Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

The Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

This teaching of Christ Formed In You? is very important. After this 1974 teaching, Dr did it twice again and then Walter did it in 1988. It may have been repeated even more often this. Here are the details:

?Christ Formed In You? SNS #732 11-24-1974

Seventh Corps Graduation - Summer 1979

?Forming Christ In You? SNS # 1040 10-19-1980

?Christ Formed In You? SNS #1407 around 1988

The first listed is the only one we have in written form.

So far we?re seeing some applications of this thread?s use in looking deeper into Dr?s rich teachings on the lordship of Jesus Christ and our fellowship with him. Soon we?ll get to work an AE, the one about ?God can only give that which He is...spirit? by utilizing this thread?s perspectives.

But right now, I want to doubly emphasize that THIS ?Christ in? is NOT the same one we learned in Session Five of the class.

That Session Five ?Christ in? is created spirit, pneuma hagion, and it DOES NOT AFFECT THE MIND. That ?Christ in? is the HOPE of glory.

The mind is in the soul category, across that gap between the natural and the spiritual.

This ?Christ in? is NOT in the spirit category, but in the mind, the soul. It DOES affect the mind in that it reckons dead the old man, and it itself, the new man grows, as it feeds on The Word. This ?Christ in? is the GLORY!

Realizing the difference will open up very great understanding later, as more teachings on this are referred to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of subjects going on a the same time here. One that has come up a few times is our relationship with Jesus Christ being one of becoming him, in a sense. This idea can be seen in segment #1 of the 1979 Advanced Class.

In that first hour Dr hits this theme several times. Below are 7 quotes from that Advanced Class.

1. You and I, class, become Christ-like to the degree the Word lives within us.

2. We all with open face, changed into the same image -- the glass is a mirror -- changed into the same image. What you look at, class, you become. If you look at the negatives in life, you manifest the negatives. If you look at God and His Word, class, you become the embodiment of that Word, you begin to manifest the Word, the open face is nothing hidden.

3. And you?re in the Advanced Class to not only learn that Word but to commit yourself, by the freedom of your will, to the great integrity and accuracy of that Word and then you speak it -- everywhere. You, people, have to become that Word. You have to become this Word of God -- YOU have to become that Word.

4. Now, I would like to believe that, in this Advanced Class, you will become and be a maximum believer.

5. You have to work the Word in your mind, people, until your attitude to the Word is changed to the end that whatever your attitude is the same attitude the Word has.

6. ...you work the Word in your mind, until your attitude is changed that you have the attitude of the Word in your mind.... ?Til you have the attitude of the Word in your mind. Then you are The Word -- speaking it forth with all the power, every time you speak. Every time you open your mouth, you?re talkin? the Word.

7. Class, it?s the Word that produces results, all else produces consequences. You and I become Christ-like to the extent, class, and to the degree that the Word lives in you and lives in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually,

you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before

calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you

didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.)

Harry Houdini was perhaps the biggest SKEPTIC

of his time. He was well aware that his OWN

skills were not supernatural, but practised.

So, much of his later life was spent debunking

hucksters and frauds. (The Amazing Randi

currently does this type of work.)

Even in his death, Houdini left a lasting

challenge. He challenged anyone to bring him

back in a seance. He left behind secret

passwords that, if they ever were revealed to

someone in a seance, should prove that they

really DID speak to him. (Or at least, someone

legitimately supernatural.) To this day,

people keep trying to "call him up". No

successes.

-----------------------------------------

Does anyone have access to Catharist materials?

I was just reminded of them. This entire

thread just drove home to me that certain

people view everything as having EXACTLY 2

positions, no more, no less.

Examples:

It's either natural, or spiritual.

It's either 100% the Word of God, or 10 % dross.

Either he never spoke anything of God, or his

every utterance was God's ultimate expression.

Either pfal is perfect, or God gave no real way

to learn, to us.

No middle ground, ever. No room for dissent,

either-only announcement and recitation.

(Either I'm 100% right or 100% wrong.)

----------------------------------------------

Mike,

I went back and fixed the odd margins.

I was honestly surprised you addressed my

question. You gave me 1/2 my answer, which is

a lot more than I expected. You gave an

outline on "how to master pfal". Well, that's

part of what I was looking for, of course.

My specific question was on a definition of

some kind about what it means TO master.

You gave guidelines to getting there, but still

haven't provided a definition of the destination.

-------------------------------------------

BTW, in the last teaching you quoted, vpw said

"the only criticisms I've ever seen in God's

Word that Jesus Christ ever gave were to the

religionists."

That statement sure make the "religionists"

(whoever disagrees with us) look bad. However,

it sure leaves out a lot.

Jesus criticized Mary, his mother, at Cana.

"what do you wan't from me? It's not my turn!"

Jesus criticized Peter, a LOT.

"Get thee behind me, Satan". "No, you can't go

where I'm going."

Jesus criticized the Samaritan woman who came

for her daughter's healing.

"It's not meet to take children's bread, and to

cast it to the dogs."

Awfully selective memory there.

However, it allowed vpw to dichotomize the

Christian world-there was twi, and the

religionists. (No middle ground.) Just US and

THEM.)

-------------------------------------------

Mike,

in your reply to me, you said you try to

judge only in a nice way. You said you were

"assistance-judging". So, do you finally admit

that you actually DO judge, no matter how

pretty the judging seems to you? Sounds

like you did, 4/13, 1:46pm, this thread.

You claimed I never answered your question about

what I'd do if you answered me.

Go back. I thought I was very unambiguous.

I said I was going to pay attention to it,

and, primarily, THINK.

(There's a longer answer earlier in this

thread.) ("Algorithm"? Well, your answer

WAS "sequential"...)

You also seemed to have completely dodged my

"B" point about promoting a man.

