No, I didn?t think that would slip by you. I do see some of the details of my position slipped by you from your summary paragraph. Anyone who says ?there are no authoritative rules for the English language? has GOT to be crazy. You forgot one idea in there that, without going back and finding my post, I am sure I included the word ?fine.? It?s the fine rules, the tiny nitty gritty rules, that are in dispute between the various ?Manuals of Style? that are out there. The French may have an authoritative language police, but we don?t. You exaggerated my position to the extreme.
I do maintain that there are gross rules that are not in dispute among the academics, AND that enjoy common obedience. I recognize the common useage rules that prevail among us all, but whether to put a final comma with the final ?and? in a short list itemization is a decision I FULLY reserve to my own discretion, and I don?t even see a need to be consistent. Sometimes I use the final comma, sometimes I don?t, depending on how it looks.
If I were writing for a grade in an academic institution, I?d have to conform to their rules, or if I was a mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, I?d have to place my commas where the very authoritarian Perry White said so. Pawtucket has chosen to overlook misplaced comas here, so grammatical anarchy reigns here! I think Dr allowed his editors to clean up his grammar some, to conform to some school of style, but I don?t look to that school as having the last word of the revelations Dr put into written form.
Just like with his own vocabulary, those of us who are past the need for any more proof of the inspiration of PFAL, need to be aware of Dr?s own use of these FINER points of grammar.
Those of us who are not spinning our wheels talking AROUND this Word, but who are attempting to rightly divide it and apply it, we see no great difficulties in understanding Dr?s vocabulary or grammar.
If a Manual of Style says Dr means ?such and such? in a difficult passage according to their strict rules of fine grammar, and this ?such and such? contradicts many clear passages on the same subject, then rightly dividing means throwing out that manual?s spurious interpretation.
If you want to hold onto the manual and throw out PFAL, that?s your decision. I?m going with the only True source of light I?ve ever seen and that?s the revelation God gave to us in PFAL.
I read them more than my comments may have reflected.
One impression I have is that this was early in your PFAL life that you did ALL this study or most of it.
You were younger then, had a different background ?take? on life then, and your needs were different. As a result, what CONTENT you absorbed and put together (opposed to rote memorization) was according to who you were THEN.
We all different people now, with different perspectives and needs. I think that, because PFAL is spiritually enriched by God, if you came back to PFAL you?d see MANY things in there you missed the first time around. What you?re able to see now is different than back then. If PFAL was the word of man I wouldn?t be able to say this, but it?s much richer than your first exposure retained.
I don?t discredit your first time through at all. I am blessed so many of us did respond to God?s call then. I did mention one possible handicap in your first learning, but I see that as minor and overcomable.
I am convinced that coming back to PFAL will be a challenging and refreshing adventure for you, and that it would greatly help you see plainly the difference between Dr?s flesh and the revelations GOD put into PFAL.
quote:I'm talking about obedience to GOD and His SON by obeying His Word, this Word He gave to Dr by revelation.
You have posted many times about obeying Wierwille. Here are just a few:
"I'm sure that if we all had spiritually heard Dr's final instructions immediately after his death, and had REALLY obeyed them, then the ministry wouldn't have died."
"The most often cited flimsy excuse for NOT literally obeying Dr's final mastery instructions is..."
"But this was not the case. Dr's final instructions were not obeyed by leadership, and these final instructions were not properly presented to the rest of us."
"...then I can only reasonably appeal to those OLGs to risk all and get their spiritual assurance from God to start obeying Dr and come back to this Word in PFAL addressed to us."
Mike, obedience to Wierwille is a theme that runs throughout your posts. You equate obedience to Wierwille with obedience to God - as if it were the same thing. He was a man Mike - not God.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
A command from Jesus Christ is as good as a command from God, right? Jesus got his words by revelation form God, so he doesn't have to BE God to have his words worthy of obedience. Right?
When Peter spoke before Cornielius' household he spoke with all the authority of God Almighty.
If and when Dr spoke by revelation, then obeying Dr is obeying God. Disobeying Dr on one of these points is disobeying God.
It all hinges on whether God got His revelation through and THAT is what was spoken.
Can you see that your found "idolizations" of mine melt away IF Dr spoke by revelation?
[This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:08.]
WordWolf, you described above a 5-senses approach to surety. That method of works well for the relatively trivial items of science and math, but not for deciding a life?s course. I?m not saying throw out 5-senses integrity and logic, but where in your paragraphs above do you include the REAL surety we need? Where we get our SPIRITUAL confirmation, as opposed to a 5-senses one that must ALWAYS be reexamined for errors and tuned up as more data comes in. Sooner or later spiritual confirmation must come into play.
I think we already HAD our 5-senses confirmation in the learning, application, and leading of others into PFAL years ago. If an OLG can?t remember the good part, I will not be able to reach them. God may have some other plan for them, but my typing here is mostly to OLGs who know SOMETHING went very right in amongst all the crap, and THIS is IT: the PFAL writings that we absorbed the first time pretty well in the Natural/Factual mode, and now IT?S TIME to get into the spiritual understanding.
OLGs who have talked themselves out of the idea that there was something VERY PURE there in PFAL worth devoting our lives to are beyond my reach at the present time.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:03.]
You wrote: ?For some reason, it surprises you that the more literate GS'ers and people who memorized the collaterals aren't buying what you're selling.?
Dr used the word ?almost memorized? in the AC.
