feet must pass this way.

This chasm that has been naught to me

To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.

He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;

Good friend, I am building a bridge for him."

But there were written requirements to do extra things. For instance, if one wanted to take the Advanced Class, one had to fulfill certain requirements, else one wasn't admitted. If one wanted to go WOW, one had to fulfill the requirements, else one wasn't admitted.

Formal programs, that's something else entirely. Supposedly, everything not a class or program was

entirely voluntary, but during the 90s, that became a fiction everywhere.

(Before that, it was a fiction in some places but not others.)

Interesting thing was the written "Freely Avail" statement in "what is the way". Maybe folks really didn't take that one seriously, but there it was, sitting there like a diamond. :) It would have been better for all of us had Craig and some others took that one seriously.

Now there's something I can agree with wholeheartedly.

So long as "some others" means "the people carrying out Craig's orders."

And if he ever said that participants must tithe otherwise they get booted out, then that would be a rule, a requirement, a policy, to tithe.

But as far as I can tell he didn't make that requirement, otherwise we'd know about it by now. Something that specific and mandatory would be well known and crystal clear.

So, if there's no paper trail, it never happened.

Here's what we do know.

lcm made a number of draconian statements in public concerning money,

and said twi'ers should be expecting to give 15%.

lcm has closed-door communications with the corps and leadership as

normal.

Leadership at all levels begin shaking the people down for 15%,

and invoking social sanctions when they don't.

(Face-melting sessions, lots and lots of "oversight", leaning into what

normally would be called "harassment" if private citizens did it.

So,

lacking a sealed document saying

"I, lcm, demand 15% or you're fired from this group",

all of that is just an amazing coincidence, I'm sure.

twi's NEVER been in the habit of putting policy in writing.

This is, of course, the perfect blanket excuse for excusing them every

bad policy they ever enacted-

"I never read this policy, so it didn't exist and they never had it."

Mind you,

even if this DID magically excuse them,

doesn't it strike you as VERY suspicious that you can't find a

policy manual or handbook for twi even to save your life?

"Peace and trust can win the day in spite of all your losing"

What I would consider a "requirement", would be if one refused, and then ultimately got booted out because of it. Has anyone heard of that ever happening?

Waysider:

"I do recall a twig of senior citizens who were told by a representative of HQ they would either have to disband or stop representing the twig as part of twi. If memory serves me HQ said the twig was not diverse enough...............OH! ........did I mention none of them tithed? This was many years ago. There probably aren't too many of them still with us. I know they were quite hurt when all this took place."

This was about them not-tithing.

If they tithed, twi would have been just fine with their makeup.

Is anyone here a big enough fool to think otherwise?

(What am I saying?)

Radar:

"UH...............YEAH, OF COURSE I HAVE. Anyone involved with twi from 1994 til present will have at least a handful of stories, including one of the founder's sons."

Skyrider:

"The percentages went from 10% to..."one should be willing to give 15% in the grace adm". And, by 1997.... martindale was pushing his plurality giving doctrine. All full-time way corps heard these teachings. By plurality giving, martindale stated that one -- after paying off these bills and having their need met -- should be WILLING TO GIVE THE REST TO TWI.

As former corps (left twi in 1998).....I detest how the board of trustees (craig, don & howard) deceived good-hearted believers and extorted money for twi's coffers. All the while, taking trips to the Bahamas and southern Florida and stashing millions into twi investments. Thankfully, I refused to go to believers' homes and demand a financial reporting of their income and absing.

Oldies...........get off this thread. You have NO IDEA what twi's "official" policy is.

rolleyes.gif "

Oldiesman:

"Then please share those handful of stories. What happened? Was there ever an edict handed down from the trustees that mandated tithing, else one was asked to leave? If so, when? Is there any documentation available about that requirement? These are some questions of this thread."

What's the point?

When people get into specifics and eyewitness accounts,

you just move to discredit them anyway.

It gets tiresome to keep doing this same dance to EVERY tune.

"I'm not whitewashing anything and have no desire to deceive. I'm simply asking questions."

