WordWolf

Right. In a traditional Ponzi scheme, the entire thing is a scam. The people on the top get most of the money, and the people below them at each level get money from the level below THEM. That means the only level getting NO money is the bottom level. In twi, there wasn't that distribution. It all went to the top. === Actually, I'm unsure if the Territory Coordinators received a salary. Looking back, it's my impression that the 89 split sent the corps-grad Territory Coordinators looking for cars and jobs. If the coordinators are considered Ponzi levels, then they DID get something back. Everybody Limb level or higher had a house, car and a comfortable salary. ========= Before the 89 split, the people who ran classes received some thanks from the GRADS who retook it, who passed the hat as a gesture of thanks. Of course, locally, we filled the classes with as many people as we could-new students, staff and grads. (No, just the coordinator got a gift.) So passing the hat around among the grads covered more than just a Pez dispenser. I know one class, the coordinator was given a leatherbound Companion Bible. I'm unsure of the others. However, that was the LOCALS paying, and, of course, not a plugged nickel came from the powers-that-be. With the exception of the tapes and books, EVERYTHING came from us locally. ==== AFTER the 89 split, all us locals left, and all the fun left with us.

*looks it up* I've heard OF this song, but I haven't HEARD this song.

============== "That film plus research in the holy spirit field are the greatest blessing to anybody who wants to know the Word of God and the power in His Word. They just lay it out to you. The work's been done-the research and putting it into a shape that communicates it-we've just got to reach the people with it now. That film really made possible the tremendous growth of the ministry. With it we could start many classes separately. I could go out, and the film could go out. I didn't have to be there, and that's when the blossoming really began." The film was made fall of 1967. ===============

Me, I think that having other priorities in your life is a healthy thing. Having more important stuff to do-is GREAT. Being able to survive without us-is GREAT. But I look forward to reading your future posts.

Sorry I didnt find this in time to include this on the same page, but TheEvan posted this once. (1/17/05, 12:04pm) "...surely you are familiar with the photos of Wierwille's first two 'PFAL' classes? Well, most everybody was, as they were published often enough. Did you ever see the rest of them? Like the ones picturing the water baptisms? I did. But I didn't see them in Da Way. I saw them in some old newsletters displayed at BG Leonard's 90th birthday party, which we hosted for him. I was just casually leafing through some old ones and you can imagine the jolt I got when my eyes landed on a familiar picture. It was the old "1st Piffle Class" photo I'd seen so many times. As you know, Wierwille had recently taken Leonard's class. He returned to O-hiya to teach Leonard's class with Leonard's blessing. The accompanying article was about this Rev. Wierwille teaching CTC's Gifts of the Spirit course to members of his congregation in O-hiya. Turns out wierwille lied to the man, co-opted the man's work as his own. FAMILIAR PATTERN! All of which disqualifies him in any way from having been in public ministry of any kind. Period. However you burnish it and photograph it with a warm hazy glow, the conclusion is clear in the harsh light of day."

Kindly keep prostelyting posts, or any discussions, off this thread. It is only for quotes from elsewhere in the board, and that's IT.

"That film plus research in the holy spirit field are the greatest blessing to anybody who wants to know the Word of God and the power in His Word. They just lay it out to you. The work's been done-the research and putting it into a shape that communicates it-we've just got to reach the people with it now. That film really made possible the tremendous growth of the ministry. With it we could start many classes separately. I could go out, and the film could go out. I didn't have to be there, and that's when the blossoming really began." ==================== "That film plus research in the holy spirit field are the greatest blessing to anybody who wants to know the Word of God and the power in His Word. They just lay it out to you." Well, I'd agree at least in part. They contain a lot of useful information. Not necessarily "the greatest blessing" or greatest in the world like he usually claimed of just about EVERYTHING he was connected to. "The work's been done-the research and putting it into a shape that communicates it-" True-and for that I thank BG Leonard, who's main DELAY was the caution which was the natural reaction to having his carefully-constructed class ripped-off by a fellow-Christian who LIED to him. If not for that, my opinion is that Leonard would have made his classes available on tape decades ago. "we've just got to reach the people with it now." vpw had succeeded in finding something valuable, and now he was going to use his talents to market and distribute it, granting himself an increasing finance-base of 10% of the income of increasing numbers of people. Actually, I'd say the growth of the ministry was due to 3 factors: A) the class itself-which was Leonard's B) the taping of the class-which was just filming Leonard's work C) the Christians on the field-without which fewer people would have taken that class. They were the "advertising" and Leonard provided the substance. vpw himself was purely in Marketing there...

