WordWolf

She was only a stockbroker's daughter,

but every man got his share.

Merry Christmas!

Happy New Year!

Happy Kwanzaa!

Happy Chanukah!

Happy Winter Solstice!

Enjoy time spent with family and friends without official sanction!

:)-->

If for no other reason but that it ticks off the moglets. :)-->

We can just keep putting the truth out there.

God will have to work in their hearts to make it stick.

Or, for you secular humanists,

we can facilitate the processing of information, but they

must WANT to change.

I'm not stewing in bitterness and hatred over this stuff.

I refuse to forget it, and I refuse to stay silent about it.

If I forget it, I might idealize it, and decide that only the good times

were true, and I exaggerated the bad times.

If I stay silent, that means others won't hear about it, and they need

to be kept informed.

Rather than being hamstrung by all the deficiencies of the old system you

were shackled to,

you now have the opportunity to discover that other Christians are neither

scum nor idiots.

(Sure, there's a few of those, but that was true when you were in twi also.)

Some Christians know their stuff and know nothing about twi or their

spinoffs. (Imagine my surprise.)

You now have the chance to learn from the strengths of many different TYPES

of Christians, and not have to fit yourself in the cookie-cutter that's

currently being used by twi.

You have tremendous opportunities, both physically and online.

You feel uncomfortable making your own path.

Well, you've done it before!

Do you still eat baby food? No, you eat what you want, and I bet there's

both nutrition and variety.

Still have someone dress you and tie your shoelaces?

No, you live your own life.

Birdy, it's time to stretch your wings and fly. The sky is yours.

I've recommended everyone read all the documents at least once or twice a

year, just to remind themselves how bad the things we weren't told were,

and to remind us how far we've come. When I point that out, though,

people act like I'm handing out homework.

(Hey, I reread them also.)

WyteDuv,

It IS here.

The document is posted on the GSC.

The links are from the main page in 2 formats:

PDF

HTML

HTML is the same format as the page you're reading now.

If you can read this, you can read HTML documents.

Go to the main page, then to "Way Documents".

Select "HTML", then scroll down until you find the excerpt

from lcm.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

===============================

Hm.

The cross.

That's that thing twi was fond of casually editing out of their songs.

The splinter groups often do it too.

Here's an easy way to check.

Look through your songbook.

Find something that rhymes with "cross" ending a line.

Compare it against its matching line. No rhyme, right?

But the other lines all rhymed.....

One of the first things twi was fond of doing was REMOVING the crosses

and steeples at locations they took over.

"If they'd have shot Jesus Christ with a machinegun, we'd all be wearing

machineguns."- lcm.

This was one other place where "Babylon Mystery Religion's" contents

were lauded to the sky.

Those are the same contents repudiated by the author in his followup

book "the Babylon Connection." Woodrow basically said "here's where my

last book was wrong, and why." He pretty much trashed his preceding book,

and in the process, gave intelligent reasons why the cross is not a

pagan symbol at present.

Those of you who still respect Bullinger's work might want to reread

"the Witness of the Stars". Bullinger believed that "crux" aka the

Southern Cross, was a symbol of the redemption. (Crux was visible from

Palestine at the time of the cruxifixion, per Bullinger and confirmed

by Zixar.) At the time I was attempting to stay awake thru Bullinger's

book, that concept pretty much invalidated the "bad cross" teaching I'd

heard. "Well, if GOD ALMIGHTY used it for the redemption, who am I to

gainsay Him?}"

Those of you who don't care about Bullinger, I refer you to Woodrow's

plain speaking in his newer book. He's aware that crosses have been used

for many things, but now, they are NOT.

Personally, I'm still not crazy of crucifixes-crosses with a beaten-down

figure on them. I HAVE seen a church with a crucifix-type symbol I

liked, though. It's a cross, there's Jesus in front, but it looks like

he's ascending. He's not shown as a defeated-looking man afflicted for

our transgressions, he's shown as the conqueror who paid the redemption

no one else could.

A separate issue I'm not ready to explore is-is it wrong for me to dislike

the other type? They acknowledge the INCREDIBLE price paid for our sins,

which, again, twi was uncomfortable with.

As lcm saw it, the cross was a disgusting symbol of idolatry similar to

the obelisks he hated. As he spewed, so spewed the moglets.

As vpw saw it, the cross was a symbol of traditional Christianity, that

thing he despised and lampooned as backward, man-based, and Bible-ignorant.

Traditional Christians, in all of his illustrations, were always contrasted

with us Christians who REALLY understood stuff, the few, the L337.