You may see it that way.

Everybody who's sat thru years of you posting-with few exceptions-

all seem to draw a DIFFERENT conclusion.

"I disagree with the extortion accusation, and I absolutely can't imagine in my wildest dreams, Don Wierwille extorting money from folks. Any specific incidents?"

Doesn't sound like "simply asking questions"-looks like spin control on the accounts in effect

even before they're shared.

Although you "can't imagine in your wildest dreams" is remarkably candid.

That's been true about lots of "this happened to me" stories so far.

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

I'll throw in this one for free.

AFAIK,

nobody's saying that Don had two 400-lb kneecappers slam a person into a wall while Don

held a gun to their forehead until they handed over the money.

If you were being intellectually honest and communicating in good faith,

you wouldn't be so obtuse on this.

Don's complicity is PRIMARILY in the NEGLECT of his fiduciary responsibilities.

People were leaned on to give money and to follow leadership blindly.

When they hesitated, they were screamed at in detail,

and their reputations were smeared.

They were indoctrinated that leaving twi meant leaving God's Protection,

and many or MOST were told horrible things would happen to them or their

families,

including that they and their family members would DIE.

No, I'm not aware of someone speaking this "leave twi and die" in the 70s.

However, it was COMMON in the later 90s.

We've got threads mentioning this.

We have autobiographicals on this.

We have AUDIO FILES on this.

If you're still not up to speed on this one,

I recommend playing a little "catch-up."

You've only had YEARS to read/hear this stuff....

Let me rephrase this more simply, for those people who STILL don't get it:

twi taught that you had 2 choices:

obey blindly or leave God's protection and have horrible, Job-level things happen.

One of the points of obedience was money.

MUST tithe, MUST push to 15%, or you're in trouble;

STAY in trouble and you're kicked out of twi AND God's Protection.

(THIS WAS COMMON IN THE 90s.)

Public spectacles and examples were made of people who left-

which tells the rest "stay or we do this to YOU next."

The bod was well behind the shakedown of money under this

"doctrinal" and "leadership" smokescreen.

Each member of the bod either agreed to it and signed off on it,

or was so incompetent and neglectful of his fiduciary duties that he did not

and LET it go on.

Now, it sounds like others know MORE than I do,

but what I outlined is MORE than enough.

For people with HONEST questions.

It's time to bring this ship into the shore,

And throw away the oars, forever

"Can't Fight This Feeling,"

REO Speedwagon.

Time to plug the outreach aspects again..........

The numbers are dwindling, ya know. :)

Let's see....

They stopped mentioning money every five seconds.

They're making preparations to increase outreach.

A coincidence?

Anything in particular you want more on?

Yeah, actually.

Anything from either the

"Trusting God, Our Source of Abundance: We can expect to receive what God has promised us from his word"

article, or the

"The Benefits of Believing Together"

article that correlates receiving from God with giving twi money,

or obedience to twi as a requirement for the "benefits",

or statements where God is REQUIRED to provide what you wanted

because you believed for it.

I'm expecting AT LEAST ONE of those tired old cliches will be there,

and if all 3 are there,

I'm awarding myself "The Hat Trick."

(Or should that be the "Trifecta"?)

Well, it seems awfully simple to me:

"Difficult verses must be understood in light of the clear verses." This could apply to vee pee, too, no? We have example upon example of places where he blatantly plagarized, stole and otherwise mis-represented himself and this ONE line out of all the books, teachings, classes, etc. ONE LINE, one line that isn't even completely accurate.

Sorry, but I just can't chuck the rest of the evidence based on one extremely vague acknowledgement. I'm sure the courts wouldn't either. ;)

You and the courts see things differently than Oldiesman.

Speaking of which, can TWI be sued for plaigarism since they are still producing and selling these books that are obviously plagarized?

I know the holders of the various copyrights certainly CAN sue, legally.

As to anyone else, I have no idea.

Ummm...the question was, in part, at one point at least, about when the policy of tithing was first established 'officially'. (If I'm wrong about this, Tom, please correct me.)