(Nice dodge, though. Quite skillful.)

You completely misread my "D" point.

First of all, I did not say I condemned vpw-

I said I formed a definite opinion. (At least,

on this thread.) I did state what I based the

ability to form the opinion on-some of the

evidence.

I pointed out that there are plenty of other

people, whom we've all heard of, on whom we

all formed opinions. However, those people

we've had no direct contact with. Golly gee,

looks like we can all agree that being able

to reach out and b!tch-slap someone is NOT a

requirement for being able to form an opinion

on them. Also, you skipped that I added I

have an opinion about you, too, having never

met you. (I'll bet you have one of me, as

well.)

You then made a quick strawman by claiming that

the evidence should show vpw is a lot nicer than

the rogues gallery I cited.

DUH.

I cited the names of serial killers, torturers,

tyrants and mass-murderers.

I never said he or you were as evil as them.

(I'll add I'm not, either.)

My point was that, having never met them, we

nontheless all have a consistent opinion of

each of them. In the case of vpw, we have a

lot of first-hand source material to work from.

I made NO reference to what KIND of opinion

anyone should form about him. I was saying

there is PLENTY of material to form an opinion

about him, even if we never sat at the head

table with him, sat up at hoot owl's with him,

read his report on the mission fields, or

played chess with his chess set.

----------------------------------------

Lastly, you asked Rafael, but I'll take a shot

at answering. He can correct me if I

misrepresent his answer.

You pointed out that he said there was no

hurry about addressing the errors on the list,

and also referenced a brevity of time. You

considered that a contradiction. After

hearing your question, I think I see what the

confusion is about.

Let me use an analogy.

It doesn't matter WHEN they send the next

space shuttle off. Could be months, years,

or decades. No rush.

However, BEFORE they try to use the thing in

space for extended periods, and launch and

re-enter the atmosphere, they will need to

overhaul all the parts and insure they aren't

faulty and will blow up upon use.

I think that's the same point he was making

with you.

------------------------------------------

Sorry about those dizzy margins the other day,

and I'm still surprised you even answered 1/2

my question on mastering.

WordWolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to butt in, Wolf,

Interesting stuff on H.H. and Catharist, btw.

I'll look it up.

Steve Lortz,

Good stuff.

Question: Doesn?t the end-half of I Corinthians 15 offer a clear example of a dichotomy of material/spiritual realms? And I honestly think that the heaven/earth concept far outdates Greek philosophy. Is not the "firmament" as described in Genesis a record of some critical duality in the Kingdom of God? What about Sumerian myth? Aborigine lore? All older than Greek language, art and wisdom, no?

Nonetheless, I agree with the essence of what you said here:

quote:

?spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos.


tng

***

Mike,

As per requested, heerz some snippets and summations from my posts on pages 3 and 4 of this thread:

I understand how you are writing to a specific strata of grads (at least directly), and that your face is set like a flint in that, but where is the substance of your revelations?

You wrote:

quote:
The sad thing so far is that we didn?t put into practice. The good part is that we still can.

What exactly ARE your proposed practices? So far, most of what I've read is the stale prose of regurgitated PFAL. With slight variations here and there, but same words, same nuances of language, same models, and same exclusive relationships of meanings.

Regarding basically all other beliefs being unspiritual, you wrote:

quote:
Some of these things may be psychologically and emotionally pleasant, but they?ve not gotten anyone to ?all nine all the time.?

No one?

Really?

Not now?

Not since century 1?

And you know this?

How?

And what about your operation of all 9 all the time?

Are you then offering the formula to all 9 all the time?

Can you tell us what "all nine all the time" is supposed to be like in today's world?

2k years and counting, and things are as intense and confusing as ever.

C'mon. You offering meat or you offering milk?

I?m not asking you to show a sign.

Its clear that you believe the you and the OLGs are not up to par yet.

But are you promising that those biblishly potent signs and miracles will follow those OLGs who believe PFAL the way you prescribe (I hope so, for your sake)?

Can you really play SPIRITUAL HARDBALL to the point of instructing in the art of it? The art of living it? For sick people, for pregnant people, for dying people, for destroyed people, for proud people, for enslaved people, for cursed people, for the bewildered, the angry, the disturbed, the guilt-ridden, bored, the wild, and the numb?

Wierwillian one-liners gonna do all this?

PFAL -isms, lists, spread-sheets, formulas and diagrams gonna do it?

By ?spiritual hardball,? I mean, the ?hows? of a holy man. The ?hows? of a re-pioneering saint, in whom Christ is forming towards 100%. The "hows" of real-life apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

It seems to me that if the question is being asked, you might NEED to know, real soon.

One promising paths to certain holiness might want to provide some sort of enlightening and empowering destination for people to grab onto. Something with handles on it, ya know? Cliche notions of ?all nine all the time? don't really seem to communicate the excellence of empowerment.

I?m not asking case-by-case specifics, that would seem goofy.

But the spiritual application for people?s lives who are going to be MOST IN CHRIST should prepare them for some sort of a trail of signs, not just persecutions, right?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but you also have seemed to imply a certain sense of urgency in your message. So, what "level" of priority should OLGs and the rest give your beseechings? Where does your message fit under the Kingdom of Heaven?

Are your/VP's PFAL methods the one-and-only route for JUST OLGs to reach that "Ephesians 6:10 lifestyle?"

Where do non-OLGs, non-PFAL grads and the rest of the world's non-TWI folk fit in?

Particularly spiritually?

***

That aside...

I think we all misunderstand the very character of Christ's presence when we think the most vital truths of him are hiding in some arcane place.

And I think our state gets worse whenever we think that we alone have been chosen by God to protect and preserve access to these greatest secrets in the world.