As a traditional symbol, it made a perennial target for him.

Dot,

The quote was in "the Groovy Christians of

Rye" in Life Magazine, as was recently

mentioned.

The quote was in response to said groovy

Christians. ("Groovy" was a slang term at the

time, of course, not the official name they

called themselves in this group.)

The quote, which burned itself into my memory

when I read it, was

"Sometimes I almost wish they'd go back to

smoking a little dope. I mean, drugs I can

understand, but this? This is weird."

That was attributed to a local librarian, if

memory serves. My immediate response when

reading that was, more or less,

"so much for her in-depth understanding of the

situation."

Good idea.

Might also want to pray for those who are vulnerable to such snares

today, that they evade them, escape, or be set free.

"David Koresh"s "Branch Davidians" weren't so long ago.

(Hm. That guy also taught that all the women belonged to the mog.)

"Do"'s "Heaven's Gate" suiciders (who killed themselves when the

Halle-Bopp comet passed thru) were even more recent.

Then, there's whatever new evil person is now stepping onto some local

stage, hoping to impress some people and score some chicks....

===================================================

It may be tasteless,

but back in college, I knew a fraternity (not mine) that commemorated

this day by making kool-aid.

I thought it was funny at the time.

The first 3 books in any Piers Anthony series are

usually good.

The first few Xanth books-"A Spell For Chameleon",

"The Source of Magic", "Castle Roogna", "Night Mare"-

were great reads. "Ogre, Ogre"-it depends on who you ask.

After that, there was a slide downhill. It's not that

noticeable until you realize all the GOOD ideas from the

later books were MAILED IN by readers and COMPILED into a

story by Anthony. (Check the acknowledgements in the

Author's Notes.)

It's a "bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you" when Anthony

complains about all the reader mail he gets when it's the

reader mail that's the source of most of his good ideas.

Similarly, the "Apprentice Adept" TRILOGY-

"Split Infinity", "Blue Adept", "Juxtaposition"-was a

great read, but he just HAD to drag it on, didn't he?

What amazed me there is that there's about a dozen

adepts, each distinguished by color and magic style-

and Anthony was unable to keep track of them after Book 3.

Don't believe me?

The Green Adept.

Does the following feats of magic in the original 3....

teleports

turns invisible

makes a warner-marker with a fire

transforms someone into a fish

Each time he does magic, he makes a magical gesture.

Green is the Adept of somatic magic (gestures.)

Tie his hands up-he can't cast.

When Anthony resumed writing, he said Green was the Adept

of Fire magic. He also said a reader sent him the list of

who did what. (Stupid reader was wrong.)

Later, he tried to fudge it by saying "whose magical

gestures controlled fire". Well, that sure explains

the invisibility, the teleportation, and the fish,

doesn't it?...

Anthony's books also often seem to slide into some

allusions to deviant sex very slowly, almost like he's

trying to hide the references. Except, of course, for all

the references to the word "panties" in the later Xanth

books, and the one he stuck that word in the TITLE of.

(I refused to buy it or any later Anthony books.)

BTW, unless you say what country the action is in, they

only SUSPECT which country. Again, since you read Book 1,

you recognized the towns in book 3.

I mean, the USA has places like Athens, Glasgow, Edinburg,

Rome, and many other cities with similar names to other

places. If the writer leaves out the country, he should

NOT expect the reader to guess it-unless he left in

something obvious-like someone watching Prime Minister

Major's address on the BBC. (Which, nowadays, still doesn't

guarantee they're in the UK.)

I didn't mind the repitition between the books. I objected

to the CONTRADICTIONS. The "Wild Card" series was written

by a handful of writers, and THEY didn't contradict each

other, in the face of political events and much chaos.

Good editing on behalf of George R.R. Martin, good

coordination, or detailed writers? I don't know-all I know

is they succeeded as a group at something Anthony does not

as an individual.

I still really like a number of his EARLY books. I just

don't worship all his stuff, and the more I read his

Author's Notes, the less I like him.

My commentary on the "Incarnations of Immortality" series....

This is one of Piers Anthony's series.

One fairly consistent characteristic of his series is that they start out great,

but decrease in quality as the series progresses. Further, he often has trouble

maintaining the continuity of each series (he forgets stuff and doesn't keep a

database.)

This series was intended to be a 5-book series, which he extended to 7.

