WordWolf

"In transition?" They paused while getting sex-change procedures to set up a website??? :blink:

Amazing you missed it, but I shall document it. It was in a post you made, and the post IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING IT, WHICH YOU REPLIED TO. I wouldn't brag about that particular level of "understanding"... That was you making an incorrect statement in ignorance, phrased as if you knew what you were talking about, followed by tl correcting you by citing an official source. In other words, this was when you were proven wrong and came back to pick a second/third fight.

Funny how these "MANY thousands" never seem to actually set up a messageboard of their OWN, which would be Mike's homebase. ANYBODY can set up a messageboard. This would lead one to think that there's not enough ACTUAL people in this account to justify even setting UP a board in a "if you build it, they will come" sort of way. If I didn't want to read accounts of how the 1942 promise was a lie,and the Tulsa blizzard was a lie, and how the man who supposedly was God's special messenger was instead a proven liar who ripped off all his best work from others, and fabricated incidents proving he was special, meanwhile enjoying taking sexual advantage of his female adherents, and indulging in lifelong vices of alcohol and tobacco which lead to his early death, and considered every item owned by the ministry as "his" (minus the luxury tax since the ministry supposedly owned it), I wouldn't want to visit the GSC EITHER. That didn't even address any of the error in what he taught. Scripture assured us that false prophets would seek to deceive the very elect, I firmly agree.

Sounded like you already were an expert on their beliefs when you STARTED on the subject, Allan. Why REMAIN on the subject once you've been proven wrong already? BTW, feel free to start a NEW thread in Doctrinal exploring the different beliefs of various groups on the subject.

Speaking of which, "THE Teacher" referred to those brothers in Christ who made such comments as "IDIOTS" in "THE Class." "He's another one of those........idiots." (The guy who didn't see the need for tongues for himself because he didn't anticipate entering the mission fields.)

Sounds like he SAID it was literal. "In EVERY situation" "all-basically all nine manifestations have to be in operation within you"

Speculation. You don't have in writing-which is YOUR STANDARD- that this was the sole reason for him doing so.

Well, by his own ADMISSION, he was a conspiracy nut. From "Passing of a Patriarch", part I (almost the very end of part I.) === " 'Son, what would you say if I told you I was going to die?' After a moment I responded: 'Sir, every day that I have been with you I have always been mentally and physically prepared to accept and deal with your death. I have known that at any minute your death might come. You know how many hours I have trained to protect you and all the drills we have been through. You know that I have literally covered your body with mine when there were situations that demanded it. I have also pushed my mind to accept and carry any last-minute instructions that you might give me. I have known that they might be the last directions for the Ministry.' " ==== "You know how many hours I have trained to protect you and all the drills we have been through. You know that I have literally covered your body with mine when there were situations that demanded it." I'm going to skip jokes about that and get to the questions. cg acted like he was Secret Service protecting the President from assassins-complete with "covering him with your body" stuff as a human shield. What was a "situation that demanded it?" cg seems to believe there were assassination attempts on vpw's life on a number of occassions. Not accidents, otherwise a human shield is unnecessary. He had to spoil the aim of a shooter. In hindsight, with all the conspiracy-talk that people took seriously, I honestly believe that the time that cg claimed one of the bot put out a hit on Caballero was completely without substance, and the bot just presumed each other did it, and didn't question such a ridiculous concept.

For the record, I'd like to point out that it's not a RECENT picture...