Walter mentioned in a class that Nakita Kruschev (sp?) had memorized either a gospel or all four. Memorization is useful, but is not the same thing as learning.
I?ve seen lots of bad leaders in the Corps who memorized lots of nice lines, yet their hearts were stone.
****************
You also wrote:
E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate
using analogies doesn't connect with you. So,
I will try to remember not to use them.
I saw the illustration and connected with it?s meaning. It would have been a good analogy had it fit the circumstances. It did not.
That?s why I offered my analogy. Did it connect with you?
I did get it and agree that that you pointed out a VERY important set of scriptures.
Why not post them in full, instead of the reference numbers? I think that would bless some GS readers who didn't look them up.
Actually it's pressing toward the mark that I'm doing in my life too. I see the next administration well enough to taste it!
Once this thread is over, I'd like to get deeply into the Return, Appearing, Second Coming, and all the other names and ideas we have about that scene.
IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL.
IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it.
BUT...
The evidence that Wierwille was doing God's will, and that PFAL is the "Word of God" for our times is slim at best; but there is compelling evidence that PFAL was largely plagarized, often without an understanding of what was plagarized, nor how parts taken from different sources contradicted each other.
Basing one's belief that Wierwille's writings are "God's Word" simply because Wierwille said so is circular reasoning. Basing that belief on so-called hidden meanings in passages where Wierwille clearly says that his writings are not equivalent to God's Word is fanatasy.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
well, Mike, if they aren't interested enough to crack open a bible--waddaya gonna do??? I think those who are posting here are fairly well familiar with the verses quoted. After all, who here did not read chpter 14, vol.2, the green book over and over?? I CERTAINLY could not have been the ONLY one.... ;)--> :P--> ??
Interest can be built. We love him because He first loved us. It's the gentleness of God that leads a man to change his mind. (Romans paraphrase) I think including a paste of the verses from a simple KJV file would bless all readers.
***************
I thank God for the richness of your first round in PFAL. I?m not being facetious.
If it weren't for the partial (or full) mastery that you and others GSers here did back then, this wouldn't be nearly as stimulating for me.
I applaud your efforts and successes in study. Same goes for many here who've displayed a retention of a quite rigorous first time through. It's the Return to PFAL that makes a difference, the Return to PFAL for our SPIRITUAL understanding, after having gotten a good (to full) 5-senses understanding in the first go around.
Like I said to WordWolf above, you were a different man then with different needs and different abilities to absorb when you first came to PFAL on the 5-senses level.
The Second Coming to PFAL is where the spiritual action is at.
With a spiritual understanding of God?s revealed Word, the adversary?s 5-senses reign is superceded. The adversary is earth bound, 5-senses bound in his abilities. (Steve Lortz -attention: hierarchical levels in Realms mentioned)
In the first century the church did well for a while, because their 5-senses understanding was pretty good, to the point of doing miracles, just like the early 70?s for us. But as time went by in the first century, the adversary mounted his campaign in the 5-senses realm to slowly surround the church.
Slowly doing the same thing with them as he did with Eve: adding subtracting changing.
Their verbal tradition corrupted (just like our TVT) and when the apostles died the adversary outsmarted their approximate (and getting worse) 5-senses understandings. He could run rings around them because they stayed in the Natural/Factual realm, HIS realm, delivered to him by Adam. He could corrupt their understanding, given time, if it remained only 5-senses.
Paul?s great struggle with the Galatians was to get Christ FORMED (4:19) within their minds, and he was losing this struggle. Forming Christ in their minds was one way of saying giving them a spiritual understanding so that they wouldn?t get bewitched so easily.
The same exact things happened to us. We?ve witnessed (if we were observing) 1500 years of churchianity repeat itself in our grad universe in the past 15 or so years.
This is one major reason for this thread, to get to this point of explanation.
You wrote: ?IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL. IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it.?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just wanted to savor that a little. Thanks.
BUT...
?The evidence that Wierwille was doing God's will, and that PFAL is the "Word of God" for our times is slim at best...? on this website, because the stock of available evidence has not been fully tapped for examination. Hence my mission is to post some of that lost data for consideration. Consideration takes time, so I don?t want to rush anyone in this. Plus I?m not done posting data, so I won?t to rush anyone for this additional reason as well.
The evidence you cited is admittedly discouraging. I thoroughly admit that and to having considered it myself for a number of years, and a number of times in different decades.
If it weren?t for the GREAT amount of data the SUDDENLY found me in 1998, I?d have been SQUARELY in your camp.
I did reach a point of discouragement from your stated data where I wrote two e-mails in early 1998, that if I posted them now, you?d think I was schizophrenic. ..... No... wait a minute... you think that now... If I posted them now you?d think it was someone else?s writing.
If the evidence you cite is all that is considered, then there is no reason for any OLG to come back to PFAL, except one still small voice.
You wrote: ?Basing one's belief that Wierwille's writings are "God's Word" simply because Wierwille said so is circular reasoning.?
I agree. But that?s not what I?ve done.
There are different reasons for my belief, reasons other than Dr?s claims. They are complex and personal. Too much to type and for no benefit to others.
Dr?s quotes to that effect ARE brought up here by me because many here say he did NOT say that he was writing by revelation.
For Dr to have said ?Thus Saith? so many times means, to me, that he did not want to allow us to think of him in any shades of gray. Either he DID get these many claimed revelations or he did not. This forces us to decide one way or the other. I imagine my bringing up Dr?s ?Thus Saith? statements make it difficult for lukewarm ?Wierwille apologists" who want to ride the fence and pick and choose what they think was good.