I put forth that the expectation of the tithe was first established in piffle, giving the tithe an 'official' place in twi 'policy'.

Correct-the LATEST it became a policy was in pfal.

Both pfal-vpw's class

and wap-lcm's class

included/include a book that talks about nothing BUT the tithe and how it's expected.

Of course, as you so wonderfully pointed out, 'official policy' is usually set at the whim of the bod...and there has never been an official statement of twi policy, beliefs, practices, etc..

TWI operates primarily upon intimidation. If twi were to put, or ever had put, such intimidation into writing as an 'official policy', twi would have been successfully sued out of existence by now.

Where did I hear, "the devil never puts things in writing"...?

Job 31:35 (KJV)

"Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book."

Taught in twi under vpw AND lcm-

and mentioned during the AOS video.

(Which we were expected to watch over...and over...and over...

so it's easy for me to recall that-including the chapter and verse citation.)

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

I expect some people were harassed BECAUSE of refusing to tithe

until they got sick and tired of being sick and tired,

and left.

Then the official reason they left was that they "copped out".

The truth of the matter is slightly more complicated.

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

There's LEGAL sanctions

(pay your taxes or you will be fined-pay the fine AND the tax or you will be jailed)

and there's violence sanctions

(give me all the money in your wallet or I will break the bones in your face)

and there's SOCIAL sanctions.

vpw himself taught on this, more than once.

Here's the Scripture he used that I've heard him use....

"John 9:

1And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

2And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

3Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

4I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.

5As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

6When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,

7And said unto him, Go, wash in the pool of Siloam, (which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.

8The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

9Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

10Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

11He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

12Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

13They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

14And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

15Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

16Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

17They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

18But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

19And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

20His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

21But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

22These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

23Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

24Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

25He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

26Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

27He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

28Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples.

29We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

30The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

31Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

32Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

33If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

34They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out."

Now,

to be kicked out of one church now, he said, is not a big deal-

you can go down the block and join another.

But in that place and time, to be kicked out of the synagogue

was tantamount to being declared no longer a Jew.

It meant other Jews could not deal with you as a Jew and so on.

That's a SOCIAL SANCTION.

You didn't do what they said-

so your punishment is social.

In this case, you were shunned.

twi didn't hold a gun to your head.

(Most of you.)

However, all of you who were subjected to face-melting sessions

by "leadership" for failing to tithe or abundantly share to the degree

they considered sufficient,

or failing to follow "suggestions" like "help me move"

or "come clean my house"

or "asking questions"

faced SOCIAL SANCTIONS.

Was there an overt threat of violence? No.

Was there a threat and consequences?

YES.

You all saw people who left or were kicked out,

and were told that this equated a death sentence

since leaving twi ("GOD'S PROTECTION")

meant harm and death were imminent.

If anyone needs me to pull up some examples,

I can do so.

Was that a LITERAL gun?

No.

However, twi threatened death would come for

the families-including children-

who left twi.

That's as close as they could legally come TO a gun

without making a big bang sound.

lcm's article included the following:

Abraham is the only man in the Bible specifically called the friend of God (II Chronicles 20:7, Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23).

He is the first man recorded in the Bible to have tithed.

In other words, Abraham was "right friendly" to God because he operated the principle of tithing.

Wouldn't you like to be the same? Then God's hand will be free so that he can "be friendly" back to you!

1) Abraham is the only man in the Bible specifically called the friend of God (II Chronicles 20:7, Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23).

2) He is the first man recorded in the Bible to have tithed.

3) In other words, Abraham was "right friendly" to God because he operated the principle of tithing.

4) Wouldn't you like to be the same?

5) Then God's hand will be free so that he can "be friendly" back to you!

lcm made the claim that Abraham being called "the friend of God"

is directly connected to Abraham having tithed.

