Oakspear

Belle, Hawk is an eligible single guy; he cured me of a sinus infection with his pear juice, so I can definitely recommend him :P--> I hadn't heard that he had shaved though :D--> He's entertaining fer sure!

Hey, I'm a divorced guy! :o-->Reikilady, ya wanna chime in here?

I guess the most insidious practice was to treat any innovation by the rank & file as inferior. Heck, you could take one of the "actual errors", point it out to someone, and you were told to "hold it in abeyance" or that you weren't spiritual enough. Despite PFAL being billed as "a class on keys", enabling us all to be able to read and understand the scripture, the "keys" were convenient props to show how wise the MOG was

Several modes of change come to my mind during the Martindale days: Start teaching the "new" doctrine as if it had always been that way Focus on Martindale as the great researcher & apostle who has uncovered "new light" Insist that even though Wierwille didn't teach it, he always believed it and was waiting for people to rise up I don't recall any changes when Wierwille was in power.

Okay!

Yer talkin' Who's stoppin ya? -->

Once Wierwille's central doctrine and and it's somewhat unique aspects became engraved in the stone of PFAL, where there ever any major changes? When I was a few months from being kicked out of TWI TH, my Region Coordinator pooh-poohed my concern about doctrinal problems in the WayAP class especially and in the PFAL class as well. He pointed out that Wierwille had changed before, citing his change from being a trinitarian to a unitarian, and that TWI would change again if warranted. When Martindale taught his own classes in the nineties he made a few changes, notably the original sin changed from masturbation to homosexuality. Another really minor one was changing the teaching that the OT believers had seven manifestations to six. Other than different application of the bible (i.e. increased use of M&A) did Wierwille or Martindale ever come out and say "we were wrong - we did more research - here's the change - sorry we didn't get it right earlier"?

BF Dave: Yes, Wierwille did say that what he said wasn't God-breathed (although a certain poster may disagree what that means :P-->) and many of us thought that meant that the teachings were open to revision. But how many times did you hear of any revisions taking place? Probably not many. And when they happened it had to come from the top. Joe Twig Leader couldn't just stand up and point out the error and start teaching differently, it had to come from above.

Just curious or trying to make a point? I'm just curious...no wait...I'm trying to make a point

...and before anyone is tempted to think or type that I'll never believe, that nothing will convince me... Just because I ask questions, just because I doubt, just because I'm a skeptic, just because I refuse to follow blindly, doesn't mean that I don't have faith, doesn't mean that there aren't things that I believe in, doesn't mean that I haven't experienced apparently supernatural events. But the questions aren't going away.

Here's something that I'd like those who say that they don't have to prove anything, or are even a little annoyed at some of the skepticism, to consider: On one hand you say that these experiences were for you - personal, subjective, private - not for "the masses"; that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Then you go ahead and post them on a discussion forum, and are miffed when people discuss them. Often they are presented in repsonse to someone's skepticism and doubt, as if your story settles it all. I suppose it's your privelege to become indignant when someone expresses doubt in your account, but why should it surprise you? It's not always a manifestation of unbelief or atheism or secular humanism either, sometimes the questioning is just some honest "wanting to know what's what". If I hear a story about how some miraculous thing has supposedly happened, the intelligent thing to do is question. If something supposedly miraculous happens to me, it's STILL the intelligent thing to do! When all my questions have been answered (and only I can determine what those are) I'll believe.

Thanks socks, good explanation, good alliteration too :D--> I appreciate it.

Catcup: Yes, it was proof to you. Great. Fine. Wonderful. But you're the one who took the "proof to you" and posted it on a public forum. And told us that it couldn't be refuted to you or Bob, and pointed out that we weren't in your shoes. What did you expect? By the way, I'm not trying to refute your experience, to you or anyone else. Just pointing out that it remains subjective, unprovable and unrefutable. Probably wouldn't have brought it up if you hadn't stuck in the "you can't refute it" line. Like you said: God's blessing to you of his own perogative. What's wrong with a little proof anyway? Didn't Gideon ask for a sign? Did any of the Old Testament guys and gals believe just because somebody else said to? For all the crap Thomas the Apostle is given for not believing without seeing, all the other guys got to see first, including Paul who got a miraculous vision. All the writers of the bible got to experience God firsthand, everybody else is just supposed to take their word for it? For all the so-called clarity about seeking signs, there sure is a lot of it in the bible. Hmmm...sounds like a good thread topic...not now...the landlord is here to fix my sink :P-->

Lorna: As you say the bible says that tongues are to God, not men. It says that prophesy is to men band is edification and exhortation and comfort (not edification by way of exhortation and comfort, as VPW taught btw). It goes on to say that interpretion is so that the church may recieve edifying. Does that necessarily mean that it is to men? Could the church not be edified by hearing the praise to God?