Mike: "I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters. It's obvious WW is desparate to nullify and obfuscate my points with pointy headedness. Why do I rate such attention and time? I must be hitting home some points that the goons who hound me are too nervous to allow unopposed." ==== Mike always "detects desperation" when he's peeled like grape. It's almost like a blinking neon sign that he can only respond by throwing insults or retreating. The double-appearance of the word "desperation/desparate" establishes this. :D The invocation of "high-faluting" words is an attempt to cover his deficiencies with enough syllables. "See, I know long words. I must be smart. Since I'm smart, I must be right." Finally, the quick succession of insults- goons, hound, nervous- exist to salve his own shaken self-esteem, bruised from being shellacked like a wooden chair. ==== In other words, WordWolf says "I do believe I've hit a nerve. Since I'm on a roll, I'll whack it again."

Oakspear: "The point is to demonstrate the unreliability of VP's statements to anyone who might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. How many out there still believe things simply because Wierwille said it? For example: Even if one claims to have "worked the Word" on one's own, if the definitions of Greek & Hebrew words are Wierwille's, then the conclusions are going to be skewed It's not that anyone really cares about light bulbs, but the holes in his story casts doubt on his truthfullness, and therefore his trustworthiness." ========== ======= The Undisputed GSC Master of PFAL: " 'Ah, the birth pangs of PFAL...'I bore you son, and don't you forget it. I was in labor for TWELVE STINKING DAYS!!!!!" Geeze." ========== ====== templelady: "Now here is the thing: Setting aside the fact that I seriously doubt VPW would have risked lifelong blindness to film 'piffle' I have had a mild case of snow blindness. Once your eyes become sensitized the first time, they react 10 times faster on subsequent exposures. They have a built in-defense mechanism. So if you stood staring into lights so bright that your eyes swelled shut on day one... On day two, when those same lights hit your eyes again, your eyes would immediately start to swell shut. You might have 30-45 minutes, if that long. You can soothe your eyes with ice but they will continue to react to those lights which your brain now understands to be dangerous. It takes several weeks before your eyes stop watering and reacting even with a mild case of snow blindness so I can'and swelling t imagine how long it would take for them to return to normal after two complete days of 8,000 watt lighting." ===========

My long-term goal is for membership to decline to the degree that total overall membership will be insufficient to displace water in a hot tub. :D

Hm. There's some good possibilities here, and some bad possibilities. I'll skip the hockey flick and the buddy-cop flick, and go the Best of Times Robin Williams Mrs Doubtfire

I think he likes to GUESS, LU, so please post one.