Are any of us really supposed to hold these keys?

tng

[This message was edited by sirguessalot on April 14, 2003 at 6:19.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote...

quote:
I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors.

Mike replied...

quote:
Here you say I "never" get to the points you want me to get to (or bogged down in), yet before you assured me that there is no rush and I can take my time.

Which is it?


My reply:

WordWolf is correct, but I'll put it more simply. My comments were qualitative, not merely chronological. They were not dealing with the timing of your answers, but the quality of them. Further, they were dealing with the fact that your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible, as an honest discussion requires you to make an honest admission. You can make that honest admission tomorrow or a year from now, but until you do, the next step of the conversation cannot be taken.

So no, I'm not rushing you. Take your time. But until you admit that errors are errors and not just ink blotches that accidentally fell onto the page and accidentally formed a major thesis, I will NEVER trust your honesty in handling this material.

Clear enough for you, or should I use smaller words?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1979 Advanced Class is also the one in which Wierwille taught that all cancer is a devil-spirit. Since he died from cancer, and had suffered from it for quite a while, he was under devil-spirit influence when he delivered his last teaching. We don't know how far back he succumbed to devil-spirit influence, but we do know the last teaching was well after he was diagnosed with cancer.

What's that bit in the (real) Word about not giving heed to doctrines of devils?

Now, if Wierwille lied to us in the 1979 Advanced Class, or even if he was simply mistaken, he was not giving us the Word of God, merely the words of a man. If he was not lying or mistaken, then all of what he said for the last part of his life was tainted of the Adversary, so his last-teaching admonition to "master" all this stuff could very well be a trick of the Adversary to deceive the very elect.

My God is not the author of confusion. The god of anyone who still believes in this self-contradictory dogma must be someone else, then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WordWolf,

You wrote: ?Actually,you'll want to read up on Harry Houdini before calling yourself an authority on him. (No, you didn't go that far yet-I'm going somewhere.)?

You?re right. I was mistaking him with Conan Doyle. I guess I should stick with what I have studied. HOWEVER, my points are still valid. Houdini was only one example I erroneously pulled up. Looks like I fell for the Tony Curtis version. I hope the people who accuse me of never admitting to a mistake are awake.

My points were:

(1) - Dr taught us to beware of this field, even though he didn?t go into the ratio of real spiritual phenomena and physical deceit and manipulation. That there is physical deceit found by some does not mean all of the field is fake. We shouldn?t be surprised that side by side with devilish phenomena would be lies.

(2) ? The similarity of Dr?s teaching to some hooky-pook artist does not automatically mean Dr is borrowing from the devil. The alternate interpretation, supported by vast data, is that the hooky-pookers got it from God, if you look back far enough.

Thanks for the history correction.

*****************************

You commented that certain people have an extreme dichotomy model in this area. You wrote of them: ?It's either natural, or spiritual. It's either 100% the Word of God, or 10 % dross. Either he never spoke anything of God, or his every utterance was God's ultimate expression.?

As far as what I?m pointing out, Dr was very up front that we should NOT think ?his every utterance was God's ultimate expression? and I have reflected that here. There are things he said that are in error, even on tape. On page 83 of PFAL, we have closely examined where Dr says even of his written materials, NOT ALL are God-breathed.

I do think the revelation he got was perfect. He didn?t always speak that revelation, nor always write it. I can even see the possibility of some rebels on his staff fudging a VERY SMALL number of passages, along with the normal printing and typesetting errors.

I once concluded that my wide margin KJV was CLOSE ENOUGH to get the results God wanted me to have in my life, and for the time (pre-1982) this was the correct attitude. Now, I?ve shifted my expectations to seeing the printed products that came with the class as CLOSE ENOUGH to that original revelation from God to Dr over that 40 years. I also see the ?close enough? fit in the PFAL materials as VASTLY better than my previous ?close enough? fit appreciation with the KJV.

It?s only when we get to page 34 of the Green Book that he delineates it as ?every word I have written TO YOU is true? (with my ALL CAPS). On page 116 his ?Thus Saith the Lord? statement there is in the second person as he addresses us, his class.

Wordwolf, you then lamented: ?No middle ground, ever. No room for dissent, either-only announcement and recitation. (Either I'm 100% right or 100% wrong.)?

Well, this certainly does happen in nature at times. Quantum mechanics is famous for the ?collapse of the wave function? where nature finishes ?hearing? all the votes of a system and then ?decides? to put all ?her? eggs into one basket. You might want to get used to such 100% polarities, because they extend farther out into the physical at times, and originate way back in the spiritual. ?God is light and in Him is no darkness, NO! none at all? is a proper rendering of that verse in I John 1.

***********

You then wrote: ?I was honestly surprised you addressed my question. You gave me 1/2 my answer, which is a lot more than I expected. You gave an outline on "how to master pfal". Well, that's part of what I was looking for, of course. My specific question was on a definition of some kind about what it means TO master. You gave guidelines to getting there, but still haven't provided a definition of the destination.?

Well the ultimate destination is the third heaven and earth. I see PFAL as God?s initialization of the Gathering Together.

But why were you so surprised I?d answer that? It may be the case that I didn?t register many of your posts as they appeared, but didn?t you see my efforts to answer most reasonable questions? And I still, I have a hard time thinking that your ?how? question was reasonable. I can?t help but think (maybe its something in the GS water supply) but that you were merely baiting me with the recursive objection.

I asked if the reason for your ?how? question was to trip me up or to actually sit down and start mastering. The reason I slightly discounted the later is because I DID lay out that lots of reading with meekness was the prime ingredient. If I?m wrong on this hunch, I?ll be MUCH more glad to find out than when you told me of my Houdini mistake.

*************

You then wrote:

(((BTW, in the last teaching you quoted, vpw said

"the only criticisms I've ever seen in God's

Word that Jesus Christ ever gave were to the

religionists."