********************
Here?s how I put this a few months ago on another thread:
Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr's claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don't know why so many think I don't see that.
What Dr's claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.
Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr's material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr's extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
If Dr's writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn't say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who's to say he wouldn't suffer from the "out of the frying pan and into the fire" syndrome.
If this possibility is true, that Dr's claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
This logical consequence of Dr's claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer's of Dr avoiding. These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it's the case that Dr's extreme claims are not true.
I was coming to see this logical requirement in the Nineties, and was moving more and more into fully investigating a total purge for myself. My respect for Dr was steadily declining from a moderate gray view to a more and more evil view. I was aware of the alternative (Dr's claims being right) but I felt I had already looked deep enough into that possibility during the Seventies and Eighties.
My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr's last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points.
As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years. After pondering both possibilities the best I could, I decided to place my bet, stake my whole life of the God-breathed status of his PFAL books addressed to us, his class.
All of life is risk. There's just as much risk in betting on the other horse.
***************
Oakspear, I?m back to your post where you wrote: ?Basing that belief on so-called hidden meanings in passages where Wierwille clearly says that his writings are not equivalent to God's Word is fanatasy.?
Again, it?s not the hidden things that formed my belief.
AFTER believing that God is behind PFAL, then the hidden things can come out at God?s discretion.
Last night I was considering how to discuss truth with Mike when he insists on using lies to defend lies, and the realization dawned on me that Mike cannot really tell the difference anymore between true and false.
Mike so desired to believe the lie five years ago that PFAL is God-breathed, he willingly suspended his ability to judge. He had to. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance would have been overwhelming.
Since then, by his own admission, Mike has diligently exercised his senses through practice to ignore the differences between between true and false.
Mike has rendered his own mind "adokimos", devoid of judgment, without ability to test or prove.
It's like he wanted to download the lie that PFAL is God-breathed, but his anti-viral software wouldn't let him do it. So he disabled his anti-viral protection. Now the viruses are running the show, and Mike can't turn the anti-virus software back on.
The only way Mike could be delivered now is if he made a genuine appeal to God, and the true God miraculously cut through the crap. That's what the true God did with me.
I just finished too, until your two posts appeared. I was just ready to post my last response to WW's last big post, completely adderessing every point.
I would have been caught up if I had posted a minute soner.
May I back off on these guys. Here?s why. I?m relatively ignorant in this area, having not read them in years. The so called plagiarized passages I?ve NEVER read. If anyone knows how to find Thomas Heller, he once told me that ?The Love Way? (posted on this thread) was from Kenyon. I?d love to see the differences, where Dr changed a few words here and there. Those changes excite my interest.
But I?m not so interested in the permutations of who was right where and to what degree. Did a revelation change occur or did one of the earlier guys get it wrong doesn?t interest me so much. I?ve speculated on some of those possible permutations, but it?s only speculation, and I think I said so at the time.
I?m a little surprised at how sure I sound in that quote you supplied, but maybe the context softens it. If not, I should have stated it less mater-of-factly.
I don?t always run with the ?evil intent? nuance when I use the word counterfeit, so when I applied it to these teachers of Dr?s please allow me this slack. I see much room for accidental counterfeits to occur. That?s just the way I use that word. I?m not thinking evil of them at all; I?m thankful for them.
I recognize that they all had limitations in doctrine, and in another area as well. This is an area Dr rarely gets credit for above the likes of Bulinger, Kenyon etc.
Those men certainly did good in their teaching, but none of them moved it around the world like Dr did. It?s in THIS area of moving the doctrine, that lots of the horror stories come up. With everyone?s flesh involved, including Dr?s, the coordination effort to move this as far as it got moved was impressive.
Bullinger was way to academic to reach out far to the masses. Kenyon would have never made it with the hippies.
My only dealings with these men in my message is that they did good, and were part of God?s plan for teaching Dr and passing on material for him to re-work with God. I see God at work within those men to a great extent. My only point is that Dr did RIGHT in bringing their contributions to us in a perfect context and with perfect ?adjustments? to fit us grads.
Otherwise, let?s agree they were good guys, and not counterfeits.
*************
Oops. I must be getting tired. I just found this in your post:
Mike, So where did this last word from Wierwille come from? Was it from C#### G###? Now, how I look at things he was just as bad. How do you know he spoke the truth?
First of all I don't believe that vpw was THE man of God or a prophet. I could get into it but I think you won't look at that anyways. Then this guy tells cg that we need to master pfal. You have put your whole life in something that didn't even come from vpw but from someone that tried to take over twi. Who from different people said he had a lot of problems himself.
There are a lot of people out there mike that would have been more suitable for 'revelation' like this since it hadn't been seen since the first century. From what you say anyways.
Ask anyone in the mental health field and are christian and you will find that they may tell you your thinking about all this is very diluted.
I don't think you understand. We have matured into adulthood and have come to the realization that twi didn't hold the truth. They may have held some truths but not all. Mastering pfal may make YOU feel good and it may make YOU feel good in telling us 'olgs' need to master and that you are mastering. But its delusional. I hope this is just a game to you because otherwise your sounding scarey. Have you been to a therapist?
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
I?m not leaning on Chris Geer?s word at all like the entire POP demands of its readers and believers.
I got the tape of Dr?s last teaching.
Plus it was published in the Way Magazine, but in a number of ways it was hidden.
