Mike

Tom, T-Bone came on polite to me and it was easy to respond in kind.

dmiller, Yes, I decide what qualifies for intense focus by me, and I try to decide based on what I’ve been taught in the record, and I try to inspire others to join me and others who are doing this. Yes, I decide what I’m going to point to. I think this is ANOTHER communications glitch. Maybe if you tried to think that I am sane, an OK guy, and somewhat right on then some (or a lot) of communications glitches will stop happening. ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** templelady, For the record, what I saw you do was miniscule compared to some others, but it did add to the mix. In addition to saying what you please, I am urging you and others to please consider the extra commotion that just seems to happen when I post. This is not because I am anything special, but because the topic I choose to post on is THE hot button of the century and more. I’m asking you to please consider Pawtucket and his moderators. This involves more than refraining from hitting the complaint button, but also avoiding stimulating others to do so. I asking you to just think through things a little more when the issue is this very hot topic of PFAL and the associations many here make now between me and PFAL. The more you folks rail on me in other threads the more it drags in others to fight and complain. Do your railing on me here and it will work better for all. ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** T-Bone, You wrote: “Mike, perhaps I wasn't clear on referring to those books. I'm not trying to "clean up" my KJV. I refer to them for another viewpoint or perhaps see how they define a Greek or Hebrew word, or mention an historical or cultural tie in...” But this is what I mean when I say “clean up” your KJV. It’s figurative. It works for the NIV too. We all know that our KJV is lacking in many areas. It was a valiant human attempt to re-issue the original scriptures in modern English (or was it Middle English?) but it has errors and poorly translated words. When you look for “another viewpoint” that’s part of a clean up process. you may not literally transfer this other viewpoint to your wide margin, but at least in your head the other viewpoint is fixing, expanding, offering a better rendering... than what is printed in your KJV or any other version. Ditto for scratching out a word of phrase, or bringing in an Orientalism or a Figure of Speech. It’s all to obtain a better Bible Version than the KJV. *** You wrote: “As far as a loss of surety - I personally am confident that: the Bible is true [though I certainly don't understand it all], that Jesus died for my sins, that God answers prayer, that adultery, lying, murder, and stealing are wrong; That I should love God with all my heart,soul, mind and strength & love my neighbor as myself....I continue to study the Bible [in quite a few different translations besides KJV] to hopefully deepen my understanding of the Scriptures and develop my relationship with God as I'm sure you do too....” Ok, so you are obtaining a better than the KJV version for your practical living. I think that’s admirable and fine. I even think you have probably nearly totally succeeded in your efforts to obtain something MUCH better than the standard KJV. I can imagine that with this goal in mind you probably think I’m nuts for going after what I am going after and how I’m doing it. However, my goals are different than yours. I include all that you describe, but I add in the idea that we are supposed to be doing all that Jesus Christ did. I want to live more than a moral life. I want to see God’s power at work like Jesus Christ had it working in his life and said we should have it too. To live a moral life with surety is very possible with the methods you describe, but the surety and the detail necessary to face down the devil on his turf requires more. I believe PFAL provides that necessary extra insight we will need to do all the things Jesus Christ did. *** You wrote: “Yeah, there's a lot of neat stuff to study in the Bible - like the Book of Revelation, the Rapture, the Holy Spirit and manifestations, etc. - - I personally don't think I've got to figure that all out, work all the kinks out and nail down the "true doctrine" or some doctrinal position so I can have intellectual confidence.....I admit I look into those things, study them - but figure I may never be as confident about what I find as I do about the "simpler" stuff....I think [in my opinion] that in the grand scheme of things - what matters most in Bible study are the things that have a direct bearing on the practical side of Christianity.” Yes, the normal everyday solutions to practical matters of life don’t require the full revelation that is in PFAL, but the power filled life God and His Son worked hard to make available to us will require more than you have embraced and described. It’s one thing to be accepted by God, it’s another thing to work as His partner within the Body of Christ in building the Third Heavens and Earth. I think this is our calling as grads. It has been pleasant discussing these things with you. I think you will do well with your present course, but I also am convinced that MUCH more is available to us.