That's a logical fallacy,

and I'll let another website explain it-since they can do a better job than I can.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/logic_causation.html

"Correlation and Causation:

We experience the world in a time-oriented manner through cause and effect. First Lucy ate that white berry, then she became sick. First I hit Bob's foot with a hammer, then his foot swelled with a purple bruise. I conclude that eating the white berry is what actually made Lucy sick later. I conclude that being hit with a hammer is what later caused Bob's foot to swell. It is logical enough on the surface. Often, it seems clear--absolutely clear--that a specific action caused a second event to happen. This is what is known as causation. Many events appear to be the results brought about by identifiable causes, and the human mind is geared to look for these cause/effect relationships.

We get into trouble when the mind seeks or creates an artificial cause/effect relationship that doesn't actually exist. After something especially beneficial or harmful occurs, we want to know what caused it. We tend to focus on the first action we noticed before the effect, then assume that it must have been the catalyst triggering the later event. Nine times out of ten, we're right. It was the white berry that made Lucy sick. It was true that hitting a foot with a hammer makes that foot swell and bruise. That makes us lazy intellectually; we forget that, one time out of ten, we pick the wrong cause. In Latin, this type of logical mistake is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which means "After this, therefore because of this." It's the idea that any event which happened first must be the particular event that caused a good or bad event later, and once we find a possible answer we tend to snatch hold of it and then stop thinking about other possibilities.

For example, suppose the fall term of classes ends in December. The manager of a toystore in the local mall hires one new worker. This worker is a college student named Stacy. She wants to do some work before spring term classes start. After Stacy is hired, the store's sales shoot up by 300%. "Wow!" the manager says to herself, "That Stacy is a fantastic sales worker! I haven't hired anyone else but Stacy. Still, since we hired her, our sales have tripled! I'd better give her a raise!" Is the manager's conclusion logical? Is it true that Stacy must be fantastic at her job?

Odds are, nine out of ten readers at this point are nodding, thinking to themselves, "Yeah, it makes sense to me. You hire a new girl, and the sales go up. No other girls were hired. It must be the new girl's work."

On the other hand, the tenth reader stopped and thought, "Wait a minute.... Didn't you say Stacy was hired in December? That's right around Christmas time. Maybe the reason the sales went up wasn't because of Stacy, but because of the time of year." The manager's conclusion now vanishes in a puff of logic.

Which one were you? If you spotted the logical fallacy, puff out your chest and strut around in pride as an intellectual champion. You were clear-headed and avoided the post hoc error. If you didn't spot the problem, and made the same assumptions the manager did, don't feel too ashamed. Often causation is trickier than it looks.

The problem is that correlation is different from causation. Correlation is when two or more things or events tend to occur at about the same time and might be associated with each other, but aren't necessarily connected by a cause/effect relationship. For instance, in sick people, a runny nose and a sore throat correlate to each other--they tend to show up in the same patients. That doesn't mean runny noses cause sore throats, or that sore throats cause runny noses, however. Forgetting that leads to sloppy thinking.

Proud journalists point out that, in the last hundred years, no peaceful nation with a free press has ever experienced severe famine. They argue that freedom of the press prevents blunders in governmental policy and it allows more efficient advertising and dispersal of commodities like food. But is that true? On the other hand, no country with a tradition of honest, publically monitored elections has ever experienced massive famine in the last hundred years either--at least not in times of peace. Which factor "caused" the surplus agriculture and trade to prevent the fearsome famine? Was it free speech or free elections?

Arguably, neither caused it. Perhaps it's all accidental. Free speech or elections might have no effect on agricultural output. Or have we got our cause and effect is backward? Did having sufficient food ensure a stable society so that free speech and democracy could blossom in the first place? Perhaps in famished lands, free speech and free elections fall by the wayside during and after the famine, and thus these hungry countries tend to slide into repressive dictatorships. If that's true, then repressive dictatorships might not actually bring famines upon themselves through clumsy management or a lack of advertising, as earlier suggested.