Yes. And if you're disinterested in the lightbulb illumination level, there's plenty of other threads to interest you. I'm disinterested in convincing you this thread is interesting and useful to lots of people. If it's not so to you, find a thread that thrills you. =============== George, that's true, and it's good to bring the physics of this into the discussion. The reason I don't think it is a factor, though, is not because I doubt your calculations. I think they're correct. The pics in the book don't show a huge studio. The entire area-including the camera plus wherever the lights are SUPPOSED to be-is a small stage. vpw is at one side, the camera on the other. There's not a lot of room to PUT lights in, which is why I wondered if they fit in a tight vertical column. If there was a bulky, heavy bank of lights, they would "have to be stupider than stupid" (as vpw said) to keep dragging it in and out of the room continuously. The physics of the pictures make it possible but inlikely that the lights might be in a NARROW vertical column. More likely, they moved the lights in and out periodically, and positioned them CENTRALLY. vpw claimed he looked "into" the lights. We know he looked into the camera. Therefore, the camera (to his right in the pics) could not have been ACROSS from the lights (to his left in the pics.) The camera was edged to the middle of the room, and moved forward and back as stage directions required. Whenever a chart needed to go up, the cameraman moved forward to isolate vpw onscreen, and allow room for the chart-flipper to pass BEHIND him and not cross the line of shot. Therefore, the lights were across the middle of the room, to a greater or lesser degree. Further, vpw said he looked "into" the lights, and that would have been impossible at wattages far in excess of what YOU used. We saw the videos, and the room didnt look brightly lit in them. They were lit, but not washed-out. If THAT much light was used in THAT small a room, there would have been a wash-out effect. So, were there bright lights? I think we all say "yes". How bright were they? Well, 2000 watts would have been bright enough, 4000 watts (double that) would be the high range for what they might have used. This business of 8000 watts looks like he plain exaggerated. (What else is new?) Furthermore, 8000 watts probably WOULD have prevented him from filming the SECOND day, let alone a third. Finally, someone LOWERED the lights and it was still bright. They weren't lowered MUCH in terms of overall brightness-we didn't go from day to night across a session or anything. So, I think he exaggerated, but the lights WERE bright.

Personally, I didn't think an apology was called for. (If Raf were FOLLOWED AROUND THE BOARD and attacked, THAT would call for an apology.) There was a misunderstanding, which led to an incorrect post, which led to a discussion. I'm glad everyone is agreeing to play nice. :)

"You're d*ed right!"

pg-229. "When we finished for the day, I'd walk off that set, put on an old shirt, go in the camper and lie down with more ice cubes on my eyes. Then all night I'd have ice cubes too. At 8am I'd get up. At 8:30am Emma Schroer, the make-up lady, came in and by 10:30 we'd leave for Dayton. We took our own camper and cars and our own food. We had to have everything absolutely ready for those twelve days. The charts alone took over 200 man-hours. The last few days of filming some people stayed up all night, night after night, getting those charts ready to go for the next day." Then he spent a paragraph detailing who had done what. Considering his usual proclivities, I'm surprised he did.

That's straight out of pfal, the final 3rd of the foundational, the holy spirit unit.

