WordWolf

lcm was taught the sexual exploits by his "mentor", who made his student twofold the child of hell that he himself was. As for running off the non-corrupt people, twi does that periodically. It's one cost for doing business when you just want the money and power and are lying to the people. I'd spend at least a full year completely separated from twi and splinters.You'd be surprised how savvy some of the local churches can be. (Not all, but you knew that part.) Expected, possibly-but they were still crimes and vile things to do to people. That corruption is predictable does not excuse the criminal (nor those absolving him-and I DON'T mean you.) The centralization was vpw's whole idea, and that's why he made twi in the FIRST place. (Check out the thread "the way:living in wonderland" for discussion of this subject.) So, it's impossible to reform something that was designed specifically to do wrong. Just gut it and start from scratch. Well, you're ahead of some people. We've got some who insist that non-twi, non-splinter Christians are ALL idiots. If you got a great start, fantastic. However, I'd use it as a START and see what all other Christians have to offer. My position while IN twi was that-if we really were the best- that I could take things to another level by adding the best of what other Christians could offer to what we knew. That's why it was a less drastic shock to discover Christians who knew stuff. I'd expect better from them, and DEMAND better from them. That is, if they're "walking the walk" (demonstrating LOVE, not LEGALISM), and don't care about the money-they care about YOU, and aren't smug about having THE Truth, and are fine with Christians disagreeing, then great. Otherwise, pack up and move on. Many Christians demand better-so they GET better.

I was waiting for CONFIRMATION. You know-proof I wasn't mistaken? ========= "Sugar Plum Fairy came and hit the streets Looking for soul food and a place to eat."

[More than one opinion, the horror....] [A) Some of his teachings-like the "law" of believing-are wrong B) his counsel was questionable at best. He was a bad husband, but gave marriage advice unsolicited. C) "focusing on his personality". Actually, vpw started that. Besides, his "carnality" may well be a human thing, but his EAGERNESS to satisfy the lusts of the flesh was INAPPROPRIATE and DISGRACEFUL in a minister of God. If Jeffrey Dahmer had surived jail and gotten born again, and wanted to address twi, they'd hurry to judge him on his "carnality", of course.]

A) No, it didn't "have to". B) You can't turn away from something you never had. False Premise. twi was NOT build primarily on what twi always CLAIMED twi was about. As you can see from this quote, the "centrality and authority of God's Word" always meant less than "our Father in the Word" at hq-which means that's how it was taught. Some people are STILL like that. If they weren't, vpw would be a footnote to them, a tool for a job, rather than a revered figure who did little wrong (to THEM).

He was teaching that in the '80s, and possibly in the later '70s. I wish I had the phrase exactly. "The only farm that sows spiritual seed and" something-something. I dont feel like digging thru days of tapes to find it.

"Oh, would you like to be born again, have God's spirit living within, and be better off than you've been.... ....Or would you rather be a jug? A jug is a human being with nothing inside. He's cracked but he's covered up with pride. He dresses flashy in the latest style But he's just an empty on the rubbish pile So if you let Satan use you for a rug, you may grow up to be a jug. ...Or would you rather be a snake? A snake is a child of the father of lies. Someday he'll be getting a surprise. He looks as righteous as an Eagle Scout but the wrong seed's in him and it won't come out. So if you like swimming in a firey lake, you may grow up to be a snake. ....Or would you rather be a goat? A goat is a guy who says he don't need 'the class'. When we go to twig, he goes to Mass. He worships idols but he serves himself. His good news Bible's sitting on the shelf. So if religion has got you by the throat, you may grow up to be a goat." This was the second song off an album released in the early 1980s. The album has a recorded opening intro/teaching by The Big Forehead himself. Oldies, you'll still find your copy in your tape library (or I'll be disappointed in you.) You've listened to this tape before, I'm pretty sure. What words of outrage did you direct to people concerning the casual dismissal of all other Christians, and all non-Christians? All Christians were dismissed with "he worships idols but he serves himself", while many Christians don't even have statues of ANY kind, let alone idols. As for serving himself, how was he different from twi members? Oh, that's right-they served lcm, which was a more noble calling. Finally, all other Christians skip reading their Bibles? Didn't get around much... How about the non-Christians who were "just empties on a rubbish pile?" lcm ENDORSED the contents of this tape, specifically. He called the songs "thought-provoking" and "spiritual satire". He outlined what each song was about, and demonstrated a knowledge of their contents. (Go ahead-replay it.) lcm also didn't consider this "offensive". He thought there were ways to use these songs (which includes that one) as a prelude to a teaching on its specific subject. In this particular case, that would have meant a teaching that explained how non-Christians were "empties on a rubbish pile." This was not "inner sanctum". I'd say almost all twi-ers who had ANY music tapes back then-which was more than 1/2, I'd say- had this in their collection.