That statement sure make the "religionists"

(whoever disagrees with us) look bad. However,

it sure leaves out a lot.

Jesus criticized Mary, his mother, at Cana.

"what do you wan't from me? It's not my turn!"

Jesus criticized Peter, a LOT.

"Get thee behind me, Satan". "No, you can't go

where I'm going."

Jesus criticized the Samaritan woman who came

for her daughter's healing.

"It's not meet to take children's bread, and to

cast it to the dogs.")))

If that?s your idea of criticism, I wish that GS levels of criticism would descend to that tame level soon. I see an ?awfully selective? criteria for ?bitching and cussing? there in your collection.

It could be argued that Mary, and certainly Peter, were ?religionists? meaning acting spiritual, yet contrary to the True God. Mary was well connected to the temple system, and even operated some manifestations. As far as the woman from Canaan Gentile woman in Matt.15 and the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4, I see the man of steel and velvet wearing his smoothest velvet hat. I see only gentle teaching there.

I don?t see Jesus spitting in anybody?s faces; I don?t see any public humiliation, or anything like that. I don?t see any personality conflict between Jesus and any of these people. He was justifiably tough at times, but with the Pharisees he was tough as nails.

You then wrote: ?However, it allowed vpw to dichotomize the Christian world-there was twi, and the

religionists. (No middle ground.) Just US and THEM.)?

Here I think you?re drifting into the TVT and away from the written materials. There may have been times when Dr contributed vocally or by his actions to the TVT. On this particular issue, I remember it was the Way Corps that was especially negative about all that was non-Way, and NOT Dr at all. He may have done it, but I was not a witness. What I do witness in the written record, is that Dr gave the Mormons a lot of credit for having properly worked and practiced giving according to God?s Word. He also gave the Janes of India a lot of credit for their discipline and dedication. I NEVER saw the Corps magnify these statements, or generalize them. We must work hard to avoid selective memory. That?s what the record is for.

******************

You then wrote: ?...in your reply to me, you said you try to judge only in a nice way. You said you were

"assistance-judging". So, do you finally admit that you actually DO judge, no matter how pretty the judging seems to you? Sounds like you did, 4/13, 1:46pm, this thread.?

Have you ever heard of ?form based theology?? That?s where people try to get all the words to line up like

mathematical symbols. It?s one of those unbalanced 100% right/wrong deals you seemed to complain about above, where decisions are made based on how the symbols or words look on paper. It?s like juggling words as if they were algebraic symbols. Form based theology misses the heart in the matter. They can come up with all sorts of proof that some person or action is a sure fire way to hell, and they forget all about mercy, and love, and God?s power. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for being real on top of the form of the commandments, but totally missing the heart behind them.

I get the feeling you hear the word ?judgement? and religious bells go off to prohibit it or label it as wrong. Am I wrong? Several times we went over this. What if I went back and used a slightly different word for judgement? discernment, calculation, assessment, evaluation, .... Would that then stop the bells from going off?

I have admitted a lack of knowledge as to the exact Greek words involved here. I know there are lots of different kinds of ?judgements? we all have to make every day. Yes, of course I judge, discern, evaluate...etc.

The Bible does indeed show us that some kinds of judgements are not so cool. Condemnation, public humiliation, character scolding, and things like these are not God?s style, nor Jesus?, unless absolutely necessary. Both are well practiced at accurately discerning this need. What Dr was teaching is that we, at that time as well as now, are not so practiced.

Wordwolf, the tolerance level of criticism needed here at GS is so high, that I may have been jaded by it enough to expect unwarranted criticism or judgement from you, and I may have been a little heavy handed in my handling of your (or others?) post, especially when I pressed you with questions loaded with my expected answers as to why you wanted the ?how? to mastering. If you really did want that ?how? so that you can obey Dr?s final instructions, then I owe you an apology. Please let me know. We can alert my error counting crew.

On this subject you wrote:

?You claimed I never answered your question about

what I'd do if you answered me.

Go back. I thought I was very unambiguous.

I said I was going to pay attention to it,

and, primarily, THINK.

(There's a longer answer earlier in this

thread.) ("Algorithm"? Well, your answer

WAS "sequential"...)?

I can?t argue with that. This is all I?m asking people here to do: think about the lost data that?s been found.

I can argue (but I?ll give up easy) that in earlier posts you displayed an attitude of already having thunk it out, so you were in the ?shoot down? mode. When there are so many people here overtly doing just that, please excuse me if I lumped you in that category.

**********

You also wrote: ?You also seemed to have completely dodged my "B" point about promoting a man. (Nice dodge, though. Quite skillful.)?

What? If I didn?t roll over dead and admit you?re right I?m dodging? I gave you a lot of my heart in NOT magnifying the man. If I want to dodge something I can do it much more skillful that that! I don?t magnify Dr any more than God magnified him when He selected him to bring us the Word. If I were into the man I?d not be caring about the God Who gave him revelations.

Do you ever get accused of ?magnifying? Paul because he got such an abundance of revelations? I do. I reject these accusations.

**********

You also wrote: ? You completely misread my "D" point... ... ... You then made a quick strawman by claiming that the evidence should show vpw is a lot nicer than the rogues gallery I cited?

I saw an negative association that needed to be pointed out as not so valid. If you didn?t intend to imply that, it could easily be inferred by a reader, so I addressed that.

You then wrote:

?My point was that, having never met them, we

nontheless all have a consistent opinion of

each of them. In the case of vpw, we have a

lot of first-hand source material to work from.

I made NO reference to what KIND of opinion

anyone should form about him. I was saying

there is PLENTY of material to form an opinion

about him...?