This is not just a moot intellectual point. Public policy often hinges on spending money to bring about a specific effect. For instance, consider New York City in the 1980s. The city at that time was a dangerous place. Crime was at an all-time high then. Murders, prostitution, and drug-dealing had reached epic levels. New York had tried stiffer penalties, longer jail terms, mandatory counseling, methadone treatments, and a variety of other approaches without denting the ugly problem. Mayor Guiliani hired researchers to come in. What was one of the early findings? Analysts spotted a correlation between graffiti in an inner-city neighborhood and the relative crime-rate in that area. The more graffiti, the higher the crime rate. Treating this as a cause/effect relationship, New York's mayor Guiliani decided to alter the funding for the police department, cutting back money for some types of law-enforcement, pouring money into an city-wide anti-graffiti campaign, and arguing that a cleaner city would diminish the visual "mindset" of crime in the area. He enacted a zero-tolerance policy by prosecuting taggers who painted on public property, and he cleaned up Times Square and the trashiest parts of the city. As overall crime rates dropped in the 1990s, the mayor touted his program as a success.

Impressed and surprised, other cities tried to duplicate New York's approach. They enacted similar financial policies and created similar laws. They hauled in hoodlums and cleaned up graffiti . . . and they all failed miserably. Crime in these cities either remained the same or in one or two cases, worsened slightly, even though the changes they made were nearly identical to that of New York.

What happened? Why couldn't they duplicate New York's success? The problem may be one of false causation. That correlation between the amount of graffiti and the overall crime rate doesn't necessarily mean that graffiti causes crime to happen--no more than the correlation between black eyes and broken noses in people who lose fist fights means that black eyes "cause" broken noses. The crime-rate in an area also correlates to the rate of unemployment, for example, and New York's unemployment was dropping steadily through the 1990s. Perhaps rising employment caused crime to drop at just about the same time the mayor started his anti-graffiti campaign. The rate of drug abuse in a given area also correlates to the number of crimes in that area. The city had started constructing larger drug treatment clinics in the late 1980s after the decade's peak of coccain addiction. Although the construction funding had been spent in the late 1980s without visible effect, many of these clinics actually started operation only two or three years before the fall in crime in the early 1990s. Perhaps after two or three years of treatment, a significant fraction of cured addicts no longer needed to engage in crime sprees to support an expensive and illicit habit. It's not at all clear if there was just one cause--maybe the combination of rising employment, drug clinics, and the mayor's anti-graffiti campaign together had a synergistic effect that was missing in other cities where the anti-graffiti program didn't work. One recent book on applied economic theory, entitled Freakonomics, has gone so far as to suggest plausibly the source of the crime-drop nationwide in the late 1990s and the early 2000s has been an unintentional result or by-product of abortion policies thirty years earlier!

To give a more recent example, on June 28, 2003 Reuters News Agency reported on a Hungarian medical study of 221 men who carried cell phones. The study found that men who carry cell phones in the front pocket of their pants rather than in a jacket or briefcase had a 30% lower sperm count than the average male population as previously measured in 1970. Immediately an outcry appeared to start law-suits against cell phone companies for causing sterility in men, and some consumer watchdogs called for warning labels on cell phones.

The problem is that the study only found correlations--it did not determine clear causation. As Dr. Hans Evers pointed out, many individuals who carry their cell phones in their pants pocket rather than their jacket pocket do so because they are smokers. They carry their cigarette pack in their jacket pocket instead of a pants pocket--to avoid crushing their cigarettes--and thus must carry the cellphone in their pants instead. It has long been known that smokers have a reduced sperm count. Perhaps smoking caused the lower sperm count rather than position of the cell phone per se. Also, the study did not take into account other factors like stress levels (stress can also cause a drop in sperm count); perhaps the men carried cell phones constantly because of a stressful job in which they needed to stay in contact with a company twenty-four hours a day. Finally, the overall sperm count of men may have dropped locally or globally as a whole since the earlier 1970 findings used as a control--possibly due to the increasing levels of chemical pollution worldwide. (Male alligators in parts of Florida, for example, also have 30% lower sperm counts than they did in the 1970s, but nobody thinks that's a result of their cell phone use!)