In order, the series was "On A Pale Horse"(Death), "Bearing An Hourglass"(Time),

"With A Tangled Skein"(Fate), "Wielding A Red Sword"(War) and "Being a Green

Mother" (Nature). He then added "For Love of Evil"(Evil) and "And Eternity"(Good).

I found the first four to be worth reading, although WARS was less so.

The 5th book, IMHO, was ruined by his plans to set up the next 2 books. In the

process, the writer contradicted the rules he established, primarily in the

first book, and explained right in the story.

In case you are wondering, among other things, the last 3 books, which seem to

form a unit APART from the first 4, claim that the Incarnation of Evil, the Father

of Lies (so-called even in this series), is really not a bad guy, just

misunderstood, and doing the best he can in a bad situation. (Never mind that the

office would supposedly go to the most evil person on the planet at the time of

the previous officeholder vacated it.) Book 6 should have been called

"Sympathy for the Devil", since it portrayed him in a sympathetic light all thru

the book.

Now, as for God Almighty, the last 2 books (including 7, which is supposed to be

His own book, where He is the main character) portray Him in a specific light.

He is portrayed as vain, careless, and totally uninvolved with humans, leaving us

purely at the mercy of the devil, who is really on our side.

A devout satanist could not have written a more blasphemous set of books, in my

opinion.

This was a marked departure, mind you, from the previous 4 books, where everyone

acted pretty much like they should be expected to act, and Fate herself sees that

there's a greater order in effect beyond her ability to even perceive events,

and realizes that God is directing things on a greater scale than she operates at,

just as her staff operates at a smaller scale than she concerns herself with.

I recommend "On A Pale Horse" to all readers, and consider it an excellent read.

I recommend "And Eternity" to those of you who want to see God portrayed as a

do-nothing, and have no problem reading a story where a man has conjugal relations

with a minor.

Those of you who DO read the first four books...

Don't blink. One character says that it is easier for a ROPE to pass thru the

eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven.

(Where'd Anthony get ahold of that?)

BTW, Anthony's able to speak for himself on subjects. He includes Author's Notes

at the end of the books. In one, he complains that critics said book 3 took

place in the USA, whereas it took place in Ireland. He complained about the

carelessness of the critics. I skimmed the first 150 pages of the book after that,

looking for the name "Ireland" to appear. I was unable to find it.

Can't blame the critics for not knowing something that was NOT mentioned in the

book. (Those who read previous books might have known, but it's unfair to REQUIRE

one to have done so-the book should stand on its own merits in its own material.)

BTW,

I'm a Monty Python fan who was disappointed with "the Meaning of Life".

I recommend "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" as a "must-see", however....

...starting with the opening credits. :D-->

If you think that's funny, you can also try "the Life of Brian", which I

also liked. It's quite funny, but not as hysterical as "Holy Grail".

Plus, the very religious are often offended at it. (The same types who

boycott Harry Potter.)

Humanity was outlawed in twi, since it was inefficient and takes time and

energy away from twi activities.

Besides, they didn't have anyone handy to rip off/plagiarize/"borrow from" in

terms of decent counseling skills.

"Hell's brazen hinges!"

I forgot about the Lensman series. Yes, that's a keeper.

In the "adventure in the early 20th century" category,

I like Leslie Charteris' "The Saint" series. The first is

"Meet the Tiger". I've never seen the movies or tv show, which

I think is for the best. In case you're not familiar with him,

"the Saint", Simon Templar, is a gentleman adventurer. He seeks

out adventure and brings criminals to justice in his own style-

which, of course, happens to be illegal. So, he is, in a sense,

a criminal who preys on criminals, and in another sense, a

benefactor of society. He predates Ian Fleming's "James Bond"

by a number of years, including this quote from

"the Saint in New York",

"My name is Templar-Simon Templar..."

He succeeds at being a modern swashbuckler, like the four-colour

heroes of yore.

The strangest thing I'll recommend is the Anita Blake:

Vampire Hunter series by Laurel K. Hamilton.

The first 3 books are: "Guilty Pleasures", "the Laughing Corpse"

and "Circus of the Damned". Anita Blake lives in St Louis, and

is the licenced vampire executioner for the state of Missouri.

She also does work with the local police's "Regional

Preturnatural Investigation Team" ("the Spook Squad"). It's

been a few years since "Clark vs Addison" (a landmark court

case) established vampires as citizens with legal rights. Now,

if one kills a human, you have to get a court order of

execution, THEN blow him away. Anita's profession gives her a

limited resistance to vampiric hypnosis. She's an animator, and

can raise the dead as zombies. With the right manager, this

means a comfortable living. She's raised corpses to dictate a

will when they died without one, and she's raised them to assist

in someone's therapy-they were able to get closure with someone

who died. Stuff like that. Anyway, she lives in a world a lot

like ours, except there are vampires, werewolves and faeries, if

you know where to look.