Tom, I did only say that IN A SENSE it was my thread, and I did give the qualifications. I’m not trying to claim it in any way. I’m not going to get on anyone’s case if it get’s derailed. Heck, it has no focused track in the first place. Here are my comments again that seemed to tick you off: “For this particular thread I'm trying to decide where I want to go next with it, so in the meantime feel free to derail.” Your response was: “oh... I forgot... YOU decide... how silly of me!” But I contend that you misread my intentions. I was only deciding MY OWN course of actions on this thread, not everyone else’s. I think we are in agreement on this, it’s just a matter of communicating it. **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** **************************************************** dmiller, You wrote: “My ONLY POINT about the U of L syllabus was that it was something that twi PRINTED --- (not once did I quote the tapes -- in deference to your *written* specifications)” Again, it’s a simple communications glitch. In all my specifying of where I see something super special in the entire TWI output, it’s ONLY in VPW’s printed output that I focus. I am thankful for all the other contributions in the Way Magazine and on rare occasions even cited some, but it’s only Dr’s articles that I focus on as special. This detail has been posted but evidently not often enough or loud enough. Case in point: There was a Way Magazine article by Peter Berneger in the 70's on the Star of Bethlehem. It was printed before the work by Martin of Pasedena was discovered and later incorporated into JCPS. The book and that magazine article totally contradict each other. That article would fit into the bucket that U of L syllabus quote was talking about... the article was not the last word on the Star of Bethlehem... it was wrong, yet it was printed. VPW did not put his name on that article. I know some may think I'm making up these things as I go, but I'm not. That would be a real fast way to tie myself up into knots. I can find previous posts on the VPW name having to be on the printed material to have it qualify as the final end product of the 1942 promise. BTW, this "vpw in print" focus is a relatively new thing in my life. I first started hearing of it in 1998, but having an extensive tape background, I resisted it for a couple of years, and then accepted it, but still had the tape habit patterns. I may still have some internal contradictions on these matters and may still rely too heavily on some taped items for doctrine. As I see these I work them in my mind, but I don’t think I’m totally done yet. I am human and make mistakes, but find them fun to correct. But the "vpw only" tag on the printed items is about 5 or 6 years old now, well posted, and pretty consistently applied. BTW, PFAL page 83 places an additional qualifier on "vpw in print" because it says that NOT ALL that vpw writes will necessarily be God-breathed. I'll admit it's hard for an outsider to remember all these qualifications, but if you become a player, open the books, and dive into them headlong (instead of trying to defeat them) then it gets much easier to remember.

What the Hey, Thank you for your post on the oneness of Jesus Christ with the Word. You wrote: “But it is typical of "Americanized Chrisitanity" today, that separates the written Word from the living Word, Jesus Christ. The great design of the whole Word of God is Jesus Christ. Apart from him the Word of God cannot be understood and it is the scriptures which testify of Christ - not the "real world". “The living Word, Jesus Christ, and the written Word, the Scriptures, cannot be separated. But that is the flavor of "Americanized Christianity" in the so called: 'real world' today. It is a powerless counterfeit, albeit at times it can be a spectacular one ending in nothing but confusion and speculation. Just a lot of sizzle with no steak.” Yes, the Hollywood nice-guy Jesus is a counterfeit, yet that’s all many can hold in mind who eschew a deep knowledge of the scriptures... and of course PFAL which unfolds the scriptures for us. Sure there can be a huge imbalance when all someone does is study books and never gets out there to apply the books. But if someone genuinely studies and understands PFAL and acts on it, then this imbalance does not happen.