I?ve posted much on how it got hidden. It didn?t resurface until the late 90?s.
Your criticism of the ricketyness of leaning on Chris Geer?s word from the POP is accurate when aimed at the people who run his class for a large part, but not accurate when aimed at me.
But I only lean on the tape. The magazine article was edited poorly.
I?ve posted tons on all this, so if you want more details it?s searchable.
Now I realize that this only addresses a portion of you post, but I?m short on time right now.
It may be you need to re-asses your position on me, now that you know I?m not a Geer-leaner, because there may be other areas where you didn?t get my take on things accurate.
I did talk about POP a few times, but with big warnings and caveats.
Since this seems to be the place to go to present wacky theories - herewith my latest:
Anyone who knows anything knows that Our Late Founder (OLF for abbreviators) was a mean-spirited drunk who stole from Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon et al. After long moments of thought I can now reveal he also ripped off Bishop Fulton Sheen.
YES! IT'S TRUE!!!!!!!!!
Bishop Sheen was a true television pioneer who absolutely everybody watched ? not only because he was the only thing on in his times slot ? he was a masterful preacher and teacher.
Today in living black and white you can see all the mannerisms OLF displayed in 16mm color: The sideways stare into the camera as he walked across the stage, the long pause fraught with intensity - and most telling - the finger brushing against the cheek
If you don?t get the Catholic channel EWTN call your cable company today!
leaning Leaning leaning Im leaning on the everlasting arms!
remember that song?
one of my favs! I thought it was about Jesus Christ, silly me, to find out we should lean on a tape from a lost teaching of a man well now Im just shocked and hurt.... WAIT
Jesus came to find the lost that is somewhere in the bible Im sure of it but then again I thought it is all about Gods children not a tape...from a dead man.
Jesus Christ LIVES so we can lean on HIM !
oo how do we get so confused? hmm? maybe because it was a CULT ?
WARNING: The OLG Extraordinaire of the United States has determined that experimentally believing the lie, that PFAL was God-breathed, is addictive, presents a clear hazard to mental health, and has been demonstrated to trigger severe cases of nous adokimos.
Do not believe that PFAL was God-breathed, even experimentally, if you are pregnant, operate heavy machinery or value your ability to tell the difference between true and false.
Consult a bona fide theologian or grammarian before swallowing THIS pill.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
82
119
656
81
Popular Days
Jun 15
86
Jul 3
73
Jul 12
50
Mar 31
49
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 82 posts
mj412 119 posts
Mike 656 posts
Steve Lortz 81 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2003
86 posts
Jul 3 2003
73 posts
Jul 12 2003
50 posts
Mar 31 2003
49 posts
Popular Posts
Yanagisawa
Did you say "get the ball rolling" or get the kaballa rolling...for it sounds like that's your current freak - some sort of hidden, mystical kaballa-esque gnostic esotericism. I'm fascinated with you
Mike
Goey,
I'm talking about obedience to GOD and His SON by obeying His Word, this Word He gave to Dr by revelation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
?G) By the way, Mike, don't think your claims
that there are no authoritative rules for the
English language was missed. I just see no
point in trying to educate you on proper
English form and grammar, since attempts to do
so by people FAR more knowledgeable on the
subject than either of us were unable to show
you the truth of the matter.
No, I didn?t think that would slip by you. I do see some of the details of my position slipped by you from your summary paragraph. Anyone who says ?there are no authoritative rules for the English language? has GOT to be crazy. You forgot one idea in there that, without going back and finding my post, I am sure I included the word ?fine.? It?s the fine rules, the tiny nitty gritty rules, that are in dispute between the various ?Manuals of Style? that are out there. The French may have an authoritative language police, but we don?t. You exaggerated my position to the extreme.
I do maintain that there are gross rules that are not in dispute among the academics, AND that enjoy common obedience. I recognize the common useage rules that prevail among us all, but whether to put a final comma with the final ?and? in a short list itemization is a decision I FULLY reserve to my own discretion, and I don?t even see a need to be consistent. Sometimes I use the final comma, sometimes I don?t, depending on how it looks.
If I were writing for a grade in an academic institution, I?d have to conform to their rules, or if I was a mild mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, I?d have to place my commas where the very authoritarian Perry White said so. Pawtucket has chosen to overlook misplaced comas here, so grammatical anarchy reigns here! I think Dr allowed his editors to clean up his grammar some, to conform to some school of style, but I don?t look to that school as having the last word of the revelations Dr put into written form.
Just like with his own vocabulary, those of us who are past the need for any more proof of the inspiration of PFAL, need to be aware of Dr?s own use of these FINER points of grammar.
Those of us who are not spinning our wheels talking AROUND this Word, but who are attempting to rightly divide it and apply it, we see no great difficulties in understanding Dr?s vocabulary or grammar.
If a Manual of Style says Dr means ?such and such? in a difficult passage according to their strict rules of fine grammar, and this ?such and such? contradicts many clear passages on the same subject, then rightly dividing means throwing out that manual?s spurious interpretation.
If you want to hold onto the manual and throw out PFAL, that?s your decision. I?m going with the only True source of light I?ve ever seen and that?s the revelation God gave to us in PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
?Based on that post and previous posts, you were
saying that, as of 1982, the key revelation,
our True Bible, the Written Word of God, was now
VPW's PFAL class collaterals. This was not an
official position of TWI, but it WAS the
position of God Almighty.?
Ok, would you say THAT'S exactly what you
meant??
