Mike

WordWolf, I had written: “PFAL teaches you that you actually own a version of a translation of a modern critical text. It’s a good tool for beginners, but by 1985 Dr told us all to switch our mastery efforts to written PFAL.” You responded with: “vpw never said anything about "SWITCHING" from the Bible to pfal. pfal was supposed to be a key to the Bible-Genesis to Revelation. (pfal says so.) vpw said people should put more time in pfal. The claim was it was the BEST key to the Bible. “In pfal, students are challenged to put all other reading materials aside other than the Bible for 3 months. There was never a challenge to put aside the Bible for 3 months. There was no "switch" instruction. Mike added this to the word of vpw. When you add to the word of vpw, you no longer have the word of vpw.” Well, in addition to being the BEST key, Dr also claimed that it was a God-breathed key. If you had read a little more carefully you’d have seen that I wrote: “..but by 1985 Dr told us all to switch...” and that I had NOT written “..but in 1985 Dr told us all to switch...” I could see your criticism having a sliver of validity had I written it the second way, but even then I could argue that even though I hadn’t quoted vpw verbatim I still had the general gist of what he said IN that year of 1985. But I did write it the first way to indicate a spread out process of Dr telling us all to switch our mastery efforts from the KJV to the collaterals. I’ve outlined this process before and I can retrieve the details, but in short here it is. In 1975 Dr hinted to the top leadership that mastering RHST would be a good thing. In 1979 he told all the AC students and grads that mastering RHST was a must. In 1984 he told the new students of PFAL that they should start thinking about mastering some of the books. In 1985, a month before he died, he mentioned on his last SNS tape that mastering ADAN was important. Two weeks later he said in his last teaching that everyone, ESPECIALLY top leadership, should master the collaterals. The abbreviated sequence I just outlined has been presented here before in expanded form with total documentation. It was to this sequence that I referred when I wrote “..but by 1985 Dr told us all to switch...” Prior to this sequence Dr had told us in the 1967 film class, and later in the PFAL book, that focused study of the Pauline Epistles in our KJV was important. The sequence outlined is a slow gradual switch from focused study of KJV to focused study of written PFAL. The line you pounced on, WW, was meant to indicate a switch in Dr’s many urgings, not a quote of an exact line he said. I usually supply documentation when I am quoting him. *** I had written to Raf: “I’ve tried both approaches. __ You’ve tried only one.” You responded with: “INCORRECT. __ Raf's method was to use pfal's standard for Scripture to see if pfal was Scripture. If pfal was supposed to be Scripture, it would pass its OWN tests.” WW, I think you got it wrong here. I’ll start from the beginning, using Raf as an example, because the same holds for many here. Raf has two differing methods at his disposal. The first method, Method A, is how he approaches the ancient scriptures. He enters a study with an fundamental assumption that the originals were correct, and upon finding an Apparent Error he holds fast to his original assumption, and works the material until it fits and the AE evaporates, even if it takes years. Method B is roughly how Raf approaches his professional field of journalism, and this method has no corresponding fundamental assumption to hold fast. When Raf applies Method B to PFAL he finds AE’s. He continues his investigation a little to see how solid they seem to be. If they pass all the tests he and his friends can muster up, they uncork the Champagne and celebrate. Now, WW, here is where I will explain what I meant when I wrote: “I’ve tried both approaches. __ You’ve tried only one.” Even though Raf knows Method A, he’s never applied it to PFAL. He’s only applied one method to the AEs of PFAL. There were many years where I sporadically applied Method B to PFAL. By 1998 I thought I had found several errors worth correcting. I knew of Method A for studying Biblical AEs but I had never applied it to PFAL. Just the opposite I was ON GUARD AGAINST applying it to PFAL. In 1998 I changed. I now have applied both methods to PFAL, while Raf (and others) have only applied one. *** You quoted my response to Raf and then wrote: “Mike, most people see this post as blatantly self-contradictory.” Well, it DOES contain a joke that you may have missed. I was deliberately contradictory there. *** You wrote: “This game with the "can you name the elements in" IS a lure into some bizarre Mikean game. Rather than post after post saying "no one can answer the riddle I devised", (which is more a matter of "WE REFUSE TO PLAY") you could far more quickly just name the 5 Mikean elements.” WW, I’m once again proving to all that your understanding of the PFAL material is far from the mastery level Dr urged for over a ten year span. The “game” you so detest is to collect the many elements of the law of believing that are scattered throughout written PFAL. So far I lined up 4 such elements. There is a 5th element that you and everyone here has heard dozens of times, but apparently not well enough to produce at my beckoning. This is your chance to prove how well you knew the material. You have boasted about your great study of PFAL and how well you did on the AC entrance exam. I contend that you never knew the material well enough to have a deep working knowledge of it, and your inability to produce the 5th Element is my proof. ******** I am seeking PFAL grads who studied the books and can help me collect Elements that make up the law of believing. We have 4 such elements. 1) Believing equals receiving. 2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. 3) Turning our believing toward the promises of God, limiting ourselves to the “Available List.” 4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s. Who can help me find the 5th? I expect to find many more than 5. The 5th Element is known to all here. All have heard it many times. This is a spot quiz.