It's heavier fare than the other stuff I recommended, and I

don't recommend the whole series. At least one later book can be

skimmed once, then ignored. It's got some crime scenes and so

on, so if you need things to stay sanitary, skip the series.

For lighter fare, Robert Aspirin's "Myth" adventure series IS a good

recommendation. The first is "Another Fine Myth".

He also writes "Phule's Company" and the rest of the series, which is

light science fiction.

Douglas Adams' "Hitchhikers Guide" series is funny, but his Dirk Gently

series, well, I couldn't find something funny in it to save my life.

Harry Harrison's "The Stainless Steel Rat" is a great read which slowly

gets lighter and more humourous as it progresses. (Science Fiction)

For the Star Wars fans, the "X-Wing" series is a lot of fun, and MUCH

better than this year's Star Wars books. Timothy Zahn's trilogy is also a

good read-"Heir to the Empire", "Dark Force Rising" and "The Last Command."

Kevin Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy isn't bad-"Jedi Search", "Dark

Apprentice", and "Champions of the Force". If you're really interested,

some of the other books are worth reading, and some aren't. Since I doubt

you care, I'm not going to keep rattling off names.

Were you looking for humourous or light? Heavy and involved?

Anything and everything good? A specific genre, or any and all fiction?

There are other books in other genres, also.

Oh, Zixar?

"Never get involved with a land war in Asia." :)-->

RottieGrrl,

were you looking for some book recommendations?

What genre?

Offhand, I'd recommend 2 series.

A) the Wheel of Time series, by Robert Jordan.

"The Eye of the World" is the first book.

B) The Recluce series, by L.E. Modesitt Jr.

"The Magic of Recluce" is the first book.

I'd be happy to elaborate, offer recommendations for

different settings, or give critiques. Just give me a

specific question for what you want.

JBarrax,

Yes, Starr Daily was the preacher who had been in prison before being saved.

Linda Z,

it's not that BG Leonard invented Maggie Muggins, Johnny Jumpup or Henry Bolloco.

Maggie Muggins was a name you might know if you watched children's television

in Canada back when. BG Leonard was a Canadian, and almost certain watched

television at some point back then. Johnny Jumpup is a flower. I've never

heard of Henry or Herman Bolloco outside of the classes.

The thing is that BG Leonard used these names as hypothetical names of students

in his class. vpw took Leonard's class, then photocopied the bulk of it and

marketed it as his own, EVEN USING THE SAME HYPOTHETICAL NAMES. If you knew of

both classes, that's almost begging you to spot the connection between them.

ItsStillTheWord....

I don't know how much you've read here. Your sentence was perfectly grammatical.

Let me give a little background, so you can see why I thought your question was

an original one.

BG Leonard was a man of God who taught many things concerning God. VP Wierwille

was a student of BG Leonard's class. He also studied under J.E. Stiles, and

read Stiles' book "Gifts of the Spirit". He also read several of EW Kenyon's

books, and EW Bullinger's books.

Not long after vpw was exposed to Leonard's class, he went off by himself.

According to all of his own accounts (from "the Way-Living in Love and everything

he wrote in the fronts of his books), vpw went off by himself with his Bible,

God, perhaps a pot of coffee or tea, perhaps some cookies, and that's it.

The pfal book, the RTHST book, and the Studies in Abundant Living were

supposedly the work of vpw and God, with virtually no other references.

It's a matter of public record, here and elsewhere, that nearly all the contents

of the orange book, the RTHST book, and many of the Studies in Abundant Living

were simply taken directly from books and classes written or done by all the

above men. Some of them were retypings of the other mens' works in early

editions, which were slowly re-phrased as the editions went on.

If there was no BG Leonard, there would BE no pfal class. His work was crucial

to the material, as was the format. pfal was a cheap, watered-down knockoff of

Leonard's work, IMHO. vpw NEVER admitted to any of this, BTW, and several people

here still seem to refuse to accept vpw's plagiarism, even when exact sentences

have been displayed side-by-side, and a reconstruction of the entire process

displayed. (A separate question has been raised as to whether it was appropriate

for vpw to break the law like this, since someone has suggested God told him to,

or dictated identical sentences to ones vpw had already read from the books of

the others. At the very least, since vpw intentionally violated the copyright

holdings of the other writers, then made sure all of his OWN books were under

copyright, he was guily of hypocrisy as well as plagiarism.)