Looks pretty close.
But let me ask you this: do you really NEED to have a tight exact understanding of MY position to come back to PFAL and meekly learn more?
Is your question designed to help you better follow my advice or to better counter my words and discourage others from enjoying PFAL?
The answer is obvious, you need not type it out any more than you already have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
B) I think you glossed over my comments about
the studies involving the collateral readings,
the Advanced Class exam, and-oh! I didn't even
mention the Home Studies! I finished those in
record time, as well. THOSE were all based on
the written material, and in each of those I
rated notably high.
I read them more than my comments may have reflected.
One impression I have is that this was early in your PFAL life that you did ALL this study or most of it.
You were younger then, had a different background ?take? on life then, and your needs were different. As a result, what CONTENT you absorbed and put together (opposed to rote memorization) was according to who you were THEN.
We all different people now, with different perspectives and needs. I think that, because PFAL is spiritually enriched by God, if you came back to PFAL you?d see MANY things in there you missed the first time around. What you?re able to see now is different than back then. If PFAL was the word of man I wouldn?t be able to say this, but it?s much richer than your first exposure retained.
I don?t discredit your first time through at all. I am blessed so many of us did respond to God?s call then. I did mention one possible handicap in your first learning, but I see that as minor and overcomable.
I am convinced that coming back to PFAL will be a challenging and refreshing adventure for you, and that it would greatly help you see plainly the difference between Dr?s flesh and the revelations GOD put into PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: ?C) You claimed VPW was an intellectual genius, and at the level of a professional athlete.?
Let?s take care of this fast. I stated my opinions on this subject. I may be have been wrong about that, but it is my opinion still.
You wrote: ?You claimed his was exceptional both physically, and mentally,
with little more than a handful of overheard statements here and there.
You DON'T think of that as idolatry.?
No.
My God is much more gracious that that.
I don?t idolize Mickey Mantle either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Posted by Mike:
You have posted many times about obeying Wierwille. Here are just a few:"The most often cited flimsy excuse for NOT literally obeying Dr's final mastery instructions is..."
"But this was not the case. Dr's final instructions were not obeyed by leadership, and these final instructions were not properly presented to the rest of us."
"...then I can only reasonably appeal to those OLGs to risk all and get their spiritual assurance from God to start obeying Dr and come back to this Word in PFAL addressed to us."
Mike, obedience to Wierwille is a theme that runs throughout your posts. You equate obedience to Wierwille with obedience to God - as if it were the same thing. He was a man Mike - not God.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
Come ON! This isn't hard.
A command from Jesus Christ is as good as a command from God, right? Jesus got his words by revelation form God, so he doesn't have to BE God to have his words worthy of obedience. Right?
When Peter spoke before Cornielius' household he spoke with all the authority of God Almighty.
If and when Dr spoke by revelation, then obeying Dr is obeying God. Disobeying Dr on one of these points is disobeying God.
It all hinges on whether God got His revelation through and THAT is what was spoken.
Can you see that your found "idolizations" of mine melt away IF Dr spoke by revelation?
[This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:08.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
D) You said
"Recognizing that God appointed Dr as His
spokesman is no more idolatrous than recognizing
that God also appointed Paul 2000 years ago to
a similar status? Why is this hard for you to
see?"
Mike......
IF such a thing were true, and IF evidence could
be brought to support such a claim, and IF the
logical conclusion, based on the evidence, was
that it was true that God appointed vpw as His
spokesman in 1942 or at any other time,
THEN you would be facing a LOT less opposition
to your idolatrous comments, and would find
people who would agree with you who actually
KNOW something about PFAL and/or the Bible.
WordWolf, you described above a 5-senses approach to surety. That method of works well for the relatively trivial items of science and math, but not for deciding a life?s course. I?m not saying throw out 5-senses integrity and logic, but where in your paragraphs above do you include the REAL surety we need? Where we get our SPIRITUAL confirmation, as opposed to a 5-senses one that must ALWAYS be reexamined for errors and tuned up as more data comes in. Sooner or later spiritual confirmation must come into play.
I think we already HAD our 5-senses confirmation in the learning, application, and leading of others into PFAL years ago. If an OLG can?t remember the good part, I will not be able to reach them. God may have some other plan for them, but my typing here is mostly to OLGs who know SOMETHING went very right in amongst all the crap, and THIS is IT: the PFAL writings that we absorbed the first time pretty well in the Natural/Factual mode, and now IT?S TIME to get into the spiritual understanding.
OLGs who have talked themselves out of the idea that there was something VERY PURE there in PFAL worth devoting our lives to are beyond my reach at the present time.
[This message was edited by Mike on June 20, 2003 at 13:03.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: ?For some reason, it surprises you that the more literate GS'ers and people who memorized the collaterals aren't buying what you're selling.?
Dr used the word ?almost memorized? in the AC.
Walter mentioned in a class that Nakita Kruschev (sp?) had memorized either a gospel or all four. Memorization is useful, but is not the same thing as learning.
I?ve seen lots of bad leaders in the Corps who memorized lots of nice lines, yet their hearts were stone.
****************
You also wrote:
E) I HAVE learned that trying to illustrate
using analogies doesn't connect with you. So,
I will try to remember not to use them.
I saw the illustration and connected with it?s meaning. It would have been a good analogy had it fit the circumstances. It did not.
That?s why I offered my analogy. Did it connect with you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat and vickles,
I did get it and agree that that you pointed out a VERY important set of scriptures.