Tom, You don’t actually own a Bible. PFAL teaches you that you actually own a version of a translation of a modern critical text. It’s a good tool for beginners, but by 1985 Dr told us all to switch our mastery efforts to written PFAL. Did you see the 22 "thus saith the lord" statements earlier in this thread? That’s where PFAL claims to be God-breathed. ****** Raf, You wrote: “You won't even admit an error is an error? You won't even address them?” Correct. I have my approach and you have yours. The two approaches are mutually exclusive. I’ve tried both approaches. You’ve tried only one. ****** CM, I’ll sleep tonight assured that you are looking over my welfare.

Raf, So you refuse to even TRY adding in the 5th Element? You wont even address the issue?

CM, Thanks for the assurance that that was not an attack. I fell much better for it. *** Raf, You wrote: “You keep trying to lure me into your deception...” I don’t see it that way. I am plugging ahead with the details of laying out my message, and it’s YOU (along with others) who are trying to lure me from my mission. I don’t try to lure you into anything. Now, can you think of another element that should be in that set? I’ll give you some candy if you can think of just ONE more element. *** Tom, I had written: “When we DO get back to the truth it will be simple.” You responded with: “By 'the truth' do you mean PFAL?” Yes. When we collect all the elements of the law of believing as presented in PFAL, and we get to know them well, as a mastering student should, THEN the mix of elements requires for dealing with every situation will be simple.

Raf, I often see in the KJV that the full story of one topic is OFTEN spread out over many books and chapters. Why can't PFAL be similarly?

Here, I'll give you with the deficit sets a hint. The 5th Element is in the Green Book. Raf, maybe the reason you never saw this is because you confined your analysis of the law f believing to the Blue Book. Just maybe.

Tom, I'm confused by two conversations going on at once. Please repeat the question. Raf, You wrote: "It's the "law" of believing that's error. __ You have to become an outright contortionist to make it appear to work." No, I have to be an outright contortionist to untangle the error suffered by those grads who have a poorly constructed set of elements making up the law of believing. Beef up your set a little and you will see a little bit of the error disappear. If you can't name the missing element #5 to my list above, then your set is clearly deficient. What is the Fifth Element?

Tom, You wrote: “What does this mean? The Bible? Organized religion? What?” No, I’m talking much more specific than the Bible and organized religion. I’m talking about one specific doctrine, as it’s taught in PFAL. *** It’s error that’s complicated. In this thread we’ve been recently discussing Dr’s handling and naming of the “Law of Believing.” There are many posters who say there is error in this teaching. I say there’s much error in how many posters here regard the law of believing, BECAUSE most poster’s understanding of what Dr taught on that law is TVT, which stands for Twi Verbal Tradition. The complicated error of the TVT butchering of the law of believing is what I’m untangling. The simple truth will be our fully collected set of elements, page refs, and context blocks. *** So, who can name the missing element? Everyone's heard it.