We HAD a post some time ago where someone mentioned walking in on Donna and Rozilla just after "the crime blazed". We also heard from people who'd been in one hotel room that the 2 of them preferred when travelling. It has one bed. Of course, that, in and of itself, is not proof of ANYTHING. However, when everything is taken into account, I think a rather specific picture emerges. Rozycheeks is unmarried. Donna is either de facto or de jure unmarried (either legally or effectively divorced.) Donna's reasons for marrying lcm-whom she barely knew at the time-were SOLELY on the basis of his being a rising star and she was going to marry one no matter what they had to say on the subject. (Check the "vp and me in wonderland" thread for the long version of this, complete with discussion.) Rozilla had a lesbian couple staying in her house as renters (or something equivalent.) They love to travel in style, and get the best stuff. However, they don't get separate rooms while travelling, or separate BEDS, and they certainly aren't motivated by "saving money." Therefore, they CHOSE to share a bed, for reasons unclear. Even without someone walking in on them "after", there's a lot that can't really be explained if that's NOT what's going on.

Actually, that was "Hexegeckomai." I listened for it and got much amusement from it. I figured it was some sort of small 6-sided lizard.

The "DL" is short for "the DownLow". These expressions really come as news to you people?

"..you'll feel The Power of Love!" Huey Lewis and the News. Also on the "Back to the Future" soundtrack, and-don't blink-Huey's in the movie! Look for Marty's audition towards the beginning. One judge says "Sorry guys-you're just too loud..."

They weren't too SCARED. They lacked the wit to detect a joke. They were selected and trained to follow orders INTHINKINGLY. So, when lcm announces the name of a program, that's the name no matter how ridiculous. If lcm had announced a new 2-week class called the "Abundant Dogsh** of the Prevailing Household", they would have believed there was a class with that name. (Here, stand still a minute while I shave your head.)

As always, we're looking for events centering around this time. Recollections of EVERY kind would be appreciated. To help "jog" your memory, here's a few events from twi and US history for that timeframe: 1980:(just before we start): "Jesus Christ Our Passover" was published. It was written by the research staff, and says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" on the cover. 1981: Sandra Day O'Connor becomes the first female Supreme Court Justice. 1981: "Dynasty" first airs, as does "Hill Street Blues." 1981:Iran releases the embassy hostages. 1982: twi manufactures a 40th anniversary. 1982: vpw installs lcm as president. 1982: "Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed" is published. See the note about JCOP. 1983: Reagan begins implementation of the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative. 1984: live pfal at Camp Gunnison. 1984:Gartmore House is purchased in Gartmore, Scotland, and named the "Way College of Biblical Research."

Someone already mentioned the duck. The donkey thing is here: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/donkey.htm

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] [Mike, thanks so much for demonstrating for the new people, in one post, that your methods of reading and comprehension are grossly-deficient to be trusted to correctly convey the contents of a fast-food menu, let alone what is "God-breathed" or not. That saved me a LOT of time.]

