Oakspear

Did somebody just wave some fresh meat in front of us skeptical dogs?

Amen! Very true. While I find Mormonism tobe pretty implausible, it's no more implausible that most other beliefs, including mainstream Christianity, and for that matter, my own

Yet, many people use the incidence of prayers that elicited the answer that they predecided on as an indication that prayer "works". This is what's known as a false dilemma. Two choices are presented: Jesus told the truth, or Jesus lied. What about: Jesus never existed Jesus existed, but was not the man presented in the bible Jesus was the son of God (or God), but was seriously misquoted Jesus was mistaken Add your own

ya just can't resist the name-calling, can ya?

No I am sorry for not answering but I have decided that VPW did the best he could and I quote ICOR 13:4 Thinketh no evil. In the old testament God closed his eyes to the sins of Israel. So I have done the same thing with VPW, LCM, and TWI. CK Ah...you decided that...

CK:Goey has stated very succinctly what I would have if I had gotten here first Thanks Goey. You have pretty clearly stated what you believe, that I get. What you have failed to do is discuss your beliefs. Part of "discussion" is explaining and defending your beliefs. No one is attacking your beliefs, but several of us are questioning their basis. You were never in The Way, but your parents apparently brought you up using core Way doctrine. Nothing wrong with that, but regardless of the "truth" or "error" of what Wierwille taught, many, if not most of us, no longer accept what he taught as an infallible source. So, if you are going to engage in discussions here, you must be prepared to cite sources beyond Wierwille. An argument or disagreement cannot be resolved by quoting Wierwille, PFAL, or a TWI version of biblical doctrine.

Another reason for my foray into agnosticism was when I decided to stop "holding things in abeyance". Much of what Martindale was teaching in WayAP made no sense to me, so I spent a year analyzing his class, one session at a time, using principles that I learned in PFAL. I found many inconsistancies, and "errors". These errors led to beginning to find inconsistancies and problems with PFAL. Eventually, after checking out various ex-Way web sites, I saw the diversity of opinions about the bible, all using Wierwille's "keys to research". There was no agreement about "The Word", even from people supposedly schooled in letting "The Word interpret itself". Outside "The Way" and it's offshoots and refugees, there were hundreds, even thousands of differences of opinion among Christians. They all thought that they were right. Add to that Jews, Muslims, Hindus. Take your pick. Why are agnostics skeptics and doubters? Why isn't everybody?

One thing that always perplexes me about the so-called "power of prayer" (and for that matter, "alternative healing" and any other claim of the supernatural) is that usually there are built-in weasel words to account for why it doesn't always bring the desired results. So what exactly are we talking about when we say "prayer works"? If we can't know in advance what prayers are going to elicit the desired results, and "answers to prayer" are entirely dependent on the whim of a god who's not going to tell us what prayers he's going to answer and what ones he's not, then obviously there can be no scientific test that will measure that, because it's not cause-and-effect, it's the volition of a thinking being..."God".The problem I see with that point of view is that many Christians use their experience with "answered prayers" as their personal proof that God as they envision him (or her) exists, yet receive results that statistically are equal to random chance. Does this mean that there is no God? Does this mean that there are no miracles or answered prayers? In my opinion, no. But there is enough doubt to warrant an agnostic position: "I don't know".

Completely different. That's part of a predetermined ritual.

You see things happen in your life and attribute them to God; others see the same thing and attribute them to random occurences, karma, hard work, or any number of other things. None of us really know for sure, but we choose to asign a source to the events in our lives. I'm no less happy if one of my children recovers from a deadly illness if I attribute it to a really sharp doctor and my kid's immune system than if I believe that God did it. With all respect suda, save your pity. Those of us who don't believe as you do are not lacking any depth in our lives, it's just different.

Yeah, "nice" verseI'm disappointed that you've chosen (or unable) to discuss any of this intelligently, but chosen instead to throw out one liners and regurgitated Wierwillisms.

Not a lot of time right now, maybe tomorrow

"Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#1 Clearly he is not referring to every word without exception, but every word that he has written previously on the subject that he is writing about. So what is Wierwille saying here? That his words in the previous section are the equivalent to scripture? Or that they are true because they line up with what the bible says? It would really be a stretch to suppose that he was saying anything other than his words line up biblically, therefore they are true. "Thus Saith The Lord Statement"#2 I'd be interested in the broader context here. Is what he wrote previous to this quote Wierwille quoting scripture? Or is it Wierwille speaking on his own? (or claiming to speak by revelation) In both of these statements we have Wierwille very obviously claiming that what he has taught is true. He is considering no other possibility. But is he suggesting that what he is writing can in any way replace, or supercede 'the bible'? If he is saying it, it's not in these two statements. I've no time to look at any others today.

templelady, obviously it is allan's business, so please, humble yourself before his great and all-encompassing wisdom and admit your error.