Yikes! Things got pretty slow here for a while and now I’m far behind in responding again. Tomorrow looks to be a rainy day, so I expect to catch up by then. Maybe I’ll stay up late. ***************************************************** ***************************************************** ***************************************************** ***************************************************** Tom Strange (and later dmiller), I saw your short post and decided to start with it. You wrote: “Mike, please don't be rude to the folks who have been down here dealing with you on a daily basis. Respond to LG in the thread that he addressed you... please show others the courtesy you would want shown to you and respond to things within this thread. Thank you.” Well Tom, if the only place you think I was rude was to LG, then I may get off this hook easy. However, you did use the word “folks” so I suspect you have other incidents in mind. If you do think I was rude other places, it’s better to be specific than general, and it’s best to speak up in private first, as Jesus once taught. I admit I was tough at the end of my post to LG, but he indicated that he could take it by being a bit rough with me. Instead of saying that Dr would slap me silly, LG could have spoken in kinder tones and said the Dr would have disapproved. If the end of my post was something you thought was rude, did you also think LG was rude to me? *** Ok, now for the easy part. One minute after responding to LG here I sent him a PM informing him that I had responded to his remark in this “official” PFAL thread. You seemed to get all bent out of shape when I mentioned in another post that I haven’t decided where to go with this thread, as if it were mind to decide. There’s a connection between these two items. In a sense this is my thread. It was set up by Modaustin for me so that I can confine my main message here. We both discussed this when doojable’s thread “OK for once and for all” thread got a little heated and generating complaints. Pawtucket and the moderators get way too many complaints about me and my message being splashed all over the board. Things get too heated too easily, and too many complaints hassle the moderators too much, so hence this thread was set up. Modaustin’s name is on this thread because if it were my name it would generate more complaints, and because then it would lack Modaustin’s Preface forbidding complaints and the authority behind it. I have ventured out to a small number of other threads a tiny bit, and with extreme care to not disrupt things and to confine my main message here. I’m only venturing out of this thread to post on subjects I think I can keep the commotion down on, and where I think I can offer small contributions to the mix. When things do heat up, I’m trying to bow out quickly. If I had responded to LG on the thread where he made his remarks then things would have gotten quickly out of hand, the complaint buttons would be pressed by many, and I would be in trouble again with management. They have done much to keep this place an open discussion site with as few rules as possible. One of the rules is I need to post in places and in ways where management is least hassled by complaints. This is the reason for the Modaustin’s Preface on page one of this thread. I’m somewhat in awe of Pawtucket’s dedication to the idea of free speech, and his generosity in allowing me to post. He does this in spite of the extreme differences between his and my philosophy of what PFAL was all about. He does this in spite of the load of complaints he and moderators get from posters who seem to want censorship for ideas they don’t like, especially mine. I am doing my best to respect Paw’s wishes and confine the bulk of my posts and hopefully ALL of the commotion generating ones here. It get’s complicated when I see another thread topic I think I can contribute on because although I can gage my efforts to lessen outrage (knowing the buzz words), I cannot control other posters who want to strike up the band and get the food fight started on those other threads I venture out to. Dmiller, you have gotten caught up in this process a couple of times. It’s occurred to me that you and others are not as aware of the behind the scenes issues I’m describing here as I had hoped, so that’s why I’m taking this time now to explain. When you, dmiller, started that thread on the U of L syllabus, the fact that it was about me AND it had my name in the title meant all the red flags were waving. I saw it was sure to invite a huge set of complaints, yet I felt some answer from me was demanded. I tried my best to steer it back to this thread, but you weren’t getting it, so modcat5 stepped in with some explanation that I was doing the right thing in that steerage and then locked the thread down. Then on the “all nine all the time” thread you were making comments to drag in the usual on-going conversations you and I have, but that had nothing to do with the thread topic. Then templelady chimed in with a little more of the same, and the calls for my removal started. I’m just hoping the complaint button wasn’t pushed. It seemed to straighten out, but I wanted you to know why I said what I said about it. *** Dmiller, I haven’t had time yet to read your most recent posts carefully but I will. I was able to see the overture you gave there and am willing to work it out with you. I can see that it deserves more reading, thought, and discussion. I am constantly seeing that most of the squabbles you and I have had (others too) revolve around misunderstandings. It’s hard for me to keep track of who has heard what about the details of my position. I was genuinely surprised to see that you thought you had me over a barrel with the U of L syllabus quote. I thought I had fully explained that aspect of my looking to tapes and other ministry teachings for secondary benefits, such as ministry history instead of doctrine, so I was surprised when you posted on that. Maybe you didn’t see or attach enough significance to my previous posts on how I look at differing materials. I feel that many posters here look at a post of mine, get angry or excited about some ONE thing in it, and fail to see and/or remember the details of the post. I’m constantly repeating those details, but they are constantly getting lost. Doojable’s urging me to write up a treatise has some merit when it comes to these lost details. I will not try to write up a some kind of proof on why PFAL is God-breathed, but I may try to write up a general set of items describing where I’m coming from. One plan I am thinking over is to slowly read all of my posts, and organize them into categories. From there I can boil them down to a general treatise. Just a thought. *** Ok, now that the background information has been explained maybe we can discuss better ways I can post to cause less commotion, both on this thread and others. It’s the folks who too easily hit the complaint buttons that need to be dealt with or at least anticipated. It’s just a matter of time and this thread’s length will be a source of antagonism for some complaint button pushers. It happened before with the “Masters of the Word” thread where MANY people complained about that thread’s length, even on the board in posts, so this one is surely next. Maybe we can ask a moderator to lock this one and start another similar one, labeling it Session Two, as a comedy relief... or would THAT cause complaints too? Oh well, life involves risks.