When you originally wrote your ?D? point, you said: ?Mike, You also said ?You never met Dr, yet you condemn him.?? I think I said that to Rafael, because I have no knowledge if your having never met Dr. Maybe this was a miscommunication. It?s possible I MEANT to address Rafael there and things got merged.

My main point there, as in many posts, is that we can?t rely on fading memories of partial exposures to what we were taught over 20 years ago. What we THINK we know of Dr form those weak memories with much added in post-meltdown junk is often inaccurate, and I often urge that we come back to PFAL to review and master.

*****************

Your last comment was:

?It doesn't matter WHEN they send the next

space shuttle off. Could be months, years,

or decades. No rush.

However, BEFORE they try to use the thing in

space for extended periods, and launch and

re-enter the atmosphere, they will need to

overhaul all the parts and insure they aren't

faulty and will blow up upon use.

I think that's the same point he was making

with you.?

I think this is an EXCELLENT point you?ve brought out here. I agree that people are ?gun shy? with what seemed to blow up in our faces. My point is that we didn?t properly read the instructions. It was pilot error on our part, using your shuttle analogy, and not mechanical failure. As this becomes more clear, THEN people will feel safe to launch out into the heavens (spiritual) from earth (natural) , and our point of departure is rightly dividing PFAL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

quote:
Gosh! Goey, you sure made my response easy. I?ll just paste in a modified version of what you said to Todd.

Goey, My sincere apologies. For some reason I thought I recalled a post of yours a while back that was admittedly believing that ?the ?handed down remnants of the Bible? ARE the Word of God.? It must have been someone else. Again, my apologies.


Is that the best you can do Mike? Another dodge. And quite insincere I think. See Mike, the truth is that I did indeed mix Todd up with another poster and I apologized for that.

But I doubt that you mixed me up with another poster. You just made a presumotion by failing to read what I really wrote and now you are just regirgitating my words back to me to be cute. A real piece of work. I bet you are really liking all this attention.

Goey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sirguessalot,

You?ve been patient in waiting for me. Thank you.

You mentioned to someone else ??spirit and flesh don't exist in different "realms", they both subsist within the same unitary cosmos.?

I can see that as ok, as long as the differences and the separation between them is remembered. They ARE vastly different, but both come from the same source, God. That which is born of flesh is flesh, and not a little spirit mixed in.

************

You then wrote: ?I understand how you are writing to a specific strata of grads (at least directly), and that your face is set like a flint in that, but where is the substance of your revelations??

In writing, in book and magazine form.

**********

You then wrote: ?What exactly ARE your proposed practices? So far, most of what I've read is the stale prose of regurgitated PFAL. With slight variations here and there, but same words, same nuances of language, same models, and same exclusive relationships of meanings.?

The proposed mastery practices are the same as how I answer WordWolf a little bit ago. It?s mostly reading with meekness. Looking at it as stale or regurgitated is NOT meekness. There are lots of reasons the stale association exists, but they?re not due to the material being stale. The image you retain in your mind may be stale, but that can be purged with work. Maybe some of the things I?m reporting will help you get a fresh view. It?s up to you to shake that association. Systematically separating the TVT from the text is a big help here.

**********

Then, you responded to my statement about using certain 5-senses techniques ?they?ve not gotten anyone to ?all nine all the time?? you wrote: ?No one? Really? Not now? Not since century 1? And you know this?

How??

It?s easy to see that no one has done all the things Jesus Christ did. There are spurts in some individual?s believing in that direction at times, but they always fizzle out, and never get taught to anyone else. There?s never been anyone consistently like him, yet God?s plan is for MANY to be like him.

I know that have been individuals who went pretty far at times, for instance, the men who taught Dr various facts, truths, and attitudes had to be walking with God. Others are Martin Luther, Tyndale, Wycliffe. and many, many more. It?s also the case that each one of these giants were doctrinally lacking in certain key areas. The thing that makes God?s project with Dr unique since the first century is that no one before Dr had put it all together in transmittable form. All the critical and disabling errors of churchianity that have hampered previous men?s ministries had been finally lifted with Dr?s ministry. Was he perfect, and his teachers not? NO! It?s God that is perfect. Dr had oodles of flaws, it?s just that in those critical areas where total defiance of long standing traditions was required, Dr was up to the challenge; he was tailor made for that job, being the contrarian he was.. Did he fully implement all that God taught him and he taught us? NO! He said he wished he had. I wish he had too, but the fact that he didn?t isn?t going to stop me from trying my best.

***********

And what about your operation of all 9 all the time?

Why do you want to know that? I?ve admitted my student status here before. I?ve seen that SIT can be pretty much ?all the time? and the same with prophesy as long as there is someone in earshot. Like I said on another thread about communion, it doesn?t take a ceremony or religious buzz words to do it. It can be done without anyone knowing that it is prophesy, as long as the third person is used. Few grads ever learned they could do second person.

I?m doing better then I was before I came back to PFAL, MUCH better.

*************

You then wrote: ?Are you then offering the formula to all 9 all the time??

No. God is. It?s PFAL. I see the books as the area for learning revelation and importation manifestations. The Advanced Class was an attempt to get us to look closer at PFAL, the foundational. It hasn?t yet worked too well, but that?s our fault.

*************

Then yiou wrote: ?Can you tell us what "all nine all the time" is supposed to be like in today's world?

2k years and counting, and things are as intense and confusing as ever.

C'mon. You offering meat or you offering milk??

First of all, at Seaspray?s suggestion, I have been recently looking into where ?all nine all the time comes from.? He asked me if it could be part of TVT, so I?m looking. I use the phrase because it briefly describes a situation that is totally Biblical, and it rings a lot of memory bells. If I have to change my use of it I will, but the idea is one of us arriving at what Jesus Christ arrived at when he finished preparing his mind with scripture mastery and then got spirit. I see ?all nine all the time? as how life is in the restored paradise. We?re at the end of time.