[WordWolf in boldface and brackets.] [Oh, that's right- exposing Mike's doctrine to the light of truth is tantamount to attacking God Almighty! ] [This "greatest commandment" you claim we're violating- this is the "not mastering pfal" thing when you're saying this, correct? Feel free to refuse to give a "yes-no" answer to this- EVADING a simple "yes-no" answer will be quite informative to the peanut gallery.] [vpw admitted it a few times, but he didn't let that admission interfere with the raping and drugging and molesting, and the other stuff. When you say you don't revere his sin, I won't challenge that. I will ask about your comments about vpw's PERSON, which you claim you don't REVERE. You've previously claimed that vpw "was born with an overabundance of brains and brawn", that he was "overgifted", and that "where he walked, the earth shook." Are you denying that you made these claims now, or are you denying that these claims qualify as "REVERING" vpw? Feel free to refuse to answer that one as well- refusing to explain how claiming these things supposedly are statements of fact and not vapid worship and a violation of one of the 10 Commandments will ALSO be quite informative on its own to those reading along...]

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.] [Mike's handing out homework AGAIN. Mike STILL thinks he's our teacher, when he hasn't even demonstrated he can KEEP UP....]

[WordWolf in brackets and boldface again.] [Told you Mike would never give a clear, unambiguous answer. If he did, and you satisfied it, and it STILL didn't work, he'd be unable to "move the goalposts" and claim you never REALLY "mastered pfal". It's the same tactic when his supposed "law" of believing fails most of the time. Excuse after excuse is dragged in to attempt to conceal the failure of a so-called "law". Plus, Mike would be unable to just tell you stuff and have you take orders if you were on the SAME level or HIGHER than him.... I honestly tried before to help him crystallize his doctrine into something clear and unambiguous that others could either accept or reject as they saw fit. Mike still insisted on vagueness, on being able to reinterpret things later to suit him. Mike will change when the leopard changes his spots.]

[see, Mike doesn't care about ANY consequences except ONE: Whether a man of God can SIN and SIN, and then be counted on to write Scripture. That's why Mike fixates on David and tries to add all kinds of things to his story to try to make it resemble vpw's life.] [That's easy. You look at the life of the person FOLLOWING the incident, and what they do over the long run. As was already pointed out ABOVE, I Kings 15:5 "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." I take it God Almighty is considered an EXPERT WITNESS in the subject of "people's hearts", and his EXPERT TESTIMONY is that David DID NOT SIN after that. Mike's speculations on David have CONTINUED to CONTRADICT the EXPERT TESTIMONY of GOD ALMIGHTY. When considering who to believe, I pick GOD ALMIGHTY over Mike the human anytime. Compare this to vpw, whom, we have many, many, many eyewitness and VICTIM accounts, lived a life of sin and made arrangements to FACILITATE (make it easier to) sin. Need I go into that all over again? Mike's been missing that for YEARS already....] [If God ever needs some extra cash, I'll let Him know He has options. ] [Ah, the famous "if God knew something bad would happen, and didn't stop it, He must have approved" straw man. I thought we stomped this into the ground in the early 1990s. Apparently not. Look- God allows man free-will. Period. Don't like it? Take it up with God. ] [Mike ran out of defenses on this, so he volunteered to stop trying to defend it. Very generous of him. The fox also offers the duck its pond, also.]

