WordWolf

Dag, this sounds familiar...but not from anything I've seen in the past few years.

Dunno about the occult bookstores. Lamsa's stuff has been carried in "Christian Publications", Manhattan's uberstore for Christian stuff. (Now if they'd only stay open LATE just ONCE....) It's also carried in Barnes & Noble, where it's among the CHRISTIAN stuff, not the OCCULT stuff. If it's carried in occult bookstores (Shaz said it is), that's news to me.

If you pause at the right moment, you can get a nice clear shot of all the Christians patting lcm on the back. It's in the second half, after he has the jacket, and it's while the narration is saying it's so fantastic to be a minister.

It was Bullinger. It's in the thread "the Way:Living in Wonderland" thread in the direct quotes from vpw. It's directly quoted in the first 2 pages, we haven't discussed it in detail yet.

But you cried at the scene when people first got born again. That scene was specifically designed for it. I've stopped feeling emotional about it since the time when twi people at the ROA '89 Mainstage Keynote teachings said that they were staying faithful and to avoid all emotional appeals- and then IMMEDIATELY showed THAT CLIP-and ONLY THAT CLIP-deliberately to appeal to emotion. It was such a naked, blatant display of hypocrisy that it's forever connected with that scene to me.

That line is bad enough, but the exact line was "..so that you will stand firm and erect before the bema." I mean, any teenager would have giggled at the phrase "..so that you will stand firm before the bema." This was a LOT worse. It would not surprise me if someone 'fesses up that they added it specifically to make people giggle because this whole thing was nucking futz. I'm reasonably certain Mu**** became fairly embarassed about the stupid things she did in twi-just as I'm fairly embarassed about the stupid things I did in twi, which had fewer witnesses. I'm pretty confident because she was already out of twi as of ROA 1989 and fellowshipping with the Geerite faction.

Here's what we know, or is blatantly obvious from vpw's own words. Rosalind Rinker was a decisive woman (she made decisions at an instant and carried them out), with a forceful personality (all this "pinning" and "backing"). She dismisses meeting with his congregation COMPLETELY, and focuses all her attention on him. She says she wants to meet with him. vpw, speaking about this time, says she "winds him around her finger" "pinned him down" "pinned him down" "backed him up against the wall" "night after night, day after day" (not "day after day, night after night"). After everyone else had gone to bed, they went alone to the pulpit. There they spoke, and she told him that he was very special ("she told me that God was showing her that He had something very special for me to do..."). (interlude??) Before they leave, vpw prays for forgiveness. ======== So, then, my questions..... What did Rosalind Rinker HERSELF have in mind here? Was there an interlude? And, my most interesting question of all..... Did the hunter become the prey? We know that before this, EARLIER, that he was prideful, arrogant, boastful, liked attention. We know that, EARLIER, he viewed the clergy as a PROFESSION and not a holy calling. We know that, EARLIER, he preferred books to manual labour. We know a woman arrives, focuses a lot of attention on him, has a forceful personality, and says he's special. They go off in private. vpw prays for forgiveness. We know that he was a control freak on his congregation LATER. (I refuse to believe a congregation with elders will have a man ARRIVE, immediately terrorize his congregation, and just say "ok" without replacing this wet-behind-the-ears young pup with less than a year outside of school. They'd have him replaced within the month. Having his seat VACANT is better than having a screw-up botching up the job. Let elders rotate duties until even a lukewarm replacement can be found.) We know that LATER he engages in some activities with a church secretary. vpw insists that they never fired him-he quit. We know that LATER he focuses attention on young, impressionable women, and sometimes resorts to alcohol to lower their inhibitions, and sometimes resorts to drug to knock them out. Was there an incident between EARLIER and LATER that channeled his self-centered, egotistical behaviour into sexual directions? ========= BTW, kudos for Ala for catching that peculiar phrase, which started my little side-investigation.

OK.....I have only ONE question...Why in the he!! did VP take so much from this WOMAN? Up until now...VP has no respect for woman. Suddenly, this lady is lacing into him...and she's the best thing since sliced bread. hmmmmmmmmmm???? --> The forgiveness word REALLY caught my eye. Here is a man that is sure of his beliefs...he's taking a stand ... he's telling the religious leaders where to go and setting them straight. Now he wants forgiveness??? For what? Someone feels guilty? What about?