Well...yeah, Catcup...no one can successfully refute what you are saying because as you so bluntly pointed out: we weren't there. The flip side of that is that neither you nor your friend can successfully prove it either. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence,there's no way to demonstrate either the truth or falsity of it. In this case, the "un-degraded country bumpkin" isn't around to let us hear his Hebrew tongue, or check into his background, or do any of the things that an objective investigator does to verify an account. No matter how many "irrefutable" incidents that people trot out, it seems that whenever someone does a scientific study of it, they can't verify that tongues are an actual language.

Thanks dmiller for the considered answer. That's why I like you: you don't get all huffy that an unbeliever is questioning your beliefs, you go "hmmmm" and think it through, and give an answer that (usually ;)-->) makes sense.

OM: You've never been alone in this opinion, just the most vocal and impervious to reason ;)--> So, since good things happened, VPW wasn't such a bad person? -->

dmiller: While I am usually skeptical when somebody tells me that a set of circumstances had to be God, I don't dismiss it out of hand either. I'll assume that the incidents that you describe were indeed God's intervention. Does that mean that EVERY event in every location involving every person was organized and set in motion by God? I don't see it. But I suppose that you and I can both effectively and convincingly argue both sides of the issue :P-->

Why dmiller?

Just because the same word is used literally in one place, does not eliminate the possibility that it is being used figuratively elsewhere. There is no contradiction between pater being used literally of God's relationship to Jesus and figuratively of the Pharisees' relationship to the Devil. TWI put a lot of emphasis on what Greek or Hebrew word was used, as if there could be no nuance of meaning, or more than one meaning of the same word. I recall teachers in TWI breathlessly pointing out that the word "love" in a certain verse was agape, as if it was significant...duh! Almost ALL the occurences of "love" in the KJV are translated from agape!

All that this verse says that if we fullfil a condition, i.e. confessing our sins, he will forgive those sins. It does not say that if we don't confess our sins he won't or can't forgive them. Although it pains me to agree with the head brownie-eater himself, one exception to the theory that forgiveness is available only to those who ask for it pretty much disproves it as a rule.

They referred to the apostles remaining in Jerusalem when the rest were scattered after Stephen's death. But they ignored Peter's travels outside Jerusalem, even though he appears to be the leader. They also refer to James & the other elders being in Jerusalem when Paul came there for the Passover, apparently in a position of leadership. Practically, I think that in the 21st century they need some kind of "headquarters" to function as an organization, if only for legal and administrative purposes. Before The Way got very big "headquarters" was simply where Wierwille lived. That it was on a farm with lots of open land, suitable for building, made it easier to expand than had they been in an apartment in Payne or Van Wert.

Mine also!Of course the cat dropping the body part onto the barge was great

If someone were pronounced dead and verified to be so by competant medical authorities, beyond a shadow of a doubt...and he was raised from the dead...all of this witnessed by disinterested observers/witnesses...sure, I'd believe it. If somebody told me that he'd heard about somebody raising somebody else from the dead, but was light on specifics, and there was no observer/witness without a vested interest in the story being true, sure I'd be doubtful. Most (if not all) stories and incidents about supernatural occurences occur away from any means of impartial verification. Doesn't mean that they're not true, it means that telling the story, or even believing it doesn't make it true.

Radar: I know what you mean, it kind of depends on your job whether or not you can pull it off though. For thirteen years, ending in 1999, I was a sales rep, and regional sales manager for a newspaper. My staff and I were given goals. My directors did not care if it took me seventy hours each week to achieve the goals, they had no sympathy whatsoever. On the other hand, if I could achieve the same thing in twenty hours, they had no problem with that either. Generally I was given the territory-from-hell after a succession of bad reps, with the mandate to clean it up. After a few weeks of litle sleep and many meals eaten from behind the wheel of my car, I got it in order and could work a much shorter week. I believed in efficiency and delegating. My current job is assistant manager for a largish grocery store. I am as skilled at delegation, and as efficient as ever; but no matter how quickly I get my projects done, I am expected to "put in my time" at the store. This makes sense, since there are always customers in the store that need attention, care and feeding. Even though I can't leave early, getting all my tasks done early in the day or week, makes for less stress the rest of the time.