The point to all this is that, if you are writing an argument, and you claim a cause-effect relationship exists, you should double-check and triple-check that it is causation and not mere correlation. It's hard to nail down causation conclusively, as evidenced by tobacco company lawyers who argued for forty years that smoking merely "correlated" to lung cancer rather than actually caused it. However, the least you can do is pause and ask yourself what other possible causes exist in addition to the one you point to in a paper. If they do exist, you need to think through the evidence and determine why these other causes are less likely than the one you propose.

(Copyright Dr. L. Kip Wheeler 1998-2006. Permission is granted for non-profit, educational, and student reproduction. Last updated July 18, 2006.)

John, you're an intelligent guy so perhaps you can answer this question from a Dummy:

If Dr. Wierwille wanted to portray to us folks that all his teachings were received by revelation, and he researched these concepts on all his own independent from others, why did he say in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?

I got here ahead of him,

so I'll see if I can beat him to a complete answer.

Here's the short answer:

A) he hedged his bets.

If someone later said "Hey, I found this thing that supposedly originated

with vpw, but someone else taught it first!"

"Well, he did say that none of it was original. THAT part's from there,

but most of the other stuff doesn't resemble its original sources."

He claimed

"I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures.

What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped."

That was his "out" about sources.

He had his excuse if you ever "caught" him at something-

so long as you didn't catch him at a LOT of it. (Which the GSC has caught.)

The most he claimed was that he learned from other people's work-

and then completely reworked it on his own,

and when it was error, he dropped the error part.

That's not true.

He didn't rework the work of others. In many cases, he word-for-word

cut-and-pasted their material.

And when there was error, he dropped it if he disagreed, and kept it if he

agreed. Bullinger thought the kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God are

2 different things, but they're used interchangeably in Scripture,

so according to Scripture, they are the same.

According to Bullinger, they are different.

When he DID do changes, all bets are off.

The changes often reflected less an understanding of the material,

and more a desire to make cosmetic changes that made the material

LOOK different.

That's why his rephrasings of Leonard became more and more elaborate,

eventually sacrificing accuracy in the interest of making changes.

For example, Leonard's definition 'of word of knowledge' was simple and

accurate. Eventually, vpw changed it until it was error-

he made it REQUIRE the information be "IMPOSSIBLE" to be obtained

by your 5 senses. However, all over the Bible, the revelation WAS something

that the 5 senses COULD have told-but didn't.

So, his claim that he "worked" the material is inadequate, because he

retained any error that looked good, and his changes were primarily

COSMETIC and not substantive.

B)

Now then,

he buried that comment in the middle of TW:LiL, which was NOT

required reading. Did that complete a consistent picture of a man

who learned a lot from others, and simply COMPILED it?

Hardly-the rest of the book paints the OPPOSITE picture.

"TW:LIL, pg-179.

"The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it,

God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times.

God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew

you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the

beginnings.

God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and

more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the

accuracy and integrity of God's Word."

pg-190.

"If no one is around to teach you the Word, and you are hungry,

then God has to teach you in the framework of your knowledgeable

experience. For example, if you're an athlete, He'll do it through

athletics. If you're a farmer, He'll teach you through farming."

pg-201.

"You see, learning is a process. You don't learn overnight.

The holy spirit field-that's the field God raised me up for.

There's not a question that cannot be answered biblically.

And there's no one I can't lead into speaking in tongues if they are

Christian and want to do it.

No matter how much knowledge you have of God, God seldom allows you

to teach more than people are able to receive.

Some things God taught me that night in Tulsa, I've never taught-

no one would have been able to receive them."

What's the COMPLETE picture he's trying to convey here?

pg-239.

"You teach what they can take. And sometimes you know a whole lot more.

Things you could open your heart on, you never do, to those depths

of perception. You go so far. You know the abundance available and

the Father says, 'That's all folks! End of show.' And it's

something you cannot describe to people. Just you and Father know."

The COMPLETE picture is that he learned everything from God alone-

except for little bits and pieces he got from other Christians,

which were usable once he strained all the error out of them.