So, I just picture your question funny, is all.

vpw essentially stole pfal from Leonard's work, which Leonard taught for years

before vpw heard of him.

Is there a need for Leonard to sit thru a cheap knockoff of his own classes that

he taught and ran live? What would he possibly need to learn from hearing his

own stuff taught back to him?

Or is it "unless Leonard sat thru vpw's pfal, I don't acknowledge him as knowing

his stuff"?

For some reason, I'm reminded of the Apollo 13 movie. Jimmy (played by Tom

Hanks) is in space, trying to bring Apollo 13 back to earth in one piece. It's

unsure if they'll get back alive. So, the families of the crew are getting

together for mutual support as they await news. Jimmy's mother is elderly, and

perhaps has a little difficulty with some of the nuances, but she understands the

basics of what's going on. "I know that if they could make a BATHTUB fly,

my Jimmy could land it safely!"

While the families await news, she's introduced to 2 men.

"This is Buzz Aldrin, and this is Neil Armstrong."

"Hello. Are you boys in the space program with Jimmy?"

Somehow, I think that line really happened. :)--> It's just such a perfect

expression of her thinking-her son IS the space program, period.

I don't know if that's the case with what you were thinking, but it just struck

me the same way. You know, sort of

"Who is this BG Leonard, and when did he take the class?"

THAT'S why it struck me as funny.

Does somebody have a copy of the prefaces/introductions to RTHST and the

orang piffle book handy? I think Ckeer would like to see them again and

review exactly what vpw wrote about the "sincere" Christians he'd learned

from.....

Actually, the term "athletes of the spirit" was in use

LONG before twi used it.

I forget which website we saw it on a few months ago.

Could have been FCA, or something on Starr Daily, or

somebody else. (Glenn Clark? Rufus Mosley?)

"Did B.G. Leonard ever take PFAL?"

I'm sorry, I just LOVE that question.

Right.

Calling him "absent" does him a disservice.

You think he's spent the last 2 millenia idle?

However, calling him "absent" makes it easier to suggest

that others are acting as his proxies.

(Like mogs.)

Before the cosmetic changes, the phraseologies of his

various "appropriations" (Acts of the Plagiarist) made a lot

more sense.

AHA!

I "KNEW" It!

The issues I had with vpw's definitions WERE due to him ripping off BG Leonard!

Rafael, since this scattered over several pages, please cut and paste this

in one coherent thread when you get a chance. (Pretty please.)

========================================

vpw's definition of word of knowledge:

"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given

ability whereby you may receive from God

by His revealing unto you,

certain truths or facts about which it is impossible for you to know by the

five senses."

cg's definition of word of knowledge:

"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given

ability whereby you may receive from God

by His revealing unto you,

certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses."

(Definition circa 1989.)

cg's defintion of word of knowledge:

"The manifestation of word of knowledge is your operation of the God-given

ability whereby you receive from God

by His revealing unto you,

certain truths or facts unknown to you by the five senses."

(Definition circa 1991.)

===========================

If anyone's got anyone else's definition,or another iteration of the ones we

mentioned, please add it-like the wap one.

Ok, here's what I had a bee in my bonnet about....

When I was preparing for the Advanced class, I studied the vpw definition.

I had an issue with the phraseology.

After all, the point of a defintion is supposed to be an accurate and coherent

explanation.

I said this is NOT what it was.

"About which it is impossible for you to know by the five senses?"

Why does it have to be impossible?

Elisha's in Dothan. A messenger gets sent to him. Someone tells him a messenger

was sent to him. He doesn't move. He says the guy's boss is hot on his tail.

Now, a lookout could have told him this-or a good look from his roof. That was

not "impossible", just impractical.

Ananias and Sapphira sell a house and give "all" (some) of the money for the

church, announcing they gave it all. Someone could easily have checked the

legal documents certifying the sale and shown the discrepancy between the amount

sold and the amount given. That's not "impossible", that's bookkeeping.

So, I said, why this compulsion to say it was "impossible"? Why constrain God

so? If something COULD have been known but wasn't, does God say "well, you

should have sent an investigator" and refuse to tell you something? Of course

not! God is not required to limit Himself in this fashion, nor is He demonstrated

to have done so at any time! So, I found that faulty.

When I arrived, cg had already seen the same point I did, and had made a change

to reflect that, which was already in print. (Good-I hate it when I can see

things as a new student better than the instructor-that's a bad sign.)