It's sad, really. I've corrected Mike on this SPECIFIC error BEFORE. Mike's error-ridden techniques have been used to reinforce his flawed theology here. See, doojable, Mike is adamant in claiming that the rapes, thefts, and other sins committed by vpw do NOT disqualify vpw from being a leader. (The Epistles say they DO, the Old Testament says they DO, Mike says they DON'T.) So, to attempt to justify calling a lying rapist "The Man of God" or "THE Teacher", Mike smokescreens by trying to claim that King David of Israel lived an entire life of sin and debauchery, and wasn't dismissed as king. This is his intention, and he has to mangle Scripture to make this claim. ========= Here's a recap. (II Samuel 11) King David sees this hot babe Bath-Sheba. (And she was taking a bath.) He does the horizontal hula with her, and ends up making her pregnant. She's married, and her husband is in the Israeli Army. David attempts to hide his sin by calling Uriah the Hittite (her husband) home from the field. He sends a catered meal and Barry White album to Uriah's home. His thinking's pretty clear: a married guy's been away from his wife, so obviously he'd like to have a nice meal with her and then do the horizontal mambo with her. Then, when she turns up pregnant, Uriah will think it's HIS kid. The end. The problem is, Uriah refuses to go home and chill, since he's too moral and the rest of the army is in the field. So, David can't hide his sin this way, so he has Uriah killed. He seals an order and has Uriah give it to his own commander. The order says "Make sure Uriah is killed by the enemy in the next engagement." He does, and that's the end of Uriah. David thinks he's clear-and marries Bathsheba. But God sends Nathan the prophet to confront Nathan, who repents of his sin, and faces the consequences of them. (II Samuel 12.) Please read the chapters on your own time. ==== Mike's twisted interpretation of the chapters say that all sorts of people are aware of the carefully-concealed plots of David. That is false. David concealed ALL his steps, including sealing the order to kill Uriah. (If it was unsealed, Uriah might have found out he was carrying his own death sentence.) David hid the adultery, then he attempted to make it look like Uriah's kid. When that failed, he sent confidential orders to have Uriah killed and make it look like an accident. SPECULATION and GUESSWORK by Mike claims that David's servants all knew. Perhaps a few SUSPECTED. However, servants know to keep their mouths SHUT or they get killed, wounded or fired. So, a few MIGHT have suspected. Saying they definitely knew is "private interpretation". (According to PFAL, that's the FIRST thing to avoid.) Mike has also claimed that Bathsheba got pregnant and told other people. This might have gotten her killed, AND whoever she told killed. Uriah was being killed and he didn't even tell anyone anything (because he didn't know what was going on.) If she admitted her sin, the penalty for adultery is STONING. So, how does she want to die- stoning, poison, the knife? Her best chance to survive is to say NOTHING. (She was better off never sinning, but once she DID sin, she wanted to stay alive.) Mike also claimed "Uriah made a public spectacle of NOT sleeping with her when he was home on leave." However, there is no notice at the gates of the city, and no town crier announcing "Uriah the Hittite is in town and not sleeping with his wife!" So, once again, this is "private interpretation". IF anyone other than David, Bathsheba, God, and Nathan (who found out from God) knew, the Word of God remains SILENT on that issue. "Where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool."-vpw. Mike also claimed that "after Nathan's confrontation EVERYONE KNEW. ALL of Uriah's relatives knew EXACTLY what happened by then." This was unsupported by Scripture, and thus, "private interpretation." Mike has claimed that other people knowing is "obvious" and "clearly implied." (Was it clear or was it implied?) As we see, it is none of the kind. It was speculation on Mike's part. It was "private interpretation." Mike has also claimed, AFTER this, that "I know David sinned again, even though it's not recorded. I'd bet my life on it, and not lose a wink of sleep." In this, Mike was proven wrong AGAIN. As CM pointed out, I Kings 15:5 "Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite." So, David did NOT sin again-and that IS recorded. If Mike had bet his life on it, he'd be dead now. Mike's insistence that Uriah's family forgave David for knocking up his wife and killing him is wild speculation unsupported by any Scripture. However, Mike keeps on relying on this as actually happening. That's because Mike is adamant on saying there were no real consequences for this, and using that as an analogy and saying there were no real consequences for the rapes and molestations committed by vpw. That's not unique to Mike, either. The seeds of this idolatry is in the pfal class itself, when vpw declares that "techically, all the women in the kingdom in the kingdom belonged to the King,", in clear and blatant violation of the Old Testament Law-which applied to beggar and king. This helped vpw pave the way for his later rapes and molestations. A separate question is: Are they the same? Is one-time adultery and scramble to conspire to conceal it, even unto death, by David, followed by his repentance, functionally equivalent to serial premeditated rape and molestation by a "man of God", with possible repentance as he approached the end of his days? That's answered here: http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/perfect.htm Mike has forgotten-or never paid attention-to when all this was said before. Here is the funny part: June 19, 2005, 12:59am, I said, on this subject, "How many months before Mike makes this claim again? I'm guessing 6 months." It's almost 6 months to the DAY I posted that. Is he predictable, or what? And Mike claims I misunderstand or misrepresent his posts! Mike will NEVER give a clear, unambiguous answer to this. If he DID, he would be unable to quietly "move the goalposts" again. It worked for CG, and Mike keeps thinking it will work for him. However, I met CG, and studied under CG, and Mike is no CG.