Mike posted some stuff. [WordWolf responds.] ======== "I'm weary with those who do not want to know the facts." [So am I, but I read your posts ANYWAY.] "It's worse than that, I'm weary with those who WANT to not know the facts NOR the truths about and in PFAL. " [ Imagine how I feel, with 2 years of the same 5 posts in various forms. Not only do I deal with someone who does not want to know facts nor truth, but he's boring, too.] "Nor can I any longer see any possible profit in wasting my time addressing willing mis-representers." [ Not your problem. I'M the one that needs to consider what to do with a willing mis-representer.] ======== "Here is the beginning of the evidence. Below is page 11, the first page of the second chapter in the Orange Book with my commentary afterwards. ******* Chapter Two Availability, Receivability, Usability In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know first of all what is and what is not available from God. There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers. If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, what God has promised us. In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not. Spiritually the same is true. We must find out from God's Word what is available. As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us what God desires of us. ********** [Ok, that was the raw text. I shall give Mike the benefit of the doubt that this is an accurate representation of the text and not check up behind him. It is only AFTER this that we shall see the text that was just posted undergo various transformations and the bait-and-switch. Since I'm making that claim, I shall document it as we go along, and the casual reader is free to review all of this and make up his/her own mind. Which, of course, I heartily recommend. (Fetch me my Sheliak.)] ====== "Now let's go through it sentence by sentence. "In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know first of all what is and what is not available from God." [ That was almost axiomatic. It hardly accounts for ALL things, however. A young child may pray and get results, and have no idea whether or not God will answer his prayer or even what God is LIKELY to do.] "Here, in this first sentence, the power behind the law is attributed to God: ...the power OF God... and ...available FROM God..." [ No it's not. The word "law" has NOT appeared in this sentence. It speaks of "resources", "power", "God", and "availability". Someone has ADDED A WORD to the word of vpw. When you add to the word of vpw, do you still have the word of vpw? "Here, in this first sentence, the operation of the law is limited to what is available. " [No, the limitation is to "tap the resources of the power of God". No "law" was mentioned. It was added by a "translator" in his "commentary." ] "These are the two tid-bits dmiller said Dr NEVER taught on: that the law only works for what is available (God's promises) and God is the power behind it." [ dmiller seems to be able to tell the difference between a sentence containing the word "law" and a sentence missing the word "law". Someone else seems to miss this distinction. ] *** "There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers." [This is also almost axiomatic.] "This refutes the impression dmiller said that he got from reading PFAL, that we can manipulate God." [This section talked about one thing, and dmiller talked about another. dmiller addressed the so-called "Law" of Believing. So far, we haven't seen a law OR believing in this chapter.] "It also established the law being limited to what is available, not just any old thing we want to believe for." [We have seen 2 sentences, with ZERO occurrences of the words "law" or "believing". The only thing we have established is that some people can't count to zero.] *** "If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, what God has promised us." "Again, we are the limited ones, it works only for what is promised and on the "available list," and God is the one who is behind it. Here also I see more where I got my faucet analogy from: "tap the resources." " *** [Actually, this interpretation limits God again. God will not do LESS than He promises, but He may go BEYOND His promises, and provide what is NOT promised-in fact, He may provide something we don't even IMAGINE is "available".] "In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not." [Ok, study this sentence for a moment. Look at what is says and what it does NOT say. There is about to be a "test" of your ability to understand what you read. "The law and the principles even work in the secular world, but the REALLY work in the spiritual. This is what I was talking about earlier in the thread about the anomalies spotted in the law. It doesn't seem to work as powerfully there with the competing forces." [Let's skip the shoehorning in of the part-time law again, because we're going somewhere else...] [Ready? Read it AGAIN. Here comes the test...] "Here also is a subtle hint from Dr that the Orange Book is from God and not from Dr." [One of the "hidden messages" is imminent. Watch the handkerchief closely...] "In the film class he uses a pen in this example, holding it in his hand as if writing with it, while here he uses the word "book." " [ The film is supposedly non-canonical. Supposedly, only the printed pfal is divine... But we're going somewhere else anyway...] [That wasn't it. Here it comes...] "What book? It's in the text: "...this book..." He doesn't write "...a book..." He doesn't write "...some book..." He writes "...THIS book..." !!!" [vpw addressed THE SECULAR WORLD. That's where we have pens, papers, ink, and books. He has a book in his hand. It is not "spirit". It is a "book". It is made of paper, ink, and cardboard. A book exists in THE SECULAR WORLD. They can be