I presume you meant ME, since I was addressing his explanation specifically. "The reason he could say to him in the name of Jesus of Nazareth,rise up and walk,he had to have had Discerning of Spirits to find out whether this was due ,to the way he was born,whether it was due to devil spirits." By this logic, discerning of spirits is in use virtually every time you do something right. Otherwise, how do you know a spirit isn't trying to actively hinder you? (Then again, vpw was notably weak on the subject of discerning of spirits, both in explanation and practice.) I see this explanation as an attempt to shoehorn the usage of discerning of spirits into this account. To be equally consistent, we'd have to shoehorn it into other accounts all over Scripture, and I find that complicates the accounts needlessly, and inserts ideas that had no place there. "That was eliminated,so he had to have word of Knowledge to know the score," Since information WAS needed, I agree this was in effect. "Word of Wisdom,then,to know what to do about it." No-having the information was ENOUGH. Word of Wisdom CAN be coupled with Word of Knowledge, but I see FAR too many people considering them as required to be used in conjunction with each other. The textbook example of them being used TOGETHER was Joseph "interpreting" (yes, interpretations belong to God) the dreams of Pharaoh. Word of Knowledge: "the dreams are one-7 years of plenty, followed by 7 years of famine." Word of Wisdom: "THEREFORE store 20% of the foods from the first 7 years to eat in the second 7 years." Word of Wisdom WITHOUT Word of Knowledge is best illustrated by Solomon's famous account of the 2 women who claimed motherhood of the same child. Word of Knowledge would have just given her identity, but he got Word of Wisdom instead. (I bet he asked for Word of Knowledge...) Most accounts of Word of Knowledge do not NEED Word of Wisdom to be used in conjunction. Gahazi: "Messenger from the king!" Elisha: "Relax-the king's on his way." "Then he had to have Believing, the manifestation of Believing, to carry it out. He had to believe." To make this claim means that ALL acts of "believing" are "the Manifestation of Believing", which is just plain silly. Heathens and publicans believe all the time. Lacking "the spirit of God", they are unable to operate a "manifestation of the spirit." This is an AMAZINGLY imprecise and SLOPPY explanation. It reflects either a casual disregard of the subject, or a basic MISunderstanding of the subject, or BOTH. (Probably not both.) If that's the best reason he can give for invoking "Believing" as a manifestation here, then it's obvious it doesn't belong here. Bring it back when you have an answer that actually WORKS. "Here's a man born this way.God shows him,he can be delivered." So, that still puts us at THREE out of NINE. Word of Knowledge, Working of Miracles, Gifts of Healings. Because people are STILL mistaking us for each other.

Sounds familiar. Shrek 2?

It WAS the Muppet Movie. For the curious, here was the scenes for these lines... I didn't get to use a few favourites I was setting up.. "Ah, a bear in his natural habitat-a Studebaker." And the lines from Big Bird and Gonzo when the car catches up to both. (Gonzo's dream is to go to Bombay, India and become a film star, Big Bird's on his way to NYC to break into PBS.)

He used that example at the '76 ROA as well, for one of the keynote teachings. I didn't pay too much attention to that list, because my INITIAL response was "cute-but he's stretching at best to shoehorn in all 9 there." Here's my breakdown of manifestation usage in play at the Temple Gate Beautiful: tongues: interpretation of tongues: prophesy: Not in effect. None of them were mentioned OR implied in the account. "Where the Word of God is silent, he who speaks is a fool."-vpw. Word of knowledge: IN USE. They knew this was the place/time to single him out, and what to say. Word of wisdom: Discerning of spirits: Not in effect. believing: Tough to call. This one is so vaguely "defined", even in the Advanced Class, that an easier rule of thumb is to use it when the other two "power" manifestations are NOT named. In this case, therefore, NOT in use. The criteria that put it in use here apply just as vaguely to EVERYTHING. working of miracles: IN USE. Supposedly, INSTANT results are miracles. I'll agree with that at the moment. Since the deliverance was instant, this is in play. QED. gifts of healings: IN USE. The man was healed. (Duh.) ==== So, final tally of all 9 in this account: THREE out of NINE in use. That's SIX short of what vpw claimed for the same incident. Unless we redefine all 9 so vaguely that they're involved with everything short of pouring milk on your cornflakes, it seems rather rare for even 5 out of 9 to be in effect at the same time. So, requiring or expecting it is rather silly. Being ready to serve God, yes. Expecting "all nine all the time", no. Besides, God knows your strengths and weaknesses. He'll call upon you to do what you are ABLE to do.

"When you get rich and famous, we'll come exploit you." "This is a serious call for help!" "They don't look like Presbyterians to me." "Send in our standard 'rich and famous' contract." "I want to eat drums!" "No, no. BEAT drums, BEAT drums!" "..whisper sweet nothings into my ear." "Uh..motorcycle cop." " 'Motorcycle cop' is a sweet nothing?' " "A motorcycle cop is chasing us." "It's too bad the dancing girls are on vacation. This crowd's getting ugly." "If you think this crowd's ugly, you should see the dancing girls."

Not...exactly, no....

"When you get rich and famous, we'll come exploit you." "This is a serious call for help!" "They don't look like Presbyterians to me." "Send in our standard 'rich and famous' contract."

Nothing that recent, and I'm fairly certain most posters here have seen this movie at least once, if not recently.