Why not post them in full, instead of the reference numbers? I think that would bless some GS readers who didn't look them up.
Actually it's pressing toward the mark that I'm doing in my life too. I see the next administration well enough to taste it!
Once this thread is over, I'd like to get deeply into the Return, Appearing, Second Coming, and all the other names and ideas we have about that scene.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL.
IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it.
BUT...
The evidence that Wierwille was doing God's will, and that PFAL is the "Word of God" for our times is slim at best; but there is compelling evidence that PFAL was largely plagarized, often without an understanding of what was plagarized, nor how parts taken from different sources contradicted each other.
Basing one's belief that Wierwille's writings are "God's Word" simply because Wierwille said so is circular reasoning. Basing that belief on so-called hidden meanings in passages where Wierwille clearly says that his writings are not equivalent to God's Word is fanatasy.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
Henri Poincare
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
well, Mike, if they aren't interested enough to crack open a bible--waddaya gonna do??? I think those who are posting here are fairly well familiar with the verses quoted. After all, who here did not read chpter 14, vol.2, the green book over and over?? I CERTAINLY could not have been the ONLY one....
;)--> 
:P--> ??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
alfakat,
Repetition of good things cam be nice.
Interest can be built. We love him because He first loved us. It's the gentleness of God that leads a man to change his mind. (Romans paraphrase) I think including a paste of the verses from a simple KJV file would bless all readers.
***************
I thank God for the richness of your first round in PFAL. I?m not being facetious.
If it weren't for the partial (or full) mastery that you and others GSers here did back then, this wouldn't be nearly as stimulating for me.
I applaud your efforts and successes in study. Same goes for many here who've displayed a retention of a quite rigorous first time through. It's the Return to PFAL that makes a difference, the Return to PFAL for our SPIRITUAL understanding, after having gotten a good (to full) 5-senses understanding in the first go around.
Like I said to WordWolf above, you were a different man then with different needs and different abilities to absorb when you first came to PFAL on the 5-senses level.
The Second Coming to PFAL is where the spiritual action is at.
With a spiritual understanding of God?s revealed Word, the adversary?s 5-senses reign is superceded. The adversary is earth bound, 5-senses bound in his abilities. (Steve Lortz -attention: hierarchical levels in Realms mentioned)
In the first century the church did well for a while, because their 5-senses understanding was pretty good, to the point of doing miracles, just like the early 70?s for us. But as time went by in the first century, the adversary mounted his campaign in the 5-senses realm to slowly surround the church.
Slowly doing the same thing with them as he did with Eve: adding subtracting changing.
Their verbal tradition corrupted (just like our TVT) and when the apostles died the adversary outsmarted their approximate (and getting worse) 5-senses understandings. He could run rings around them because they stayed in the Natural/Factual realm, HIS realm, delivered to him by Adam. He could corrupt their understanding, given time, if it remained only 5-senses.
Paul?s great struggle with the Galatians was to get Christ FORMED (4:19) within their minds, and he was losing this struggle. Forming Christ in their minds was one way of saying giving them a spiritual understanding so that they wouldn?t get bewitched so easily.
The same exact things happened to us. We?ve witnessed (if we were observing) 1500 years of churchianity repeat itself in our grad universe in the past 15 or so years.
This is one major reason for this thread, to get to this point of explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote: ?IF Wierwille was given PFAL by revelation, then it is not idolatry to follow everything that was in PFAL. IF Wierwille was speaking by revelation when he told us to "master PFAL" then it would behoove us to master it.?
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh! I just wanted to savor that a little. Thanks.
BUT...
?The evidence that Wierwille was doing God's will, and that PFAL is the "Word of God" for our times is slim at best...? on this website, because the stock of available evidence has not been fully tapped for examination. Hence my mission is to post some of that lost data for consideration. Consideration takes time, so I don?t want to rush anyone in this. Plus I?m not done posting data, so I won?t to rush anyone for this additional reason as well.
The evidence you cited is admittedly discouraging. I thoroughly admit that and to having considered it myself for a number of years, and a number of times in different decades.
If it weren?t for the GREAT amount of data the SUDDENLY found me in 1998, I?d have been SQUARELY in your camp.
I did reach a point of discouragement from your stated data where I wrote two e-mails in early 1998, that if I posted them now, you?d think I was schizophrenic. ..... No... wait a minute... you think that now... If I posted them now you?d think it was someone else?s writing.
If the evidence you cite is all that is considered, then there is no reason for any OLG to come back to PFAL, except one still small voice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
You wrote: ?Basing one's belief that Wierwille's writings are "God's Word" simply because Wierwille said so is circular reasoning.?
I agree. But that?s not what I?ve done.
There are different reasons for my belief, reasons other than Dr?s claims. They are complex and personal. Too much to type and for no benefit to others.
Dr?s quotes to that effect ARE brought up here by me because many here say he did NOT say that he was writing by revelation.
For Dr to have said ?Thus Saith? so many times means, to me, that he did not want to allow us to think of him in any shades of gray. Either he DID get these many claimed revelations or he did not. This forces us to decide one way or the other. I imagine my bringing up Dr?s ?Thus Saith? statements make it difficult for lukewarm ?Wierwille apologists" who want to ride the fence and pick and choose what they think was good.
********************
Here?s how I put this a few months ago on another thread:
Let me say first, though, that I REALIZE that Dr's claims to having received and abundance of revelation do NOT prove that his claims are true. I don't know why so many think I don't see that.