So, the problem I had was that vpw took Leonard's definition, changed the word

"gift" to "manifestation" (which I think is an improvement), added his stock

preface (which is of debatable value, since it is technically true, but

needlessly cumbersome), then made a few cosmetic changes to make his use of

Leonard's definition less obvious. In short, he did not "make the subject

his own." If he HAD done his own research from there, using Leonard as a

STARTING POINT ONLY, he would have had no difficulty making the same connection

I did when I FIRST saw the definitions. He literally took the definitions and

just made cosmetic changes, leaving their core the same.

Contrasting that with what cg did...

First of all, he made no pretensions he wasn't working from someone else's

definition, so he didn't need to make cosmetic changes.

Second of all, it's obvious he (or someone else-I'm figuring it was him)

sat down and examined the subjects, seeking to understand them. It was in

understanding their points he saw the need to make a change to correct the

definition, and so he did. Therefore, he didn't limit God in his definition.

I considered that change a definite improvement, without hearing a single word

from him on when or why it was made.

My opinion wasn't universal-I'd gotten into multiple debates back then as to

whether or not the previous definition was improved by the change or was

perfect in the form vpw gave it. (I think you can see what was the reason

others disagreed with me-it was "how dare you question vpw on anything" stuff.)

Now, cg went a step further and deleted a word in his next iteration, as you

can see. He deleted the word "may".

Another student explained this to me, and shared the reason he was given for

this change. He said he was told this was because the manifestations are not

a "maybe" thing-you don't "maybe" manifest. The student passed this along, and

made it clear, without discussion (we only had a moment) that he did not think

this was an improvement. Upon later reflection (first chance I had to mull it

over), I did not consider this an improvement. As I see it (and saw it then),

the manifestation is the ability to instantly commune with God Almighty,

and interface with Him. That ALWAYS works. You do NOT always get an answer,

and you do NOT always get an answer that directly responds to your question.

To suggest otherwise is to say that "word of knowledge" FORCES or REQUIRES God

to respond a certain way. He can respond any way He wants, and He can choose

NOT to respond. (I have experience with both.)

I'd already seen illustrations of this from other Christians long before I

considered the issue. They illustrated it with a cookie jar. Your operation of

"word of knowledge" is like reaching into Daddy's cookie jar. "Sometimes

they'res a cookie in it, sometimes there isn't."

(I'm sure LOTS of people know this example.)

Anyway, it seems VERY obvious to me that vpw "appropriated" (plagiarized)

BG Leonard's work on the subject.

Now, if I ever take Leonard's class, I've a conversation about impossibility

I'll want to have with the instructor/proctor/leader/semprini.

Oh, and Rafael,

feel free to quote me on any of this as needed.

Oldies,

Some people had some truly horrific experiences at twi.

You didn't and I didn't.

Go review the audio clips if you think this is just hearsay.

Donna blamed someone's religious affiliation for their death, and so on.

I'm still hoping for a copy of, say, BG Leonard's definition of "word of knowledge".

I want to compare his with vpw's, and cg's also. If anyone has the wap version, I'd

like to see that also. What the heck.

Mainly, I want to see if the things I had issues with were added by vpw, or were lifted

from Leonard. If I were to make a wild guess, I'd guess that they were a distortion of

Leonard. However, that's a wild guess.

Shaz,

He DESIGNED his own definition specifically so people WOULD

leap upon that conclusion.

There was a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert had to define his job

requirements, so he wrote them so specifically that he was the

only person who could fit them. He included things like

"overwhelming cynicism" and so on. With the exception that

this was a work of fictional comedy, it's the same thing.

Wierwille's definitions look different because he slapped on

wordier and wordier additions to the beginning and end of them.

That definition of tongues above-Leonard's-is straightforward

and makes more sense to me than Wierwille's.

Wierwille, for example, felt the need to tack the following

prefix to the beginning of the definition of EACH manifestation:

"The manifestation of (name of manifestation) is your operation

of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God,

by His revealing unto you,...."

The words "by His revealing unto you" don't show up on tongues

because it bypasses the conscious mind. Other than that, it's a

"high-faluting" rewording of the simpler way Leonard said it.

Can we get Leonard's definitions on the revelation manifestations?

I can quote the vpw and cg versions for them, and I want to see

if the problems I had with vpw's were entirely vpw's or if they're

in the Leonard version. cg fixed them in his before I heard his,

and then couldn't resist tweaking them further and adding something

I consider error. (I'll explain when outlining them.)