Lacking the uncils of the time-period in question, I'm forced to rely on cursives based on the uncils that were extant. :) That was a little pfal joke. (Very little.) What I CAN'T do is retrieve the ORIGINAL discussions of same. However, this subject-the DIVINE DICTATION concept of Mike's- that DID come up again in 2003...... WordWolf said this 1/1/03, 4:37am (Eastern): Mike replied this 1/1/03, 5:09am (Eastern): According to Mike's CURRENT dash, he NEVER claimed the "DIVINE DICTATION" method- that is, that vpw got the books by revelation. "WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena with a denial of the phenomena." In other words, I never claimed vpw got them strictly by Divine Dictation-I always claimed he got them thru God telling vpw to rip off the other writers. (That's the CURRENT position, which I can elaborate on in further detail if anyone requires it.) HOWEVER, as we can see from this trip down Amnesia Lane, even AFTER threads where he claimed this were deleted, there's STILL proof he claimed the Divine Dictation. He drew a specific analogy to claim this: -Peter gets revelation from God, then blows it -Paul gets revelation from God-which is the SAME revelation; which he gets DIRECTLY from God, not Peter and corrected by God. He underscores this analogy between Paul- who gets DIRECT revelation-and vpw-who gets DIRECT revelation-by calling Paul "rough-and-tumble" and not Peter (who was a DOCUMENTED fighter), and saying Kenyon was NOT "rough-and-tumble"- leaving the unspoken comment that vpw is "rough-and-tumble"-which IS how Mike has referred to vpw, as an individualistic, bombastic man. Further, when speaking of the exact material in the OTHER books and vpw's books, Mike calls it "the SAME similar material as it appeared in the other writers' books". Not "the material as it was in the other writers' books", but the SAME similar material, making the claim it wasn't the exact same material from which vpw derived his books. That was what Mike HAD been saying BEFORE this, and he had not YET abandoned this position. As Mike has recently pointed out, sometimes surrounding verses can clarify a matter. So, I shall quote one to reinforce what was already in his post. Raf replied to Mike's post. (1/2/03, 12:54pm Eastern) He replied to Mike's initial comment (Up to "no one wants to do that") by saying Raf responded to the next section "Can you see..." to "Think it through without fighting it so that you can see the implications." by saying Raf responded to the rest, the 'how long will you think this way' stuff, with: So, seems the people posting at the time were ALSO rather clear that Mike was claiming "Divine Dictation" for vpw's books. What was Mike's denial of that like? It was non-existent. Mike just let those comments pass without remark. Since it was consistent with the meaning of his post- that Mike claimed Divine Dictation- and not INconsistent with the meaning of his post- then the lack of response is understandable. If it had been otherwise, Mike would have responded by claiming others were misunderstanding what he was saying. So, based on what can be recovered, we can see that Mike ONCE held the "PFAL's origin was Divine Dictation" model, and then later changed positions to his current one, AND denies he ever held the OLD one. I wouldn't insist on documenting Mike when he "moves the goalposts" and demonstrates a lack of understanding of his own posts, but hey, he INSISTED and called me a liar. So, the evidence that CAN be recovered, as all CAN see, is sufficient to prove the point. Mike couldn't rely on "destroyed evidence" as much as he was hoping to rely on it......

