WordWolf

"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.]

vpw was expounding on his trip to India. He said Bishop K.C. Pillai invited them to India in 1955. "Bishop Pillai was a converted Hindu who opened up for us the Eastern customs behind many scriptures. He had taken the class and had been teaching Orientalisms to us here. He said that Hindus would believe and would want to hear the Word of God. 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 one in history???? How about that.] 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."

Or, if true, it may just have delayed the Syria trip. I find the premise of the "secret and hidden messages" to be one of the siller Gnostic iterations to come down the pike this century.

Where'd you get the idea that was a list of Will Rogers? There's curses on that list and he was strictly a G-rated entertainer. Further, I'm not even sure they were using electric fences in his day.

It would help if I could compare the year Dr H "rid him of his hang-ups" and the year vpw got in trouble with his denomination for the affair with his.... *blink* *blink* *lightbulb* You don't suppose.... is it even possible.... that the secretary he got in trouble for improper relations with wasn't his secretary IN the church, but the one he retained for the "Chimes Hour Youth Caravan", could it? If so, she was hired in 1947. So, it COULD have been her, since she had been an employee for several years by then, and she's since said she didn't think much of vpw as a Christian... ======= And yes, Mr "I-Love-the-Spotlight" makes the announcement that, YEARS AGO, 3 different assassination attempts on his life had been made, but at the time he said NOTHING? This would not be typical of him. What IS typical of him is, years after something when it's "untraceable", to suddenly add all sorts of outrageous claims. He was even CAUGHT doing this sort of thing with the Tulsa blizzard. (And confronted-which is when he started saying angels lied to him.)

Cynic said:

'Mike': "For those who WANT to know, start with PFAL page 11, and PM me." ====== So, this is SECRET evidence..... Which starts on page 11 of the Orange Book. *looks* Oh, the 5 things we NEED to know to "receive anything from God." This is the stuff that has NOTHING to do with Mike's thesis, but, so long as he hides his 'evidence' from us and never subjects his ideas to any kind of objective analysis (meaning, never allows anyone to actually THINK about his stuff-instead only allowing the swallowing whole of it- "Here, eat this. No, you can't know what it is. Eat." but NEVER allowing someone to see if his ideas have anything to do with what's written- he can pretend what he teaches is actually TRUE. ======= Or, to put it briefly, he STILL didn't post the nebulous "evidence" and doesn't plan to. Next from the Emperor's Fall Fashion line, we have this lovely ensemble by Betsey Johnson....

Bringing this back since we're discussing it...

pg-210, 211, he speaks about Dr E.E. Higgins. She's the one who would call him up every night, asking what God taught him that day. ====== "God told me to teach the Word of God to others, but He never told me to how many people. She used to come to Van Wert on weekends. She'd stay at the "Y". She'd say it was like coming home. She gave me my first copy of Bullinger's<BR>How to Enjoy the Bible. She said, when she first heard me teach, that I taught like he wrote, and I'd never met the man or even read his stuff." "She taught me the great respect and love I have for the human body-the tenderness of it. She loved the body, like I love the Word of God. She just stood in awe of how magnificently it was put together. She rid me of my hang-ups, that false stuff, and taught me the beauty of the human body. We used to talk about the human body-where the life was located." ======== [How many people see that little comment as a dire warning, given 20/20 hindsight?] WordWolf:

Ok, let's translate this into plain truthful English... ========== pg-209, vpw on the genesis of the White Book. "'Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year.'" [...by cutting-and-pasting Stiles' book and Bullinger's book on the subject.] "'I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place.'" [ I 'worked' them as they appeared in Stiles' and Bullinger's books, and they were already 'in place' as a result. But that didn't stop me from adding my name to their work.] "'We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research." [ It's a pretty good combination of the contents of 2 other books, neither of which are ever mentioned IN that book.] "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original." [ 99% of the stuff I teach is not original-but taken ENTIRELY from other people's books and classes, teaching style and method of speech.] "Putting it all together so that it fit-that was the original work." [ Well, it all "fit" since it was of God, but reassembling their books into my book, and adding Bullinger and Stiles into Leonard to make the Foundational class, I consider that "original" since no one ever put them alongside each other. Of course, I'll never mention their names because I don't want to have my paper-trail followed.] "I learned wherever I could," [ No arguments there.] "and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." [When Christians said something I thought was correct, I copied over their work. When non-Christians said something I thought was correct, I copied over their work. And I added tithing to the mix because the 10% was coming to ME now. Actually comparing things to Scriptures was incidental in many cases. That's how the "Law" of Believing became a Session I mainstay.] "Vale from Florida was the one who taught us about interpretation and prophecy. But he didn't understand the other manifestations. It took BG Leonard and others to teach us healing and believing." [This is vpw giving credit. This is not a bad thing. It is NOT a substitute for the legal requirements of citation, nor the moral requirement of being honest. ] "But in the holy spirit field, our piece of research is the most thorough and original coverage of the subject. And believe me, I've seen about everything in that field. No one really goes into it.'" [ It's the most thorough because it combines the thorough works of more than one good writer. It is not even SLIGHTLY original. ] "Do you know that three times in those early years people tried to kill me?" he remarks suddenly, facing me squarely. I wait, hoping for details, but Doctor relaxes his shoulders in a barely noticeable gesture, and then launches into a new theme." [ This is changing the subject, and inflating one's own self-importance. He's supposedly important enough to warrant murder attempts. Then again, those might have been fathers of young women who had received the 'special blessing' of the mog. ]

Probably, but please confine personal attacks in this thread to people from the book. You didn't have any comments on the last set of quotes, there?

Here, templelady... http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/quz_ipolicar.htm I also clicked up an old thread about this. (Okay old wayers 1978).

Someone asked about this old topic....

In pfal, (vpw's class), it was "Believing EQUALS Receiving" that was on the chart in the syllabus and shoved down our throats. You haven't really experienced pfal until you've read it in the original Klingon. ========= Can anyone explain what "Go until you hear glass" was SUPPOSED to mean when lcm would start rambling? I know he took it from football, but I can't find the meaning there, either.