LG, On the “About the Way” thread named “Personal experiences not valid...” I had written: “... prior to 1942 there was no authoritative written Word available.” You retorted with: “Wierwille would have slapped you silly, had you said that to him.” I disagree. We might begin by discussing a little what I meant a little by my use of the word “authoritative.” By that I mean something above and beyond the human authority of the scholars over the centuries who have participated in reconstructing what they think the scriptures must have said and then translating that into English. Both steps require a massive amount of human, flesh, senses, mental work to produce what was available prior to 1942. The end result is not at all authoritative like the original manuscripts were. *** Now I don’t base my disagreement with you on this issue solely on this little bit of logic. I see that VPW said some things very similar to what you took issue with me on. Here’s what Dr said in "The Way - Living In Love" by Elena Whiteside pp. 178-18: "Then Rosalind left. It was the fall of the year. Kids were back in school already. It must have been September. I was sitting in my office, an old dentist's office just around the corner from the church where I served — I'll show you that too when we get there. I bet you it's still there, though I haven't been back here since I left. “I was praying. And I told Father that He could have the whole thing, unless there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on. "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others. "Well, I nearly flew off my chair. I couldn't believe that God would talk to me." He shakes his head slowly smiling. "It's just too fantastic. People won't believe it. But He spoke to me just as plainly as I'm talking now to you. "But really, why is it so strange? When you think about it, you see in the Bible that all through the ages God talked to people. God talked to Moses, to all the prophets. God talked to Paul. All through the centuries, God has talked to people in times of great need. And that's what we have today — a terrific need. People are just so far from hearing and believing the Word of God. “You don't get it in the theological schools. The Word is buried, just like it was in the time of Jeremiah. Oh, they had their priests, their higher echelons, their temples, their rituals. It all looked so religious, you know. But the Word of God was buried. Oh, they were teaching the people something -- they called it the Word of God maybe, but the Word was buried. God spoke directly to Jeremiah. "The Word is buried today. If there's no one around to teach it, God has to teach it Himself. You see, I am a product of my times. God knew me before the foundations of the world, just like He knew you and everyone else. We were all in God's foreknowledge from the beginnings. “God knew I would believe His Word. And every day I am more and more deeply convinced of this ministry which teaches people the accuracy and integrity of God's Word. Without this ministry the world would be in far greater spiritual darkness about His Word. There would be less light in the world. Where else but in this ministry do you find the Word of God so living and real? This is truly a time of terrific need." Doctor nods his head abruptly, as if to punctuate his urgency.” I highlighted portions that indicate Dr believed that prior to 1942 there was no authoritative Word to hear. It wasn’t in print. Oh, SOMETHING was in print, and they dressed it up as the Word, but it wasn’t. It had pieces of the Word, but it also had error, crucial error. *** I think Dr would be very disappointed that we didn’t pay good attention to what he taught us, and that we all refused to take his final instructions seriously. Leadership didn’t even pass on his final instructions to non-Corps grads and it was lost. No, I’m not at all worried about Dr not liking what I posted. I think he’d have some things to say to you, though. What actions did you take regarding his Last/Lost Teaching and his final instructions? If ANY actions at all were taken by you in obedience to that last teaching, how long did they last? What kind of obedience did you show and how did you inspire others to follow suit to do what Dr EXPLICITLY told us to do?

Jerry, Don't fret none. The Lord has helped you. I find plenty of benefits here from listening to other people. I have even on occasion changed my mind from listening to some things here. I've explained before (maybe you weren't listening) many times, though, that there are SOME things from which I will not budge. Don't you too have any such items in your mind? Do you come here to have everything changed in your mind? No! There are many such inflexible positions held here by posters. I'm simply honest to point out what I've closed my mind on. Everyone has issues they've finished considering and are dedicated to. It's just that the phrase "open mind" is so chic that many people pretend to have it for every and all possible issues. Baloney! *** Now, to help steer this back to topic from your accusatory derailment, let me ask EVERYONE this: Has anyone here had an experience that was so profound they decided to close their mind to any more input and considerations on the that issue?