I wish I could charge money every time that saying is used, and put it directly into the GSC operating fund. Why do people keep using that same expression, instead of just saying what they mean? It is easy to confuse a slogan for an answer, and I expect better than that from most people here, because most people here know better. Pending further information, AFAIK, the offshoots occasionally incorporate more ex-wafers in them, and may increase thru the kids "taking the class", but-other than that- don't significantly grow in membership numbers. They don't generally appeal to the average Christian, the average American.

I'm speculating here, but I suspect it's the same reasons later people didn't just start out researching this from Day One. When a man presents himself as a minister of God, he presents that he's making a good-faith attempt to exemplify-in word AND deed- the standards set up by God Almighty. Therefore, you EXPECT that his 'yea' is 'yea', and his 'nay' is 'nay'. You don't expect him to lie ACCIDENTALLY to you, let alone INTENTIONALLY. Furthermore, when you think a minister is exceptional- say, he's teaching better material than you've ever heard before AND supposedly it comes from him having a superior connection with God, AND he tells you something, you expect it to be MORE reliable, not less. As we can see now, that was error on our parts. But, you can see how we made it.

I'm glad I'm not the first one to bring this up. Grads of pfal were rather specific-someone could "learn to SIT" in pfal- and otherwise, NOT AT ALL. (Although there were some exceptions.) Most grads, if faced with someone who wanted to SIT, or who they wanted to have SIT, were all told "you have to take the class." Thing is, if this was supposed to simulate vpw's search, it failed miserably. If his own account of this is to be believed, vpw went to the Tulsa convention, and went away with Stiles for a few hours. Stiles took him ASIDE, ALONE for a few hours, and PERSONALLY led him into it. That's it-no class, no collateral readings. (Although I expect vpw bought Stiles' book right then.) That was 1951. As for pfal, it was almost an entire word-for-word lift, in its original form, of Leonard's class. That was 1953. The exception was the leading-people-into-SIT stuff. Leonard's students had that as a prerequisite for HIS class. This allowed them to focus on other matters in his class. pfal-originally known as "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", had this as the GOAL. Why add this as the climax of pfal? A) It turns SIT into a "normative experience". B) It ties SIT to pfal-and to twi. C) It gives pfal a dramatic close. D) It unites the students sociologically thru common experience and ritual. I don't NECESSARILY see any of those as BAD things, in and of themselves. They are SUSPICIOUS when they're kept HIDDEN, and making them custom almost to the point of law was bad. (Some people got static for leading people to SIT before Session 12.) When ritual overtook the needs of the students, that was bad.

Let's see.. 11 sessions of just absorbing material, followed by 1 session where DOUBLE the attendance filled the room, all waiting for you students to suddenly do something. No performance pressure there. What could anyone possibly be nervous about? (They must have been indoctrinated against Session 12 by those evil denominations...) I didn't sit with a calculator from class to class. However, I do kn0w that when I took it, the dropoff was right in the class. We started with 8 students. 7 made it to Session 1. 3 of us made it to Session 12. There was me, the spouse of someone, and the teen of someone. (So, me and 2 people who "had" to take it.) I think one of the others finished the next one around, and they were in someone's family also. But the 3 of us who finished, we stuck with it. ==== I am aware that some people took pfal to a point, then quit, and others finished it, then that was it. As to the second, they probably saw it as an end in itself. So, they got what they came for, then left. Fair enough.

"This is a serious call for help!" "They don't look like Presbyterians to me."

Let's not leave it there....finish the thought. Did that guy really originate the concept/term, or was it handed to him? Was Mr "Greatest Revelation In Two Millenia", Mr "Miraculous Snow Follows Me Around", Mr "So Spiritual I Can Screen Pornography And Not Be Corrupted", Mr "Stand When I Enter The Room", Mr "Wear a Tux to Interview Me", was he actually surprised when this song was done? Or had he deliberately set the stage for it himself? Remember his protege- He had the nerve to appear surprised when someone suggested that HE play the lead in the musical production HE was pushing. (Satan's Alley/AOS) Does anyone think, even for a moment, that he EVER seriously entertained the option of having someone ELSE play the lead? lcm was the un-subtle, blindingly-obvious ripoff of vpw all his days. I say he saw vpw do it, and just carried on his "legacy".

"When you get rich and famous, we'll come exploit you."

Actually, a lot of us have learned a lot here over the years. Some of what was learned was factual, some of it was conceptual, insight or ideological. Have you been participating in messageboards elsewhere where people had zero interest in either being factual, correct, or "right" in some way? I've been on a number of boards, and-so far-that's been true of none of them.