We can start collecting elements right now, by picking them off the post string above. Later we can comb written PFAL for more elements, and collect a more complete set of them. 1) Believing equals receiving. 2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. 3) Turning our believing toward the promises of God, limiting ourselves to the “Available List.” 4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurian’s. *** Can anyone see any more elements of the “Law of Believing” scattered through that string of posts? Now remember, each of these elements, as listed above, are pretty abbreviated forms corresponding to several paragraphs, pages, or even chapters as presented in written PFAL. For each element above we need to find all it’s PFAL page references. In the process of doing that many more elements will be discovered, and their respective contexts too can be saved, along with their abbreviated slogan forms. I suggest we do this: collect more elements of this law along with their page references and context. I do this at home with a number of subjects I study within PFAL. My 22 “thus saith” statements are an example of this. What I’m saying is that we all need to beef up our understanding of what is in written PFAL. We can collect a list of element abbreviations like the above list. Then in another place we can have the expanded full version of each element, containing page references, context passages, and possibly our own explanatory notes. This will help us master the mix of all the elements of the law of believing, and thus get a MUCH better handle on that law than our present partial collections of elements. The reason we often mistakenly think the law of believing is failing us in a particular situation is because we fail to fully implement all the needed elements FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION. Either we don't know all of the needed elements, or we don't know how much of each to apply. Mastery of this skill of mixing the right ratios for each job demands a fluid working knowledge of all the elements. *** I can think of one more element not yet on the above list. It’s a element everyone has heard, and just the other day I saw a great presentation of it in written PFAL. I wrote down the page reference, but can anyone remember from their previous study of PFAL what is this very often repeated element to the law of believing in Dr’s teachings? When I say it you’ll all remember it and many will kick themselves for not remembering it. So how long should I wait to see if anyone has the answer? Doojable, you said you studied PFAL extensively, can you name the missing element?

I agree that we are far from that simplicity. Error is complicated. When we DO get back to the truth it will be simple. Right now I'm UNTWISTING to allow the complications to fall to the ground.

Below are a string of posts earlier in this thread, slightly edited and abridged, to show a common string of similar ideas hidden with differing terminology. I see a pattern here. The bold fonted portions indicate the presence of ELEMENTS, either alone or in sets. The law of believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law. When a set of elements is deficient for a particular situation, it doesn’t mean the law failed, it means that THAT SET of elements composing that formulation of the law was deficient. It will take time to find ALL the scattered elements of this law that are in written PFAL. When we have the whole set then we have all we need to deal with live and live a life that is truly more than abundant. Here is that string of posts: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Raf Feb 22 2006, 11:38 AM Post #392 Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Yeah, right. Not true. I believed I would get passed over for a promotion. I confessed that belief to others. I got the promotion. Either VPW was wrong, or I got someone else's job! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Mike Feb 22 2006, 11:51 AM Post #393 Raf, Think of the principles such as believing and confession as stated in the KJV, just to get away from PFAL for a second. I don’t think God put in the Bible principles like believing and confession so we can look back on incidents in our lives and make judgment calls. I don’t even think we CAN look back like that accurately. Those principles are for application. There are many factors to consider in the law of believing as stated in PFAL, and if we go by the simple abbreviated forms then sure we’ll see contradictions. Confession is more than making the sounds come out. It’s a heart thing. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Raf Feb 22 2006, 12:50 PM Post #394 Mike, In my heart, I knew I would not get the job. The principles laid out in the Bible are wonderful. Turning them into a "law" was error. I confessed with my mouth what I believed in my heart, and it did not come to pass. Instead of trying to figure out where the (nonexistent) law of believing failed (which it did), I'm busy praising and thanking God. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Mike Feb 22 2006, 01:08 PM Post #395 Raf, We're back to that word "law" again. If we look at that word in a human legal sense or in a Mosaic Law sense, then I'd agree that error is right around the corner. If we look at it like a scientific law or pattern, then it fits. There are many factors involved in "operating" such a pattern or law, but only a few that are within or grasp of fine tuning. I think the word "law" works well if you keep these things in mind. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Mike Feb 22 2006, 06:27 PM Post #405 Law of Gravity (simple form) : things fall. Contradiction: airplanes can resist falling. Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force. Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force. Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth. hen complications into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized. Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time. Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all. Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% markomalley Feb 22 2006, 06:53 PM Post #406 Mike, omething I posted a while back on another thread: QUOTE(markomalley @ Feb 6 2006, 11:18 PM) Traditional Gravity Model: F1,2=G(m1m2)/r21,2 Where: G=6.6742±0.001×10-11 Nm2kg-2 m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects in kilograms r21,2 is the square of the distance between the two objects in meters2 and F1,2 is the attractive force between the two objects in Newtons. So what? (and yes, I realize that Newtonian gravity has been superceded by Unified Field Theory, but it's a lot easier to explain)This theory requires a bunch of values (the mass of the objects; the distance between the center of the objects) in order to determine the value of the force (gravity). And keep in mind that the constant "G" was not defined for 130 years after Newton published his work! You can't prove gravity without the two objects. You sure can't come up with the value of "G" without some precision measurement of the relationship between the two objects. There is an interesting analogy there if you care to examine it. Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% CM Feb 22 2006, 08:13 PM Post #407 i can fold a piece of paper a certain way and it will defy gravity when my force is behind it. apparently my force and air is greater then gravity. what would be greater then believing? a force that supersedes it something so powerful that it could not be denyed the old doctrine of you can't go farther then your believing limits man to man and his thoughts... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Raf Feb 23 2006, 05:42 AM Post #408 The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist. I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people. Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% What The Hey Feb 23 2006, 01:30 PM Post #409 There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"? When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Raf Feb 23 2006, 01:42 PM Post #410 He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate. Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Oakspear Feb 23 2006, 05:53 PM Post #413 If Wierwille's teachings were approached in this manner, I'd have less of a problem. Aside from Mike's claim of godbreathedness, Wierwille's "laws" were viewed as unassailable. For my money, "Believing = Receiving" is a good thing to consider, like "Look Before You Leap" and other aphorisms, but not something that will affect every aspect of my life. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% What The Hey Feb 24 2006, 10:03 AM Post #422 I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law. The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true.