Here's the rundown on what I thought was particularly noteworthy... -she wanted to deal ONLY with him, focusing all her attention on Mr Humility. Of COURSE he went along. -yes, he was surprised a woman knew the Bible -he snuck in references to his attending seminarIES and collegeS -There's a set of odd, CONSISTENT phrases here. She "wound him around her finger". She "pinned him down" -TWICE he says that. she "backed him up against the wall" Then they were alone, up after everyone went to sleep. It's at THIS time where the previous question- 'why is he asking for forgiveness NOW?'- becomes current. Is his subconscious choosing of words telling us more than he meant to? What happened after everyone went to sleep? And did getting away with it help to make it easier to do again later to other people? Remember-he's a control freak. Who did what, and to whom?

I MEANT to provide the longer post, then a trimmer post with emphases. I got sidetracked. Let me go add the emphases where I saw them (which may not be where they are NEEDED.)

I found this in our threads. It's from SNT 214, 10/17/65, "Light Began to Dawn". vpw, as usual, was speaking. =======

Here's what I know offhand. The lawsuits had several effects. One was to show twi's Lords Over God's Heritage that lcm was a liability. So, at first, they moved him down to "Head of Research". With the former WayDale site and the GSC keeping their dirty laundry from just fading away like in vpw's day, they felt it necessary to fire him eventually. Whether he still receives money from them is unknown. Mrs lcm and kids still live at hq and still receive every benefit. (This business of "kick out the whole family if ONE member is Marked and Avoided only applies below the cabinet level.) lcm has been spotted living in the same house as a doctor, and working at least part-time for UPS and then as a physical trainer for Bally's. (Do an Advanced search under "ballyboy" and you'll find dozens of references, I'm sure.) A photo was taken of his notice on a bulletin board showcasing their trainers. It was in all capital letters and was completely gone over with a highlighter, as if whoever posted it felt it was far greater than any other PT's notice. We're not sure what happened to the "I could run a Fortune 500 company" stuff. Perhaps he's more aware of what he's done. Perhaps he isn't. Others can tell you more than I can.

AMC seems to be showing this movie again this week. I caught the "Satan's Alley" segment. They could have sued his head off. "Satan's Alley" features: the scaffolding the villianess in red the villains in masks the grasping/writhing the "hero" in white the rising podium section the grunting/yelling sound effects the jumping combat the flying kick the white light representing the presence of God the one-one-one combat towards the end with the guy's shirt off ====

That's how I see it, too. (Once it was pointed out.) And, don't forget, it was FOUR teachings, according to him. ===== On Rinker, it will help for me to dig up another source....

Yes, it counts as #5.

Either the four owner's of the property didn't understand the law about corporations, or did, and felt it was the best way to proceed. No matter which, none of the Wierwille children are entitled to anything. To think other wise is incorrect. I think it was meant that there's a moral principle involved that's separate from the legal considerations. No one challenged the letter of the law. What one is REQUIRED to do by LAW is not equal to what one's conscience bids one do because it is right. The Way has insisted it was the Wierwille family who had Mrs Wierwille placed in the nursing home and at no cost to them. No one from the Wierwille family has disupted this claim. J.P. has leveled this and other charges against TWI, so he could counter them if he wanted to. Even though TWI has hurt many people, accusing them of not taking care of Mrs Wierwille is unfounded. And to say the Wierwille children have some right "in principle" to the ancestral homestead is simply not accurate. If it were, if you purchased a piece of property, the seller's children could come forward and claim the property as theirs "in principle". Forget what it was like in twi? Even if a family member had full "power-of-attorney" and signed documents kicking Mrs W from her house, I find it beyond credible belief that twi didn't lean on the signator. twi had a moral imperative to take care of Mrs W. If they can find ways to have slave labour take care of Rosa-lie's house, and justify annual board meetings in exotic locals while everyone else is on vacations to exotic Dayton, then they could find a way to care for her. Can they be sued for breach of promise for breaking their promise? I doubt it. Did they break their promises? I think that's almost self-evident. They were charged with taking care of her by vpw, Mr "greatest Christian since Paul". They agreed.