Oaks, You wrote: "Our understanding of what is written down, no matter how authoritative, can also be illusory." I understand EXACTLY what you mean.

igotout, I've noticed for many years now that the Geer Network TOTALLY denies that it is a network, and very vehemently at times too! There were times when I tried all sorts of vocabulary words, and respectful ones too, to describe their network, only to get viciously chewed out over it. I gave up and now just call them the GRRR ministry. It seems to fit them best. This odd policy gives rise to what you wondered over. Now you have somethig new to wonder about, maybe?

penguin, What you described were the later distorted forms of the original teaching on experiences, after that distortion crept from teaching policies to everyday conversation policies. What a lot of us got into above were the earlier forms of that distortion. The mere word “experience” eventually became an anti-buzz word in later years that gave leaders a handle on crushing the egos of anyone who dared utter it outside the approved confines you described. ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** Oakspear, You wrote: “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.” This is a good point you make. In the early stages of formulating a Biblical perspective such a point is crucial. But there’s more to the story as we develop in our perspective. It’s pretty well documented that what the eyes behold can be very illusory. There comes a point where we must rise to a spiritual/intellectual point of view that is greater than any fleeting view that comes into physical sight. Without a vantage point greater than the senses we are at the mercy of whoever controls the senses realm.

I'm pleasantly surprised. ...not at you bowing out, but at your stating that there is evil in the spiritual. *** For this particular thread I'm trying to decide where I want to go next with it, so in the meantime feel free to derail.

Todd, Don't be sad. We can still talk about PFAL and spiritual things if you want... not so much here on this thread, though. If you brace yourself for my unyielding position we can talk fine.

Todd, This conversation goes back years. I've explained that I do limit myself in what I will learn and absorb. If you are willing to state that you know that there are great dangers in some spiritual phenomena and ideas then I’ll be pleasantly surprised. It sounds to me that you still advocate all kinds of experimentation with all sorts of phenomena and ideas. I think that’s dangerous, and self-misleading at best. I’d be happy to be wrong on my perception of your position. It’s in the AC that Dr teaches the “16 Keys to walking in the Spirit” and key #4 is “Study the Word much. What you can know by the five senses God expects you to know.” This key #4 is to protect us from error and evil. Many religious people want to skip around the work of five senses, serious study. The reason we were given a written Word is so that we can read about the warnings with our five senses, and so we can see which major ideas and methods are right in God’s eyes. We need this fives senses text to read from because it takes time and skill to discern good from evil spiritually. Evil will present itself as good and CONVINCINGLY SO, if there isn’t a strong awareness of good and evil from the five senses reading prior to encountering the spiritual counterfeits. This is the whole story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness just after he received spirit. He had done the five senses study all his life and was ready for spiritual encounters. He was successful at spotting that the devil was a counterfeit because he had done the necessary five senses work. It takes work, and lazy cosmic cadets are sure to be duped sooner or later. But, I’d prefer here on this thread (largely because I can’t do it elsewhere) to get into the five senses study of PFAL .... leading later to the spiritual... *** You wrote: "i hope you know i dont ask you those kinds of things because i want to humiliate you or save anyone from your doctrine" Yes, I know you well enough to know those are not your motives. I know you're genuinely excited about other stuff, but I must beg off. I've got my mission.

WW, Yes, I'm speculating a little. But I have done the talking with those who teach their experiences as doctrine. It's pretty wild! Dr does explicitly say that their experiences vary and contradict, and in the same places he teaches that experience is no guarantee for truth, so at least ONE of his STATED reasons for teaching this is the confusing storehouse of experiences that are out there... WAY out there. **** Todd, in some subjects variety is bad. If you were an astronaut and the trajectory department told you that if you hit thruster A for one second about ten completely different things can happen, would you feel good about hitting thruster A? How about getting your car fixed by a cosmic mechanic who feels that silent, cool, and frictionless braking is at one with the universe, would you want to pay him for that brake job? Would that mechanic complement the normal ones?