Well, Tom, I must admit that YOU are not so predictable. I didn't think we would get nearly this far in discussion. *** The example I gave of window cleaning derision took place a bout three years ago, so maybe that's why you don't remember it. It was quickly squashed by a few posters who either were window cleaners themselves or who cited examples of genuine successes in that field. There were other personal moron-magnets I threw out that were not squashed, but I'm not going to mention them now. I have occasionally admitted to this tactic of mine all along over these years, yet it still works. I’ve also (only just recently) admitted that those posters who “mess” with me give me much more impetus than they could ever guess. Any adrenalin they raise in me is easily channeled by me into more focused concentration on my message and faster typing. I learned this in PFAL, where Dr talks about the stones in the brook that make it sing, and also by self direction resulting in converting a kick in the foot into a boost ahead. That I can be open about these two strategies and still be able to implement them testifies to the extreme lack of reading comprehension and depth these most severe critics of mine suffer from. *** But AGAIN the focus here is me and I want to return it to the law of believing. I may just turn off my browser and start writing to the past posts I find more interesting than these now.

Tom, It’s an attack in the sense that the essence of your “reining in” is on my person and not on the material being currently discussed. Your very selection of quotes from me, minus the context in which they originally appeared, testifies to your shying away of substantive discussion. Your selection of quotes is designed to distract rather than counter directly. Your selection demonstrates a lack of willingness on you part to really take part in a current discussion, because you resort to sensational quotes from a non-current discussion. There were reasons why I originally said the few quirky things you have latched onto. There have been times here where I have deliberately thrown out a bone of a quirky comment as a magnet to those posters who are prone to use the tactics you use when you paste your thought lacking “Mike Synopsis.” Sometimes these magnets have been not of the quirky variety but of the personal. For example, I might mention that I clean windows, and then sit back and watch who will resort to “reining me in” by insulting my career choice as a menial labor dead end, so “therefore” my choice of PFAL must be equally unwise. When one of my magnets identifies a poster as lacking deep thought on the topic at hand, then I know I can relatively ignore that poster and concentrate on real communications with some others. If I feared my own quotes then why would I continue posting my message in your face defying your challenges to “rein” me in with another paste-up job? When you resort to that tactic I write you off and so do the serious readers I am communicating with. With every paste-up you write yourself off as a serious player in this process with which we are engaged. There are some very deep things that get dealt with here, and if you really want to participate you’ll have to resist the lazy urge to paste. I look forward to the day when I have the time to reconstruct the contexts in which my quirky remarks fit, and explain them. Until then they serve as moronic argument magnets and time savers for me. I have a huge agenda to attend to, and I place the items I regard as much more important at the top of the list. ...such as the law of believing...