What Dr's claims do prove or demand is something different. His many, many claims like this do effectively eliminate all gray areas in how we should regard him.
Moderates and middle-of-the-roaders, people who think Dr's material was in the gray area between good and evil, should be challenged by Dr's extreme assertions. They need to get off the fence and decide which extreme he is in. His claims prove that he was either extremely right or extremely wrong. His claims force us to either totally reject his writings or totally accept them (in quality not quantity). His claims make dwelling in the gray area illogical.
If Dr's writings fall into the totally evil category (with just enough good to hook people but not really bless them) then the ONLY proper response for one of his former disciples would be a TOTAL purge himself of everything Dr taught and then totally start over in some other camp. This would not only be a monumental task for some of the more entrenched grads, but WHERE to go to get their total re-education in Christianity (notice I didn't say churchianity here) is even more arduous. This second task, in addition to purging, should severely challenge the wise seeker, because who's to say he wouldn't suffer from the "out of the frying pan and into the fire" syndrome.
If this possibility is true, that Dr's claims were false, then the best response is to throw away BOTH the bathwater AND the baby, and start all over.
This logical consequence of Dr's claims being false, the need of totally purging is something that I see ALL non-mastering admirer's of Dr avoiding. These are the gray area people. I see all of CFF, CES, GRR, and other major splinter group leaders totally oblivious to this logical requirement, if it's the case that Dr's extreme claims are not true.
I was coming to see this logical requirement in the Nineties, and was moving more and more into fully investigating a total purge for myself. My respect for Dr was steadily declining from a moderate gray view to a more and more evil view. I was aware of the alternative (Dr's claims being right) but I felt I had already looked deep enough into that possibility during the Seventies and Eighties.
My mental model of how I knew I needed to view Dr, good or evil, was probably only months away from being decided upon when a large body of new data found its way to me, including Dr's last teaching, including its status of being rather totally lost, and including many more yet undescribed data points.
As I again, more rigorously this time, explored THIS possibility of Dr being totally correct (yet still remembering the limitation of PFALp.83) many of my reasons for accepting the totally evil possibility started evaporating one by one, some immediately, some after a few years. After pondering both possibilities the best I could, I decided to place my bet, stake my whole life of the God-breathed status of his PFAL books addressed to us, his class.
All of life is risk. There's just as much risk in betting on the other horse.
***************
Oakspear, I?m back to your post where you wrote: ?Basing that belief on so-called hidden meanings in passages where Wierwille clearly says that his writings are not equivalent to God's Word is fanatasy.?
Again, it?s not the hidden things that formed my belief.
AFTER believing that God is behind PFAL, then the hidden things can come out at God?s discretion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
A) Since you keep claiming I misrepresent your
positions all the time, one might think my
efforts to have our positions clearly spelled
out in plain English would be applauded.
I'm doing my best to get a clear, unambiguous
summary of your position, or positions. On some
subjects, you keep moving your position, so
it is very difficult to get a single, clear
view. So, when possible, I'm trying to get one.
When possible, I also state my positions as
plainly as possible.
----------------------------------------------
B) If thinking (having my senses exercised to
discern good and evil) is a 5-senses approach
to spiritual problems, then so is READING
(taking in information by sight and thinking
about it), no matter the subject matter. Either
both are eeee-villl, or both are acceptable.
(Especially since one is mentioned in the
accepted canon of the Bible.)
--------------------------------------------
C) I still haven't seen you present any
"evidence" that vpw's writings were of
surpassing quality, let alone of divine origin.
Since you seem to be saying you've been
providing data along those lines, please label
it when you're doing so, so we know when you
claim to be providing evidence vpw's work wasn't
one man's work supplementing an agglomeration
of the work of a handful of others.
----------------------------------------------
D) I'm still waiting on a clarification on
Leonard and Stiles. Are you going to address it
when you get a chance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
excathedra nailed it, "what a sad thread".
Last night I was considering how to discuss truth with Mike when he insists on using lies to defend lies, and the realization dawned on me that Mike cannot really tell the difference anymore between true and false.
Mike so desired to believe the lie five years ago that PFAL is God-breathed, he willingly suspended his ability to judge. He had to. Otherwise, the cognitive dissonance would have been overwhelming.
Since then, by his own admission, Mike has diligently exercised his senses through practice to ignore the differences between between true and false.
Mike has rendered his own mind "adokimos", devoid of judgment, without ability to test or prove.
It's like he wanted to download the lie that PFAL is God-breathed, but his anti-viral software wouldn't let him do it. So he disabled his anti-viral protection. Now the viruses are running the show, and Mike can't turn the anti-virus software back on.
The only way Mike could be delivered now is if he made a genuine appeal to God, and the true God miraculously cut through the crap. That's what the true God did with me.
excathedra was right... sad, sad, sad.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WW and Steve,
I need to take a break.
It's raining here so I've been posting for hours.
I just finished too, until your two posts appeared. I was just ready to post my last response to WW's last big post, completely adderessing every point.
I would have been caught up if I had posted a minute soner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
F) When I asked
"Are you saying that BG Leonard's work and JE
Stile's work are "counterfeits" and "clones" of
VPW's materials, just as ex-TWI splinter
groups' classes are clones of VPW's materials?"
May I back off on these guys. Here?s why. I?m relatively ignorant in this area, having not read them in years. The so called plagiarized passages I?ve NEVER read. If anyone knows how to find Thomas Heller, he once told me that ?The Love Way? (posted on this thread) was from Kenyon. I?d love to see the differences, where Dr changed a few words here and there. Those changes excite my interest.