************

You asked: ?But are you promising that those biblishly potent signs and miracles will follow those OLGs who believe PFAL the way you prescribe (I hope so, for your sake)??

God promised it. Jesus promised it. I believe it.

***********

You asked: ?Can you really play SPIRITUAL HARDBALL to the point of instructing in the art of it? The art of living it? For sick people, for pregnant people, for dying people, for destroyed people, for proud people, for enslaved people, for cursed people, for the bewildered, the angry, the disturbed, the guilt-ridden, bored, the wild, and the numb??

The plan God had was that Isreal would be the teacher of the nations. I see those who master PFAL as a team of God?s helpers, servants. Once we get it, then we can teach and help all those you listed. Jesus was able to reach out to all these kinds of people, and so will we. We can almost do it now, as non-masters if we still have the heart to serve, but as Dr?s Last/Lost Teaching points out, it would only be a 5-senses service, and eventually the god who was given the 5-senses realm to control will see his weak spots and destroy. He did this to us already in 1987, and he did it to the first century church. If Paul had been more successful in getting a community of strong believers with Christ FORMED in them, then the first century church would have been impenetrable by the adversary. Ditto for us if we OLGs had obeyed and mastered back then as we were instructed..

**************

?Wierwillian one-liners gonna do all this? ?

No. God-breathed words, mastered in their rich contexts will do all this. By His Word God spoke light into existence.

***********

?PFAL -isms, lists, spread-sheets, formulas and diagrams gonna do it??

No text that is read and rightly divided will do it. It?s when these PFAL materials are put into the mind, with a heart of love, that they become fresh and powerful.

****************

You wrote: ?It seems to me that if the question is being asked, you might NEED to know, real soon.

One promising paths to certain holiness might want to provide some sort of enlightening and empowering destination for people to grab onto. Something with handles on it, ya know? Cliche notions of ?all nine all the time? don't really seem to communicate the excellence of empowerment.?

The first ?how? is read with meekness. Once people start that, the next step will become more clear. This first step will take some time. There?s a lot of material we either forgot or were never exposed to.

I?m planning to get farther than the abbreviated phrase ?All nine...? as we get more into the subject of the Return, Appearing, Seciond Coming, etc. There was a thread on the older GS or Waydale on people?s expectations on the return of Christ and paradise. I saved that thread, and will be bringing it out someday soon to address this issue.

Meeanwhile, I use ?all nine all the time? as a phrase to describe what SHOULD have happened had we stayed put on PFAL. What were your expectations of spiritual maturity when you first took the class? To the extent that you sculpted you expectations according to God?s Word, then that?s ?all nine all the time.?

**************

?But the spiritual application for people?s lives who are going to be MOST IN CHRIST should prepare them for some sort of a trail of signs, not just persecutions, right??

Yes, signs miracles and wonders follow believers confirming the Word. These can be also used to guide a non-believer to getting to believe, but it?s not signs that bring believing. It?s hearing the Word that brings believing. Outside of grace, signs come AFTER a person has bet his life.

*************

?Correct me if I am mistaken, but you also have seemed to imply a certain sense of urgency in your message. So, what "level" of priority should OLGs and the rest give your beseechings??

What else is there to do in a dying world? I see us as having dropped the ball for at least 17 years, more like 20. Yes this is urgent. People are hurting, and need relief NOW!

************

?Where does your message fit under the Kingdom of Heaven??

I don?t know. That subject I haven?t gotten to yet.

***********

?Are your/VP's PFAL methods the one-and-only route for JUST OLGs to reach that "Ephesians 6:10 lifestyle?" ?

It?s what God has provided against a backdrop of 2000 years of the adversary winning at the hoodwink game. People, especially freedom hungry Americans, often like to think of ?many roads to Chicago? but if NO ONE had ever really arrived at Chicago, then we might want to amend the potholes in that theory. As far as doing ALL the things Jesus Christ did, no one?s reached Chicago yet but him.

************

?Where do non-OLGs, non-PFAL grads and the rest of the world's non-TWI folk fit in?

Particularly spiritually??

I?m sure God?s not going to leave anyone out who really wants to be with Him.

As far as the WORK goes, though, God called out anyone who can be trained to serve. In a practical sense, this is primarily OLGs, but I see the non-OLG grads getting in on it pretty easy once the ball starts rolling. When we get to non-grads i gets a lot less practical to expect very many, but I?m ready for any pleasant surprises God has up His sleeve.

I see a lot of this OLG distinction (or the grad distinction) as practicality, and definitely not elitism. I had so much of that from the Corps I know exactly what to avoid. As long as we remember that PFAL mastery is training for service, then the elitism thing vanishes. That?s how Jesus didn?t get a big head, and it will work for us.

***********

?I think we all misunderstand the very character of Christ's presence when we think the most vital truths of him are hiding in some arcane place.?

I agree in this way: understanding Christ?s character is someone anyone can do. It?s DUPLICATING it that needs some very detailed and accurate information, due to the complications of the adversary?s snare and systematized error. The adversary is smarter that the unequipped believer in Christ. PFAL equips us, better that all attempt?s for 2000 years.

***********

?And I think our state gets worse whenever we think that we alone have been chosen by God to protect and preserve access to these greatest secrets in the world.?

This thought breaks down when we see in the Bible the many situations where a believer was all alone in believing God, and giving God entrance to undermine the adversary?s setup.

You?re reasoning from all the many frauds who say they are the only ones who got it right has led to think this is an impossible situation, yet it has genuinely happened, and lots of times.

**********

?Are any of us really supposed to hold these keys? ?

Do you mean: ?Are any of us SPIRITUALLY supposed to hold these keys??