I recognize extreme spiritual danger and fear as enemies. But you draw me WAY beyond my position, by saying my "standard is extreme spiritual danger and fear" I'll say it again, there is evil on earth BECAUSE there was evil in heaven. I prefer to avoid evil, and giving it another name or redefining it wont change it's nature. We need a standard to tell us what to avoid. To say that all spiritual phenomina are good is naive and dangerous. *** I appreciate your congeniality greatly. But fellowshipping with me, if it's the deep me, means working written PFAL together. It's you who back off of what is the deep me. I'd be happy to talk and even do a little art together with you, though. But I'm not interested in backing off my posiotion for some friendlies.

sirguessalot, Yes, it can be said of other books, that developing a long term relationship with them will tell you a lot more than a studious reading. But it can also be said of other books that their message is incorrect, wrong, bad or even evil. If such another book does not alert you to the extreme dangers of the spiritual realm, that one can be IMMEDIATELY discarded. To assume that all the variety and power and interesting phenomena out in the spiritual realm is friendly is very naive. I limit myself and protect myself. ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** Raf, You are unaware of many aspects of written PFAL, such as the seemingly minute differences between the book form and the magazine form of the same chapters. Until you examine all the data you are not in a good position to say if I distort Dr’s writings or if I simply contradict your preliminary understanding of them. You wrote of “depths to which” I plunge in my efforts, yet you seem to have no awareness of the depths to which YOU have plunged to in your juggling of God’s Word without having an authoritative text. You seem to be unaware of the subtle ego trips involved in thinking that you can find your way through the thicket. I have relinquished my ego and have accepted a text.

sirguessalot, If you ever talked with Pentecostalists or wild holy roller types and how they SIT, and what feelings they get, and how they experience it, you'd know EXACTLY why Dr taught that we can't base doctrine on personal experiences. It was to protect us from a HUGE storehouse of confusing and contradictory, but very wild and explicit experiences.

Define "define" !!!

Raf, You must master PFAL to see if it's truly the case that I distort PFAL. I'll freely admit that what I see in PFAL is different than what you see in it. But then again, our methods of focus differ, as well as the intensity of our focus. ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** ****************************************************************** dmiller, On that same “all nine” thread you wrote: “Since you were mentioning tapes (while having castigated a few of us in the past for doing the exact same thing), I just thought I might bring that to your attention, and you say I didn't *resist*?” You gottat read context, man. Raf had seen a hot line I wrote. He posted a quote of it. He then resisted commenting any more to avoid derailing the thread any more. There was context prior to that complaining that it was I who had derailed the thread. You did not resist the urge to go off on a wild tangent. You were the chief derailleur, but of course I got blamed. Templelady also said far more than she had to keep the thread rolling. *** Since we’re at a quote from you, can you point out one place where I castigated someone for mentioning tapes. I want you to find the place so I can show you that I was gentle in my correction. If I wasn’t gentle it was because someone was dragging my foot. You were even more off the wall in your accusations earlier on the thread where you wrote: “There you go mentioning tapes again. Why?????? Everytime one of us does so, you relegate it to the gutter ---“ So, if I do that EVERYTIME, then it should be easy for you to find proof, if your accusation is accurate. But I think it’s not, and I think you will not do the work to prove me right. Your credibility is sagging.