But I?m not so interested in the permutations of who was right where and to what degree. Did a revelation change occur or did one of the earlier guys get it wrong doesn?t interest me so much. I?ve speculated on some of those possible permutations, but it?s only speculation, and I think I said so at the time.
I?m a little surprised at how sure I sound in that quote you supplied, but maybe the context softens it. If not, I should have stated it less mater-of-factly.
I don?t always run with the ?evil intent? nuance when I use the word counterfeit, so when I applied it to these teachers of Dr?s please allow me this slack. I see much room for accidental counterfeits to occur. That?s just the way I use that word. I?m not thinking evil of them at all; I?m thankful for them.
I recognize that they all had limitations in doctrine, and in another area as well. This is an area Dr rarely gets credit for above the likes of Bulinger, Kenyon etc.
Those men certainly did good in their teaching, but none of them moved it around the world like Dr did. It?s in THIS area of moving the doctrine, that lots of the horror stories come up. With everyone?s flesh involved, including Dr?s, the coordination effort to move this as far as it got moved was impressive.
Bullinger was way to academic to reach out far to the masses. Kenyon would have never made it with the hippies.
My only dealings with these men in my message is that they did good, and were part of God?s plan for teaching Dr and passing on material for him to re-work with God. I see God at work within those men to a great extent. My only point is that Dr did RIGHT in bringing their contributions to us in a perfect context and with perfect ?adjustments? to fit us grads.
Otherwise, let?s agree they were good guys, and not counterfeits.
*************
Oops. I must be getting tired. I just found this in your post:
Or, on the other hand, are you saying their
work was all ERRORS, and when you said the word
"counterfeit", you merely misspoke?
I kuda saved all that typing! I merely mis-spoke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Mike, So where did this last word from Wierwille come from? Was it from C#### G###? Now, how I look at things he was just as bad. How do you know he spoke the truth?
First of all I don't believe that vpw was THE man of God or a prophet. I could get into it but I think you won't look at that anyways. Then this guy tells cg that we need to master pfal. You have put your whole life in something that didn't even come from vpw but from someone that tried to take over twi. Who from different people said he had a lot of problems himself.
There are a lot of people out there mike that would have been more suitable for 'revelation' like this since it hadn't been seen since the first century. From what you say anyways.
Ask anyone in the mental health field and are christian and you will find that they may tell you your thinking about all this is very diluted.
I don't think you understand. We have matured into adulthood and have come to the realization that twi didn't hold the truth. They may have held some truths but not all. Mastering pfal may make YOU feel good and it may make YOU feel good in telling us 'olgs' need to master and that you are mastering. But its delusional. I hope this is just a game to you because otherwise your sounding scarey. Have you been to a therapist?
Ok!! I will not try to be a nice person...ok? I will not!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
vickles,
I?m not leaning on Chris Geer?s word at all like the entire POP demands of its readers and believers.
I got the tape of Dr?s last teaching.
Plus it was published in the Way Magazine, but in a number of ways it was hidden.
I?ve posted much on how it got hidden. It didn?t resurface until the late 90?s.
Your criticism of the ricketyness of leaning on Chris Geer?s word from the POP is accurate when aimed at the people who run his class for a large part, but not accurate when aimed at me.
But I only lean on the tape. The magazine article was edited poorly.
I?ve posted tons on all this, so if you want more details it?s searchable.
Now I realize that this only addresses a portion of you post, but I?m short on time right now.
It may be you need to re-asses your position on me, now that you know I?m not a Geer-leaner, because there may be other areas where you didn?t get my take on things accurate.
I did talk about POP a few times, but with big warnings and caveats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lovematters
Since this seems to be the place to go to present wacky theories - herewith my latest:
Anyone who knows anything knows that Our Late Founder (OLF for abbreviators) was a mean-spirited drunk who stole from Stiles, Leonard, Kenyon et al. After long moments of thought I can now reveal he also ripped off Bishop Fulton Sheen.
YES! IT'S TRUE!!!!!!!!!
Bishop Sheen was a true television pioneer who absolutely everybody watched ? not only because he was the only thing on in his times slot ? he was a masterful preacher and teacher.
Today in living black and white you can see all the mannerisms OLF displayed in 16mm color: The sideways stare into the camera as he walked across the stage, the long pause fraught with intensity - and most telling - the finger brushing against the cheek
If you don?t get the Catholic channel EWTN call your cable company today!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
leaning Leaning leaning Im leaning on the everlasting arms!
remember that song?
one of my favs! I thought it was about Jesus Christ, silly me, to find out we should lean on a tape from a lost teaching of a man well now Im just shocked and hurt.... WAIT
Jesus came to find the lost that is somewhere in the bible Im sure of it but then again I thought it is all about Gods children not a tape...from a dead man.
Jesus Christ LIVES so we can lean on HIM !
oo how do we get so confused? hmm? maybe because it was a CULT ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WARNING: The OLG Extraordinaire of the United States has determined that experimentally believing the lie, that PFAL was God-breathed, is addictive, presents a clear hazard to mental health, and has been demonstrated to trigger severe cases of nous adokimos.
Do not believe that PFAL was God-breathed, even experimentally, if you are pregnant, operate heavy machinery or value your ability to tell the difference between true and false.
Consult a bona fide theologian or grammarian before swallowing THIS pill.
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.