That's completely the OPPOSITE of what happened-

like taking 100% of Leonard's class and immediately switching HIS

name for Leonard's and taking all the credit for all the work.

What did the Orange Book say on the others he learned from?

What did the White Book say on the others he learned from?

Forgot?

Easy to understand-they say NOTHING on them.

Here's what they DO say:

Orange Book, pg-119-120.

""For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I

used to read two or three theological works weekly for month

after month and year after year. I knew what Professor

so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend

so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had

not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired

of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3000 volumes

of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit

reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent

years studying The Word- its integrity, its meaning,

its words."

There he says he discarded the works of other Christians entirely,

and used ONLY the Bible.

What did he say in the White Book?

(preface)

"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all

that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew

with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.

I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,

the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must

fit like a hand in a glove."

Note, again, that's after he got its entire material from Stiles,

Bullinger, and Leonard (with a smidgen of Lamsa.)

That's also after he initially credited Stiles for the answers-

but left out his name-

then went back and removed all record of Stiles' name from

the White Book.

Forgot all this?

I posted it maybe 24 hours ago on this SAME thread.

Now, I find it a little curious that you've left many paragraphs

which form a coherent whole with NO comments-as if they're

invisible to you,

but perhaps a single sentence -which HAS been explained before-

becomes a near-obsessive focus, which must be addressed and

explained again as if you've never been in discussions on it before.

It's not a surprise, just a little curious.

Perhaps HeGotOut will address the aspects I didn't expound on.

[Edited to add the letter B).]

quote: Johniam, I'm thinking that Jesus probably never told his disciples "Truth needs no defense" if they asked him a question and also willing to bet that he probably didn't instruct them to use that phrase either.

Of course He never taught that. He didn't speak English, ha ha. But on at least one occasion He showed them how. Remember Mark 9 when that man was putting Jesus disciples on the defensive because they couldn't heal his kid? Then the man tried the same crap on Jesus but Jesus basically asked the man if he could believe. He didn't go on the defensive. That canyon just became a crack in the sidewalk.

Note to self:

the twi "never actually address the question" techniques are still alive and well

in usage among twi "apologists".

First the change of subject (he didn't speak English).

Then make an irrelevant comparison.

Then continue as if it's the same thing when it isn't,

and hope nobody notices.

The subject is the dodges and evasions used by twi to avoid explanations

and uncomfortable questions- "spin control" as some people here love to say.

In Mark 9, a father had a sick child.

Did the father care about doctrine and the law?

Not at that moment-he wanted his child healed.

Sophistry was NOT on the table with him-just heal the kid.

So, he went to the disciples.

No healing.

So, he went to their boss.

"If you can do anythng..."

Jesus put the responsibility back on the man.

Was the man intending to put Jesus on the spot and trap him in talk?

You'd have to accept that he was willing to have his child sick

just to win an argument. SHAME on you if you think any parent with an

ounce of humanity could seriously consider it.

He wanted what-to give Jesus a trick question?

NO. His child was sick, and he was single-mindedly focused on their healing.

Did Jesus respond as if the man was trying to trip him up?

No-he seems to think the man wanted his child healed,

and the responsibility for the child was the man's,

so he put the responsibility back on the man's shoulders.

"Lord, I believe-help my unbelief."

So, is this where Jesus says "You're playing word-games.

I'm leaving until you can give me a straight yes-or-no answer.

Next time tell the Pharisees to do their own dirty work"

and storms off?

NO.

Jesus understood this had NOTHING to do with trick questions,

ridiculing Jesus, or word-games.

The man wanted his child healed.

Jesus concerned himself little with the exact wording of his

request for help, and prayed for the child's deliverance.

Which the child got.

I don't know what canyons had to do with the discussion, either,

for that matter.

Oh, look, a cloud! But what's it doing at ground level?

He said thy word IS truth, not thy word contains truth. If that's being narrow minded, so be it. TWI was just the messenger.

In your opinion, twi was THE Messenger with THE Truth, then?

I'm sure the newbies would like to know for sure.