found almost ANYWHERE in the US, in THE SECULAR WORLD. God-rejectors, atheists, and agnostics have books. Now, the quote again: ] "In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not." [So, we have a "book". In the secular world, where books can be found, and are thus dealt with, we interact with it-which is easy to understand. Thus, this was a simple analogy to illustrate how we interact with the world around us-he singled out an item. This was an easy item to use. You're reading a book. Someone discusses holding a book in your hands. You have a ready example to draw from. Could you get a book that is not available? Certainly not. (Can you get a sandwich that is not available? Certainly not.) ] "He's saying, in a most profoundly subtle way that this Orange Book was made available from God. Dr technically "penned" it, but God made it available." [ No-the plain meaning of the text is that a ready analogy is being used. Jesus used flowers, birds, and grass as examples. People encountered them everyday and interacted with them. They were ready examples. vpw has a ready example, and says he's using a SECULAR example-and invokes the Orange Book. There are SACRED examples-of God. There are SECULAR examples-of the world. IF the Orange Book is supposedly Scripture, THEN the rules of reading and understanding Scripture MUST be used to read them. Biblical Research Principle 1a: "All Scripture explains itself in the verse right where it is written." That sentence had a simple, straightforward meaning, with plain English words. Ok, let's suppose one is unclear as to whether or not the word "SECULAR" just MIGHT CHANGE this sentence. The word "secular" is a contrasting word-it OPPOSES the things of God, originating FROM God. The 2 stone tables of the 10 Commandments were not SECULAR, they were from God. But, let's suppose one needs IRONCLAD PROOF that this is what "SECULAR" means. Let's look at the IRONCLAD PROOF. According to page 147 of the Orange Book, "85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse." That supports reading this sentence simply AS WRITTEN. (IF the Orange Book is the Word of God, of course.) page 199 is further relevant to proving the simple, direct understanding of this sentence is correct.] "If Scripture does not interpret itself in the verse or in the context, then the interpretation is found in its previous usage. In the first usage of a word, expression or idea, the explanation is usually complete enough to carry through in all other references in the Bible. If God ever changed the usage of a word or expression, He always explained it." [ Therefore, if one considers the Orange Book to be the Word of God, the Orange Book's stated rules for understanding the Word of God MUST be used in reading it. Therefore, if you want to know what the word "secular" means in chapter 2 of the Orange Book, you must go to ITS FIRST USAGE. pg-3 begins the INTRODUCTION of the book. In fact, the book BEGINS on this page. And, on page 3, we see the FIRST USAGE of the word "secular". ] "As I looked about me at communities where I had served and among the ministers with whom I had worked, the abundant life was frequently not evident. In contrast to these Christian people, I could see that the secular world of non-Christians were manifesting a more abundant life than were members of the Church." [So, using the tools OF the Orange Book to understand the Orange Book, the meaning of the word "secular" IN the Orange Book is contrasted with Christian-it describes the opposite, the non-Christian. (Read it again slowly. See?) Therefore, the sentence] "In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book you are reading. Could you have gotten it if you were available? Certainly not." [the meaning of the word "secular" must be "nonChristian" and "contrasted" with "Christian". So it may be understood identically as "In the nonChristian world we constantly apply this principle. Take for instance, this book you are reading. Could you have gotten it if you were available? Certainly not." Therefore, the BOOK is referred to as CONTRASTED with that which is directly from God. This is even simpler to understand when one does not STOP BEFORE THE NEXT SENTENCE when seeking to understand. (Why don't they ever read the next verse?) The next sentence reads] "Spiritually the same is true." [Why did he need to mention that "the same" is true "spiritually"? Because he was speaking of SECULAR matters when he spoke of the Orange Book, and said that the principles he just discussed about the Orange Book don't ONLY apply to the SECULAR (nonChristian) world, but ALSO refer to the SPIRITUAL. Reread all that. Did I, or did I not, document EVERY principle I applied DIRECTLY from the Orange Book?] ============ "I agree it looks so subtle that I could have read all this portion into it and the subtle message is mine alone and not Dr's." [Well, using the principles outlined in the Orange Book, the subtle message was EXCLUDED. The example was from the VERY FIRST PAGE of the Orange Book. Could you not even "master" the VERY FIRST PAGE?] "I wondered that too at first, until I saw about hundred more spots like this that lined up the same way. [Rather than "wonder", I recommend utilizing the principles OF PFAL to read PFAL, rather than relying on techniques external to it. This was NOT a hard section to "interpret" that way. I did it just now in my spare time. After a supposed 7 years of this, you couldn't even match my "spare time" effort. Based on how badly you FAILED to use the PRINCIPLES of the Orange Book to INTERPRET the Orange Book in this case, I think it would be unwise to think you demonstrated any LESS a failure when you "saw" these "about hundred more spots".] "We weren't able to accept this years ago, [ It would have been just as incorrect an "interpretation" in 