Or do you mean: ?Are any of us NATURALLY supposed to hold these keys??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rafael 1969,

you wrote: ?I'm not talking about typos and ink blotches, I'm talking about flaws in its thesis and its conclusions. But we can NEVER get to those flaws, because you won't even admit that the black-and-white errors are errors.?

I agree that you?re going after substantial simple errors, not trivial. Part of what I?m trying to point out is that what looks like such an error may turn out to not be one. I have adopted the policy of placing in my margins a ??typo?? note with two question marks to remind me that it may not be an error. A few such typos are obviously unintentional, but some are not nearly so obvious.

I put something to this effect in my response to WordWolf.

There I wrote:

*************************************************

As far as what I?m pointing out, Dr was very up front that we should NOT think ?his every utterance was God's ultimate expression? and I have reflected that here. There are things he said that are in error, even on tape. On page 83 of PFAL, we have closely examined where Dr says even of his written materials, NOT ALL are God-breathed.

I do think the revelation he got was perfect. He didn?t always speak that revelation, nor always write it. I can even see the possibility of some rebels on his staff fudging a VERY SMALL number of passages, along with the normal printing and typesetting errors.

I once concluded that my wide margin KJV was CLOSE ENOUGH to get the results God wanted me to have in my life, and for the time (pre-1982) this was the correct attitude. Now, I?ve shifted my expectations to seeing the printed products that came with the class as CLOSE ENOUGH to that original revelation from God to Dr over that 40 years. I also see the ?close enough? fit in the PFAL materials as VASTLY better than my previous ?close enough? fit appreciation with the KJV.

*************************************************

If Dr were to mistakenly put something in a 4th draft, the one that gets printed, yet he had it right when the revelation comes through, and he gets it right every other time it?s taught, and nobody has a problem with such a mere administrative foul up, then I do not count that as disqualifying the book from having been God-breathed.

It?s very much the same with the original manuscripts. It didn?t take a superman to get it into written form that was going to do the trick for Paul?s contemporaries. If a copyist made a mistake, or put in his own added verse, then that copy is no longer perfect, yet it can still do a great job, especially if such an insertion was trivial. If it was not trivial, then Paul (and Dr in these later centuries) would have been alerted by God that there was a problem.

I think you?re not getting the heart of what Dr taught about the originals being perfect. You do seem to get the heart of how ?good enough? works for the KJV. For God to bless us MUCH better by teaching Dr what to write, the final printed product does not have to be up to the standard you insist on.

Plus, as you master the material with meekness, many of the AEs melt away.

**********

As far as the rushing question, I accept your answer.

But when you wrote: ?...your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible? I had to disagree. I?ve been copious in my explaining how I don?t think you?re handling AEs properly. This is not a heart judgement of condemnation, just a practical calculation. I?ve simply learned to handle them differently. I used to take the perspective you have now, but dropped it when the time and conditions were right. I can understand how they are not yet right for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zixar,

We discussed cancer before here. I see a big difference between having some skin cells attacked, but not the mind. How well did you pick up the details of that Advanced Class teaching. There were very few to pick up. I?ve thought about this often. It?s occurred to me that all death may involve spirits. I also know that the hierarchy of the adversary is large, and that there a lot of VERY low level spirits, so low our culture may prohibit us from even recognizing them as spirits. Some are dumber that dirt.

For one ds to have the ability to dittle with a victim?s one skin cell?s DNA, and then run off to attack someone else, while the bio-chain reaction precedes to finish off the first victim was one idea I brought up.

The alarming idea of devil influence in Dr?s MIND is what you?re talking about. I don?t think a cancer spirit has that ability. For someone to have a ds influencing his skin is not what I?d want to wish on anybody, because it?s bad. But I don?t see it disqualifying them from doing God?s work.

I realize you bring this up to debunk what I?m saying. However, I?m just curious where you stand on this. Which situation are you rooting for? I see two:

(1a) Dr was correct in his Advanced Class teaching about ds and cancer, (1b) but his mind was influenced and had bad writings.

or

(2a) Dr was incorrect in his AC teaching, so his cancer was not a devilish influence.

I guess you go with (1a) to arrive at (1b), but (2a) would suit your purposes. I was just wondering.

It?s possible that he was simply mistaken in the Advanced Class, and that?s why the ?cancer = ds? thing didn?t get into writing. I don?t know. There?s very little detail in the Advanced Class on this topic to give us anything to go on.

The PURPOSE of him mentioning that in the AC is also important. I get the impression that when he told us that it was so that we could gear our believing to go beyond the culturally scientific medical approach to cancer. Other than that, I see no application to the cancer part of the AC. I did see many Corps use this deal as just one more way of putting people down and vaunting themselves up. I don?t believe that?s why Dr taught it. He didn?t tech this sop that we might have a low opinion of a cancer victim, or think of them as under an influence. That is sooooo much the way the Corps often thought and acted, but not Dr in his teachings. Ditto for turning it around and downing Dr because he was a victim of cancer too.

Now, I don?t know exactly how to break this, but I have some late breaking information that the teaching on cancer and ds was removed from the 1979 AC teaching. It may still be in the syllabus, but mine is from ?75. I?ll have to check into this more thoroughly. I know someone who has all the tapes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. That one does affect the mind.

But you know how quickly a man can reset his mind after sexual release. This is one of the big ways men differ from women.

We were taught that devils can be run off with sommething as simple as an aspirin or some music.

After sexual release a man is pretty immune to that spirit for almost a whole day. ...sometimes many days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goey,

You wrote: ?Is that the best you can do Mike? Another dodge. And quite insincere I think. See Mike, the truth is that I did indeed mix Todd up with another poster and I apologized for that.?

Not a dodge. I thought it was funny that you got on my case for making the same kind of mistake as you made two posts later. Honest! I thought you were tong-in-cheek showing favorites, so I played along.