No -- he didn't say that. What he DID say was --- I WISH YOU COULD SEE IT IN THE ORIGINAL, (no *s*) and he always said that statement, when he was trying to explain (or cover-up) how he came up with some the interpretations that he did. It was always meant to show that he had (supposedly) seen the greek/whatever text, and we were to take his word for what he was saying, as *gospel*. Or sometimes it was read it in the original.Although he did clearly say that there were no originals "in extant", I can see some folks getting confused. I always thought he meant that we should see it or read it in the original language, which I wonder if he ever did

templelady: You need to show more respect for allan, who is an expert on all things that pertain to the LDS church. If allan says it's a Mormon belief, then it doesn't matter if the highest authorities in Mormonism say differently. Get with the program, why doncha?

Good point, although TWI was pretty clear that their ordinations, teachings, and maybe even holy spirit was better than everyone else's. I can't imagine any circumstances where TWI leadership would approve of someone getting ordained outside of their structure in order to do weddings. I know of a few instances where unordained limb or branch coordinators (once by a non-Way Corps, non-Advanced Class grad) did "ministry weddings", approved up the chain of command, but a judge did the "legal" ceremony.Here in Nebraska, the law states that an "ordained minister" can perform a wedding, but does not define what "ordained minister" means, and no one checks on the credentials of the officiant at a Nebraska wedding anyway. I don't ever remember hearing clear requirements for ordination while "in". Ordained guys and gals were usually viewed as being "a cut above" in the TWI pecking order, with occasional exceptions: Don Wierwille and Howard Allen, as well as Ermal Owens being examples that come immediately to mind.

You are such a troublemaker! Well, yeah, I am! But it's still a valid point. Anyone who speaks more than one language, or even has a passing familiarity with language knows that there are sounds in other languages that do not occur in English (the pops & clicks in the African language of Xhosa! come to mind, as does the hard, guttural "ch" of Hebrew and some germanic languages), and that some sounds in English do not occur in some other languages, I believe it's the "L" sound that is not part of Japanese.

I do not agree. I think that we have a good understanding of the bible in a lot of categories. I disagree with your disagreement What I'm talking about here, mex, is not clinging to a belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary, but reconsidering (not throwing it out) that belief in light of experience.

Ambushed? I didn't feel that way. You could see it coming in the last few sessions, and everybody else spoke in tongues, right? SIT was something i wanted to do, i thought it was "cool". Regarding those excellors "sessions": never thought it made sense. If "the spirit gave the utterance", why would you need to build fluency? Getting more comfortable speaking in tongues out loud? Yeah, I can see that. And that alphabet thing, how can you decide, with your "understanding" what sound each word will start with if God is providing the words? In later years I would screw around a bit in those sessions. Someone once described my tongue as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon. Sometimes when asked to SIT with a specific letter I'd open my mouth and not say anything...get an innocent look on my face a nd say "I guess my tongue doesn't have that sound".

Main Entry: di·a·tribe Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb Function: noun Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at THROW 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing 3 : ironical or satirical criticism

Oh yeah I am here I thought everyone needed some time for the information already provided. CK <_<

Our understanding of what is written down, no matter how authoritative, can also be illusory.

Pointing out errors in other religious systems when confronted with errors in TWI doctrine and practice is a logical fallcy of distraction, specifically the fallacy of changing the subject, subcategory, attacking the person or position of the one bringing up the error. This board is about TWI, set up to "give the other side", the answer to TWI's claims. The Catholics, Mormons, whoever else has error; so what? We're talking about TWI. Another thing that I see that gets out of hand IMHO is the use of analogy. Analogies illustate the point, they aren't the point themselves. Comparing something in TWI to something else doesn't prove anything, and finding a point of dissimilarity in the analogy doesn't disprove anything either.

Even from a "believing that the bible is true" point of view, a contradictory experience might be helpful in analyzing whether what you thought the bible said was true. Of course, if you're locked into one view, you'll ignore what's before your eyes.