I did.

Did you notice anything slightly odd about the string of posts that followed Mark and my bringing up the law of gravity?

CM, You wrote: "You do seem to make yourself the subject just like Tom has pointed out, Mike. __ If you want to talk about believing or any other subject I'm up for it. But not a bunch of posts from other threads. Here and Now what to say from the heart which is where believing is rooted. __ Or any other subject. And if they tend to make you the subject then I will be the subject also." It seems to me that when some people here get uncomfortable with the material I post, but they have no cogent argument to counter my posts, then they attack me with anything they can get their hands on. The “it’s about Mike” charge is one of the most commonly used of these desperation measures. How many other posters are monitored for supposedly strutting their self here? No one. I do intend to respond to earlier posts on this thread, and since it’s raining now, today may be the day to do it. CM, you too clean windows for living, don’t you? I forget.

One of my greatest WOW adventures was as a dinner guest at the house of the elders of a local church. It went very well, and you just reminded me of it. The next day they got wind of our affiliaton with TWI and they turned off immediately. But it was a good free dinner and good conversation. The True Word fits in well with any aspect of life, but we got sidetracked and distracted and hoodwinked away from that good stuff. I'm happy to say I attend a twig where it lives and I love it when it lives here too.

Ex10, Some of that “reminding” is inaccurate, like guilt-by-association. Hopefully, if I sharpen my communication skills, I’ll only remind you of the good times. But I’ve have been long aware of my scape-goat status. People who can’t lash out at vpw or lcm or some other leader can find me a convenient alternate audience for their lashings. I’m still grateful I can intersperse their attacks with my message. I can always edit them out before the book version is published. *** But let's get off the subject of me and back to the law of believing. Has anyone tried to search this website for all the occurrences of this law under discussion? I may want to search my own posts over the last three years and do the subject up like I did the 22 "thus saith" statements. We've certainly discussed it many tens of times. But I must not distract myself from the law of gravity analogy I’m cooking up. That has to come first, and THEN we can search GreaseSpot for past discussions. Anyone here know how well the search engines on this new software work? I’ve not had much good luck with them yet.

CM, I''m grateful to hear you don't hate me, and I do sense a willingness to communicate within you. But you also have been a bit unnecessarily rough in times past. Not today, but I don’t have to look back far to see you accusing me of making me the subject, just like Tom just now did. I’m glad you’re not doing it now and thank you. *** I want to get back to the law of believing. How do YOU feel about me using the law of gravity in an extended analogy to draw together many recent posts here? ******* P.S. – I did post and run. It’s the nature of the game. Especially when nature calls.

Ex10, Thank you for noticing the TWI-like attitude in Tom's continual distraction of the discussion's issues and making the subject me. I try my best to point to a message and not to myself. There is a lot of hate out there that wants to silence me. It's an amazint thing that this hate comes from grads. ******* CM, I'd appreciate it if you too would leave off the personal attacks and get to the issues. You too do accuse me of making the issue me. You DO seem to have a better ability to ALSO discuss things, and I am thankful for that.

CM, Surely you can understand my precarious perch here. If I teach you the answer, the ego police will show up wagging their wascally finger at me. I have to play dumb to not offend.

Don't you think we BOTH know?! So why ask?

Where do you think it comes from?

CM, I’m not ignoring you at all. I mentioned above that I see a string of posts that I want to get into soon, and yours is included. *** Here’s once such place I see feeding being urged. 1 Peter 2:2 “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:” The word desire should be treated as a verb and a command. We are commanded to desire the Word. Here’s another: Matthew 4:4 “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

CM, When we've been feeding from God's pure Word for a while there are many ideas within that do not necessarily interact with each other... until a sunesis occurs, a flowing together of rivers. God is the one who causes these many elements to come together, but we are responsible for proper feeding once He given us that pure Word. When we received holy spirit created within our minds were unaffected. It's when we have that spirit AND we feed from God's Word that things come together forming Christ. rascal, That dig was aimed at Tom, and not you. He started it.