1971 as it is in 2005. ] "so God had Dr put it into the record in ways we wouldn't see it nor object to it back then." [ Unsupported dogma based on the mangling of the aforementioned sentence.] "As a result we unknowingly helped him distribute the books around the globe." [A handful of copies were tightly restricted and only released to pfal grads. If it was God's idea to distribute the books "around the globe", the God did a lousy job of bringing His idea into fruition. Less than 200,000 people ever SAW a copy of this book. The total world population is 6,420,102,722. That's 6 BILLION, 420 MILLION, 102 THOUSAND, 722. (Courtesy of www.internetworldstats.com) If every person was to have a copy, the production would have needed to be- doubled? tripled? No- multiplied by OVER 32,100 TIMES.] *** "Spiritually the same is true." Two realms in which the law can be applied. The spiritual is dominant. *** "We must find out from God's Word what is available. As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us what God desires for us." We are the limited ones, and we don't manipulate God. We must find out FROM GOD'S WORD what is available. The promises in God's Word make up the available list. ******* So, that's just one page of the orange book, and it looks pretty proved already. There's TONS more. This is a spiritual drama we're in. [ Well, I agree about the "drama" part...] There are HUGE forces at work to hide this stuff, [ "Forces" like "reading comprehension" and "applying the Orange Book"...] ..just like Dr's last teaching was lost. Do you know about that one? [ Here comes the SAME commercial we ALWAYS get! Don't you get annoyed when your tv show has the SAME commercial at EVERY commercial break? Doesn't it get tiresome for you? ] "I'm not talking about "The Hope" but the one he did two weeks later and was lost by and/or on all top leadership, that's ALL top leadership." ["The Joy of Serving." That's the sermon where he said "Serving is great! The best thing you can serve people is pfal, my class! Get better with it and serve it to people! All other Christians have nothing to offer people!" Well, that's the "short-form". Feel free to read it for yourself-it adds up to the same thing. ] "I'm very upset with the whole collection of posters at this time, and for many reasons." [ One reason is: we can read the Orange Book with comprehension, and see that Mike's "hidden messages" exist only for Mike (and anyone else abandoning the meaning of the text for the "hidden" system.) Another reason is: We already survived one Gnostic cult, and precious few of us are so gullible or desperate that we want ANOTHER. Frankly, if that's what I wanted, I could make a BETTER one than we're being offered. ] "I feel very much like ending all my posting," [ If we promise to miss you, will you go away?] "...as I pointed out to you yesterday by PM that we are not to cast our pearls before swine." [Whatever. "When Jesus was before Pilate he refused to defend himself." [Jesus was required to DIE. When Paul was before Agrippa he spoke God's Word to Agrippa. (No, it was neither Felix NOR Festus who said "almost I believe"...) "This thread is more of a battle of egos than a fight for truth," [ I presented my case directly, logically, and working PURELY from the Orange Book to show that Mikean doctrine about the Orange Book not only violates the principles dictated IN the Orange Book, but they fail to let the Orange Book interpret itself. That's what would be done in a "fight for truth". I went straight for the evidence, and spared little time for name-calling.] "and I don't need to win a trivial ego pi$$ing contest." [A hungry fox noticed a juicy bunch of grapes growing high on a grapevine. He leaped. He snapped. Drooling, he jumped to reach them but, try as he might, he could not obtain the tasty prize. Disappointed by the fruitless efforts he'd made to get the grapes that day, he said, with a shrug, to comfort himself, "Oh, they were probably sour grapes anyway!"] "I know that many don't have the books to check out the evidence I say is in there. There is a CD with all of Dr's books on it that many posters have. I've seen them offer it to others at times, but not now because I am involved. What is going on there is more about me than anything else. [ I heartily agree. Mike does not seek to absorb the accurate contents of the Orange Book. Both his approach, and his posts, are about HIM. The Orange Book is a MEANS to an END. It could be ANY set of books. ] "I refuse to post the full proofs." [Possibly because being spanked with a paddle does not result in being shown in the most favourable light, and this IS about appearances for Mike.] "I'd prefer that you do not post this information. I want to work only with you on it, and I'd prefer you only work with me on it." [ Isolating someone from other sources of information and using that isolation to facilitate indoctrination is an old tool. If an adult chooses to agree to such a silly rule for dealing with you, they deserve what they get.] "The other posters are good at manipulating opinion of the uninformed." [ By posting the contents of the Orange Book, applying the principles OF the Orange Book, and otherwise seeking the truth...] "You have forgotten much, or it slipped by you unawares way back then. You are very uninformed." [Go ahead, butter up your prospective candidates....] "There are many posters with the Orange Book, yet none are posting what's in there. If they had any desire for truth SOMEONE would open it up and immediately see the evidence." [ We explained why many times before. I demonstrated an example of posting it in this post. EVERYONE can see the evidence.] ============ [That's enough fun for now. I reserve the right to come back later and address the rest of the post. ] ============