I post so much and read so much things do get blurry at times. I?m still getting to know people here and I can only do that one at a time. It was a honest mistake. I don?t like al this attention. I?d rather have the focus on mastering and what we are all finding in the books. That?s MUCh more fun than having you scold me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Mike, you cannot have it both ways. You can't just rule on what was correct and what was not as it suits your theories.

You don't get to pick and choose. Remember, Wierwille said that the entire Word had to be true or none of it was true.

So far, you have proven nothing. Your rationales are all circular, leading directly back to what is little more than private interpretation on your part, yet you have puffed yourself up so large in your own mind that you no longer recognize truth from error. You simply declare yourself to be right, over and over again, although you hide it in stupendously long posts that are as void of actual content as your mind appears to be of reason.

That you have been physically deceived is obvious to any; that you have been spiritually deceived is abundantly manifested in the fruit of your ministry. You judge and condescend, abuse and annoy, all the while claiming that you are the innocent victim. You handle the Word of God deceitfully, twisting it to your own ends, trying to elevate Wierwille's works to canonical status. It's rare that one sees true blasphemy, but it is remarkable that it comes so naturally to you. I think you're a perfect example of why Jesus recommended millstones be hung about the necks of some. Pity you put the words of Wierwille above the words of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exy,

Adding to my response to your post, I'd like too remind everyone that "HAVING a devil spirit..." can happen in two ways, and even a third.

1) - possession - this is what most think whenever a ds is mentioned. It's pretty extreme.

2) - oppression - this is FAR more common, and even Jesus had to deal with these. The more spiritual a man is the more spirits he'll have whistering revelations in his ear, and the more necessary exact mastery of Father's words is. All the top leadership had to deal with a host of these ds whisperings we've never seen. Mastering the genuinne is a must in recognizing the counterfeit nature of these whisterings.

3) - Satan - the indirect 5-senses transmission of ds whisperings, pressures, pleasures, etc.

[This message was edited by Mike on April 14, 2003 at 17:21.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
But when you wrote: ?...your method of dodging and delaying made an honest discussion impossible? I had to disagree.

I don't recall asking you.

quote:
I?ve been copious in my explaining how I don?t think you?re handling AEs properly.

Yes, yes, I know. I'm not meek to my teacher and I'm failing to master the material. YAWN.

quote:
This is not a heart judgement of condemnation, just a practical calculation.

And an incorrect one.

quote:
I?ve simply learned to handle them differently.

By dodging, evading, and refusing to admit an error is an error. Consider your dishonest "mastery" exposed.

quote:
I used to take the perspective you have now,
But then you stopped using your brain. I remember. You told us.

quote:
but dropped it when the time and conditions were right. I can understand how they are not yet right for you.

I firmly disagree with your use of the word "yet."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Rafael!

When I said ?I?ve simply learned to handle them differently.? and ?I used to take the perspective you have now...? I had something in mind you seemed to miss.

I meant that your perspective of ?Let?s deal with these AEs before blasting off? was dealt with by me all throughout the 70?s and 80?s.

I saw the pattern of how easy it was, without mastery, to think that something was an error of Dr?s, while it was only an error in my perception of what was written.

I saw the pattern of how AEs clear up with time, and coupled with other observations (mentioned), my confidence level rose to sufficient heights that I lowered the priority on AE work. I simply saw that the real action was elsewhere.

My use of the word ?yet? has to do with how you may feel after more data is brought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Thanks for clarifying as much as you did. Although, I honestly have to say that none of it was really illuminating enough to convince me to want to re-master the PFAL books, or that anyone else really needs to in order to enter THE inner sanctum of holy servitude. But I actually do believe in and endeavor to apply a Godly empowerment that comes alive in a life of love and sacrifice (among other things).

It also seems that you missed the point of quite a few of my questions anyway (Yes, I doknow this...I asked them), although I really don't think it was your intention to dodge, or that you are stupid. And I wouldn't fault someone for missing the gist of complex questions (such as the kind we often smack back and forth here), especially in light of the intangible nature of spiritual faith and our often radical stances on them.

I was somewhat disappointed, though, at how empty and redundant your explanations seemed (I say this not to insult you. That's just how they look from where I sit, walk, and stand).

At least I hope the process of asking and answering helped you clarify a few things for your target audience (NOT that I was playing "devil's advocate." I was genuinely looking forward to your answers).

I can only guess the level of both self-deception and adversarial deception you may think I suffer from. But please, keep it to yourself. icon_wink.gif;)-->

I'm not sure what else to say to you but "good luck in your walk."

Barkeep, give this guy another of whatever he's drinking. In fact, make it a round on me.

Cheers,

tng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sirguessalot,

Thank you VERY much. I appreciate your view. It's pretty much how I felt before I felt challenged enough, that I had missed something, to come back to PFAL again.

Besides, like I said to Rafael just now, and to JerryB last week, the movie isn't over yet. I appreciate your efforts to sit through this much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
mike you said:

Yes. That one does affect the mind.

But you know how quickly a man can reset his mind after sexual release. This is one of the big ways men differ from women.

We were taught that devils can be run off with sommething as simple as an aspirin or some music.

After sexual release a man is pretty immune to that spirit for almost a whole day. ...sometimes many days


perhaps victhedick needed some aspirins

and what ??? this lustful spirit discriminates....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I really used to think that to prove Mike's thesis wrong, I would have to present a strong case. Little did I know:

To prove Mike's thesis wrong, all you have to do is allow him to present HIS case!

quote:
After sexual release a man is pretty immune to that spirit for almost a whole day. ...sometimes many days.

So all Wierwille had to do is succumb to the devil spirit of sexual depravity once, and he was immune to it for a day, maybe two!

Yep. That proves... plenty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...