Just to make sure everyone can play along, I recently said this, to make absolutely sure we all were clear on EXACTLY was being discussed... Clear enough to everyone, right? I said Mike's premise in 2002 was that the pfal books were derived by divine dictation, and NOT by exposure to Bullinger, Stiles, Kenyon, etc. God dictated to them, then God dictated to vpw. Then I asked if Mike was "going to categorically deny you ever claimed exactly that?" Mike's response was as follows: Therefore, this is Mike saying "yes, I deny ever saying that." He claims his position never changed, and thus "your perception of my waffling is wrong." My claim was that Mike STARTED with the "divine dictation" claim, then SWITCHED to ANOTHER claim. The SWITCH, specifically, is what Mike refers to as the "waffling". Sure would be nice if I could retrieve 1000 pages of Mike rambling in 2002.....

I agree. However, this e-mail, however well-intentioned, is incorrect. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/12days.asp

In the interests of making sure I am being absolutely clear and leaving out wiggle-room, when I posted this.... And said that Mike denied the plagiarism outright, what I'm specifically saying is that we discussed how vpw took the work of other Christians- Leonard's class, Stiles' book, Bullinger's books- and made the voluntary decision to take material from them and "write"/plagiarize books with his own name as the author. Initially (2002), Mike arrived and claimed that God gave vpw the substance of the books- that they were a collaboration between vpw and God, and no books/classes from the others were involved. Any resemblance to the contrary was due to God giving, say, Bullinger revelation, then later giving the SAME revelation to vpw, who never touched the Bullinger book, and thus, never committed the moral and legal CRIME of plagiarism. Is it starting to sound familiar, Mike? Or are you going to categorically deny you ever claimed exactly that? ========= The "moving the goalposts" thing and rewriting history has come up a number of times. For example, I once quibbled with Tom Strange as to the placement of 2 words in Tom's synopses of Mike's posts. (Which would be welcome right about now, BTW.) I wanted the synopsis he posted to be as perfect as possible, so I questioned Tom as to 2 words. Mike had NEVER questioned their placement. IMMEDIATELY Mike wove an elaborate tale about how he'd left that unchallenged for months "to give Tom enough rope to hang himself." As it turns out, I later agreed with Tom's usage once Tom ANSWERED MY QUESTION. Mike dropped the non-issue that, supposedly, hung Tom. Another time, I was fond of quoting an error in one of vpw's books, which I referred to as "the Amazing Morphin' Man!" In one chapter, Paul speaks of a man he knew years ago, and then the chapter suddenly applies the description to Paul himself. This lead to an interesting discussion in the Doctrinal forum (which Mike did NOT participate in.) Someone claimed that there exist historical documents from Church Fathers (documents which Mike normally would eschew, since Mike said The Word was LOST in the First Century, and these writers wrote AFTER the First Century AD) that suggest Paul WAS that man. If one is to "read what's written" (a PFAL tool), then the Church Father was wrong, and it was "private interpretation", which means that vpw's book had an error, which means it's not Scripture. If the Church Father was right, then the PFAL tool of all Scripture explaining itself in the verse right where it's written, and the disdain for the early church documents- and Mike's position that the Word was LOST to the 2nd/3rd/4th Century AD Christians- are all in ERROR. I can call it either way. However, either one disqualifies Mike's basic doctrines. Mike, of course, missed ALL the implications, saw that someone posted a rationale that might explain away the error, and now announced that he'd known all along about that church father's comment, and that this is why he never answered my claims there was an error in the chapter. It would not surprise me to see that Mike remembers the exchange completely differently. However, it's all in the forums.

Mike seems unable to have read my response. Anyone want to bet money that-if I magically produce the quotes- that he will deny he ever denied he said them?