pg-227. "Back in 1961, I had a vision of doing the 'Power for Abundant Living' Class on 16mm sound-color film. So I began working my mind, everytime I taught that class, on producing the film. In about 1963, I tried once to raise the money, but it blew. People just didn't share my vision. So I took another route. Around that time we had a TV program in Lima called 'The Teacher'. We did black and white video tape. I loved working on camera. It's hard work, but I loved it. However, the films were of very poor quality. We couldn't really use them again. A couple of years later Dave Anderson came on the scene and asked to see those films. I was embarassed, but I let him use them. He found them fantastic attention-getters. They could really communicate. Film is a great media, involving two of your senses, and Dave saw that potential. He and Bob Wierwille saw the vision. They raised part of the money and really spread the vision of the film. That was only the beginning though. The making of that film took the greatest amount of discipline and renewed mind for two months before we went into the studio and for the time we were shooting." pg-228. "The actual filming took twelve days. But there are no words in my vocabulary to describe it. We filmed in 28-minute segments, and everytime before I walked out on camera, I had almost completely memorized what I would do in that time-the charts, the scriptures, everything. We did as much as three and a half to four hours of filming in one day. The first day, the lights burned both my eyes. They were too bright. I looked right into 8000 watts all the time. By 2am after the first day's shooting, I couldn't get them open. They were swollen shut. We talked to Dr Collier Powell and he told Dotsie that we'd better stop or I'd be blind for the rest of my life. The second day, I went back, and we put in a whole day. But the third day, I couldn't go, couldn't open my eyes. The next day, the camera man changed the lighting so it wasn't so bright, and I went back on. We still did those 28-minute segments, but between sessions Dotsie would put ice cubes on my eyes, and Donna would read the next session to me. Then in ten to thirty minutes I'd be ready and I'd go on again. Every hour I was totally soaked from the heat which went as high as 95 degrees. The air conditioning system couldn't run during filming. It's like every other thing I do- Satan fights like crazy. But you make up your mind: God's the majority and that's it."