I don't think VP ever said that he came up with the idea independently. I know-even when looking right at the exact quotes, you'll read them differently. The rest of us can READ, however. As I've done before, I'll REpost the relevant quotes... ============ This is the ENTIRE preface to the White Book, RTHST, Receiving the Holy Spirit Today... The truth of the matter is that the contents of JE Stiles "Gifts of the Holy Spirit", and content by Bullinger and Stiles form the ENTIRE contents of RTHST. You SHOULD know that-you own a copy of Stiles' book! That's COMPLETELY the opposite of what he said here. None of their names appeared here. He said he used "the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook". The truth of the matter is that the early editions of the book used Stiles' book as his handbook, guidebook, and contents. As we've mentioned lots of times, offhand comments here and there that "I learned a bunch of stuff from some guys" does not constitute proper attribution. If the holders of the copyrights had taken it to court, the suggestion that it WOULD would produce gales of laughter in the courtroom. The credit needs to be in the SAME book that's ripping off the material. Take down your copy of "Babylon:Mystery Religion". Thumb thru it. See, THAT's properly attributed. Furthermore, ALL of that book was taken from ONE book-Alexander Hislop's "The Two Babylons". How many people do you know decided not to trust Woodrow's book based on that? Correct: none. (Neither do I-and I HAVE Hislop's book.) Furthermore, what does "scattered across the continent" mean? These men were in one building, and a Kansas tornado landed on it, dropping Leonard in Canada, and Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger across the US? It's no longer a shock that you're actually supporting that claim, but I still feel the need to point out it's been thoroughly (and throughly) discredited. Naturally, you're unaware of this, even after reading the posts. Yes it does. If he could learn something from someone-that person KNOWS what they're teaching. Imagine taking a Physics class where the professor doesn't know Physics. Ridiculous-the professor must know before he can teach. So, if he learned from someone else, that person knew before teaching vpw, which means at least one person knew, which means that it wasn't unknown since the first century. A dollar says I have to make this same point to Oldies before the end of 2005 again. Then it would have been known since the first century. No problem-if he wasn't busy putting forth that himself was some great one, unique in 2000 years.

Raf said Oldiesman saw that, fixated on the sentence Ignored and tried to use it to claim vpw didn't plagiarize most of his stuff. Oldiesman: No, he took some writings word for word without credit, like The Counsel of the Lord. THAT's plagiarism. Failure to cite may well get you thrown out of a college. It WILL make you ineligible for a Masters or Doctorate. Depending on the specifics, it can be plagiarism. We've discussed this for weeks and weeks. Adaptation and written acknowledgement are two VERY different things. Someone intellectually honest should try to keep them separate. "Adaptation" may in effect be a word for word stealing, with a few words moved around. vpw's plagiarism in RTHST 1st edition was word for word stealing. He moved a few words around in later editions. This did not magically make it "no longer plagiarism". Further, the places he wrote where he failed to acknowledge-in introduction, footnoting, etc. like the White and Orange Books-where he claimed they were all him in print- those are plagiarism because he claimed it was him. We've discussed this before. This is not difficult to understand. If you didn't have a fixation with NOT seeing this, you'd have understood it long ago.

If you played all the time in college (not just one season), then you "played regularly as an amateur, non-national player, for fun." (If you played each year in DIFFERENT sports, you still PLAYED each year.) If you DIDN'T play all the time, then it would be similar to Junior Varsity and fit there. (Yes, that means busting your hump in JV for 4 years and never making it to the Varsity team counts as the "played regularly" option. You worked as hard as the Varsity team.)

If you "lettered" in college, then you were on the college Varsity team. If not, based on how much damage you soaked up, I leave it to you to determine if it was more like Little League or more like high school football.

In one of the low-number tapes, he said he'd sat in on spiritualist stuff, and that he'd shaken hands with an apparition. He said it was like "shaking hands with someone who doesn't shake hands". ======= In other news, he did borrow from people who WEREN'T Christians to assemble his "Law" of believing (which failed to work a lot of the time, proving it wasn't a "Law".) The names "Albert Cliff" and "Glenn Clark" spring to mind. Or was it "Albert Cliffe"? Someone also mentioned that vpw said his stuff wasn't "psycho-cybernetics", but they read some "psycho-cybernetics" and it looked like it was right from vpw's stuff.

Hm. Too few responses to generalize, but the early results are that 29% of respondents exceeded vpw's sports history unquestionably, and another 29% matched it or better. (We still have no proof he earned a Varsity letter.) So much for the myth of the "athlete"...

Yes, it's "Duck Soup." You really got it just off that without looking?