I wrote on the “All Nine All the Time, another a.c. slogan.......another discrepancy” thread that zealots distorted a lot of the teaching we received from Dr. I could see Raf’s vein’s popping on that one, so I know he views me as a zealot. There was more to ChasUFarley’s post that I would have liked to respond to there, but I refrained. It seems I bring out the derailleur in too many people even when I hold back tight on my PFAL message. ChasUFarley had written regarding “all nine all the time” thusly: “I think what happened with this, is that VPW taught it, like White Dove, myself, and others posted - he taught that the nine manifestations are available - you just have to know how to recognize and utilize them. I don't remember him teaching that you use them all at once. I think ZEALOUS people took this saying out of context, and warped it into something where they taught you should OPERATE all nine manifestations AT ALL TIMES - be looking always for occasions to use them, etc. “Just like people misued "Reaching into Daddy's cookie jar..." to say they were trolling for revelation all the time, which isn't really what VPW taught, as I understood it. It was more God's perrogative if he gave you any revelation at all - it wasn't that he had it for you - like cookies - all the time... “Again, it was people who placed what came out of VPW's mouth above what the Word said that messed things up - the man was, and by some people, still is, elevated above God and the Word.” The warping by zealots ended up in what I call TVTs or Twi Verbal Traditions. This last paragraph quoted here is interesting. I imagine Raf and many others feel that I fall into that category, but I know only too well how many years I had to fight against the tide of zealots to NOT do that very thing... to NOT regard “what came out of VPW's mouth above what the Word said...” I saw that kind of hero worship long ago and successfully resisted getting caught up in it. It was seductively attractive and there was some pressure behind it, forcing some into this hero worship. In 1998 I changed, but not in this category of resisting that regarding of every word VPW spoke as above the Word of God. My position is that there were MANY words Dr spoke in error. There were also many truths that came out of the same mouth, and I do look for those. What changed for me in 1998 is that I FINALLY could answer the question that had slowly emerged in my mind over the years. Whenever I heard the Way Corps motto “It Is Written” I’d ask myself WHERE? I knew it wasn’t written in my KJV, that THE WORD was not written there, because there were many mistakes there. I knew there were also some smaller number of mistakes in the ancient manuscripts and a large number in any translation. I needed an absolute authority but I knew that even my wide margin “corrected” version of KJV was WRITTEN BY ME! How could I know I got it all right, and that my correction job was complete enough? T-Bone, this is what I was looking at in your post on the other thread. You listed a bunch of books you use in your efforts to clean up your KJV, but you didn’t mention the loss of surety that emerges from such efforts, especially when two equally bright scholars (like authors of the books you mentioned) disagree on any one point. If I wanted surety I had to have SOME kind of reference text to help me in my Biblical research that “I’d never have to back up on” to borrow a phrase. Due to a number of circumstances lining up together in that year of 1998, I decided that I’d take written PFAL as my only rule for faith and practice. Outside obvious printer and proofreader errors, I decided that every word written there is true and everything else gets lined up with it or tossed out. The zealots do not take such an arduous course. Most of them were into mouthing things in the extreme for the power play it afforded them. They wanted a cheap way to gain respect and taking an extreme position helped them. They were lazy and self serving. Even the zealots totally ignored Dr’s final (and often repeated prior) instructions to master the written materials. *** The path I’ve chosen is not easy. It’s not a seductively attractive position, and there is a strong pressure pointing AWAY from it. It takes work to sort out what Dr put into print from all the other things he said. I may have an extreme stand, but at least I have a text I can place on my Table of Challenge. It weighs something, and can be seen by all. My text is unchanging. It is written. Who here can really say that but me? I’m about the only one who can point EXACTLY to the texts and say “It is written, that settles it, HERE is the text.” This is not a popular position, but it’s concrete. Everyone else must say “It WAS written, and I am working on restoring it and getting it into English, so it is written... sort of... with reservations. But I’m real sure of some of it.” It is written. My zeal is not in my ability to someday determine (with help of my choosing) an acceptable text, as others’ zeal must be. My zeal is for God and in His giving His Word in a tangible English text to sinful men such as I.

If anyone wants to see the entire AC segment I can PM it to them. It was a entire hour that Dr spent on "all nine." Raf, you did well in resisting, much better than did dmiller and templelady. If any of you want to challenge me on a tangential issue, you know where to find me.

Thanks Chas and White Dove, Yes, I found it too in segment 34, and it looks like Allan had it right on in post #6. Chas, I particularly like how you put this: “I think ZEALOUS people took this saying out of context, and warped it into something where they taught you should OPERATE all nine manifestations AT ALL TIMES...” Many things got distorted by unwise zealots.

dmiller, I thought penguin's point on the 1942 incident was valid and needed to be addressed. I didn't expect my handling of it to be well liked, though. So, what do you think of the points Galen and johniam made?

Well maybe you can pass on challenging me the next time I mention a tape.

I think Galen and johniam, between the two of them, have nailed what we were taught rightly on this topic, while it’s also true that we went off into some tangents on this in later years. Galen, above, has explained that the details of one person’s receiving of revelation, as in how God works with that one individual, should never be taught as doctrine. In an earlier post johniam explained that personal experiences should never be used to establish doctrine above what is written. IF there is a conflict between the written Word and some personal experience, then the experience must line up to fit with the Word, and not vice versa as is done in many cases, like the Norman Vincent Peale account johniam reminded us was in the AC. If personal experiences do line up with the written Word, then they are fine for that individual. From all this we can see why Dr’s personal experience in 1942 was always acceptable in ministry circles, because prior to 1942 there was no authoritative written Word available.