If most people had said the problem was "foreign missions", I'd be more likely to believe them. In this case, however, I think there's strong evidence that he found the timing right to split from any formal organization, since he now had a marketable product and had already begun to market it. Before, he needed the financial support of the denomination. Now, he didnt, so he cut his ties pretty quickly. ==== In other news, he left for India 1955, and made his split after returning, in 1957. Looks to me like there's over a year of travelling there, as I thought...

"I could see that America was at a very low ebb spiritually. We had a lot of religion, but we sure lacked knowledge of the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, so that Christianity was just a name, a flag, a title." "I wrote a long study of my research and observations called <BR> the Dilemma of Foreign Missions. That caused some furor from the top echelons. But all that has passed. I just needed the freedom to work and teach to whoever was hungry. I didn't need the pressure, the man-made rules." "That's when I resigned in 1957 and we moved to that house on South Washington Street. I asked twelve people to stand with me for one year. But many of them were not in the church. I was still hung up on the denomination. I told others to stay with the church. I didn't want to disrupt anything, cause division or hardship. I didn't want to hurt anyone, so I told them to stay with the denomination." My, THAT attitude certainly changed...if this account was true, of course. He made it a hobby to attack denominations whenever he could.

Whatever, just so long as you post it in the appropriate forum. (Preferably in the appropriate THREAD, too.)

*thinks* Sounds familiar. *thinks* At first, I thought the "jar" was from "Would you Like to Swing on a Star", but now I'm thinking it's "Rosalita", by Bruce Springsteen (and the E Street Band). If so, Clarence Clemon's saxophone riff is the most recognizable part of the song-and I never thought I'd say the phrase "saxophone riff" ever.

This is what I wrote before on this... "BTW, if he travelled on the ERC's dime, and used their title to open doors for him (he ALWAYS used EVERY title he had-don't tell me he DIDN'T cite his group THERE), then they were completely within their rights to say he was not representing them. Nowadays, many groups have rules specifying who IS and is NOT allowed to represent themselves as a spokesperson as opposed to simply a member or whatnot." I'm figuring he waved his credentials whenever he arrived anyplace. To a degree, that's fairly normal. He raised it to a vocation, but that's a separate issue. When he just showed up places, people would naturally also asked what organization he was with, under whose auspice he was travelling. That's normal. It's also normal for them to say he's not their SPOKESPERSON, nor is he conducting an officially-authorized investigation or whatever. So, either this was a normal notice and he went out of his way to be offended by it, or this was a normal notice and he was ignorant of Standard Operating Procedure, or this was NOT a normal notice, which meant he was flashing his title inappropriately.

"We went as a family, Dotsie and I and the three oldest children. John Paul was two months old, so he stayed with his aunt, Dotsie's sister. It had never happened before that a man of God and his whole family went on a missionary tour. And I went unaffiliated, not under the flag of any denomination." [First of all, this trip separated a newborn from his family for OVER A YEAR if I read correctly. Is that even HUMANE? Second of all, John Paul seems to not be IN that family, since he just said J.P. was left home, and the "WHOLE FAMILY" went on this trip. Third of all, is there some basis for a claim that this was a never-before-done-trip: a minister goes on a "missionary tour" with his family. I know lots of MISSIONS have ministers with their families, and compared to LIVING THERE, a "TOUR" is a rather wussy thing to be bragging about. Fourth of all, he said he went "unaffiliated". Who PAID for this trip? vpw either was paid for this trip, or he wasn't. If he wasn't, he spent money for over a year there and arranged for rent paid for his residence back home, for over a YEAR. That's a sizeable chunk of money. Just travelling there and back would be a considerable sum, and even the cheapest food and lodging adds up over MONTHS. If he WAS paid for the trip, then who paid it? The obvious answer is that he was paid by his DENOMINATION. If he went, and they PAID HIM for a more-than-a-year trip, he HARDLY went "unaffiliated".] pg-216. "The non-Christians, they were fabulously responsive. I met with governors-of-states and other top men in the Central Government of India, as well as leading professionals and businessmen. I was the first minister invited to speak before the Jain convention. They responded because we brought with us only a teaching and research ministry of blessing to the people, irrespective of religious allegiance, with no acquisition of property and with no threat to the freedom of the nationals. The response of the denominations-my own included-was supremely non-loving, even vociferously opposed. The National Council of Churches in India informed me that I was not representing the Evangelical and Reformed Church, which I never claimed anyway. From then on I stopped all mission support except one dollar per year." [Do we have any documentation- other than vpw's word- that he was well-received by non-Christians? BTW, if he travelled on the ERC's dime, and used their title to open doors for him (he ALWAYS used EVERY title he had-don't tell me he DIDN'T cite his group THERE), then they were completely within their rights to say he was not representing them. Nowadays, many groups have rules specifying who IS and is NOT allowed to represent themselves as a spokesperson as opposed to simply a member or whatnot.]