As every good English teacher knows, the more you consideration put into your writing, the more consideration you can expect from your reader.
OLG stands for Older Leader Grads.
It's a very loose term for those grads who were even just a little matured in PFAL during the period 1982-85. I feel it was us OLGs who dropped the ball by failing to perceive and obey Dr's post presidency ministry. It was also us OLGs who saw PFAL work well in the 70's, so we are the ones with the most motivation to come back to PFAL.
It was us OLGs who were the many villains who REALLY took down the ministry. We were the ones who were supposed to be representing Dr?s ministry to new people, but we got sloppy in our memory of the written forms of PFAL, and refused to refresh those memories when repeatedly told to master the written materials.
We OLGs repeatedly disobeyed him from 1979 to 1985 and I have posted the proof here.
If you took the class after 1985 you are COMPLETELY innocent of these charges.
We OLGs started taking the ministry away from the Word almost immediately after Dr stepped down from power in late 1982. By 1985 we OLGs were so far out, so deep into our own counterfeits, that we universally ignored his dying last words to us, and his final instructions fell to the floor. Anything good that happened in the ministry after 1985 was grace and grace alone.
*****
You then wrote: ?Another thought came to me.....if pfal is God breathed, then God didn't give it to VPW, he gave it to B G Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles and all the others that VPW stole from. Victor just had the audacity to credit himself with "the God breathed word" that wasn't his to begin with.?
I?m just reading pages 206 and 207 of ?The Way Living In Love? where Dr remembers taking BG Leonard?s class. So Dr didn?t credit himself as you charge, he credited BG for helping him with ideas for the PFAL class.
Here?s what you forgot, or never read, and got caught up in the mob accusing Dr of not crediting his 5-senses sources. Here?s what Dr says on page 207:
?We took his whole trip ? really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures.?
*********
Remember I posted of Dr?s on page 30, this thread?s previous page? They were from OMSW p.24 about the Forest Queen mine and on page 26 about the microscope. In those SAME pages Dr credits Kenyon for something, page 25 to be exact.
Now it would be my guess that if Dr mentions in print both Kenyon and BG Leonard, and he sold Bullinger stuff in the bookstore, I?d say Dr was NOT trying to hide anything at all. When people steal something they hide their deed.
Dr TOLD us in print and on tape how God guided other men to come up with many (not all) of the answers that later appeared in PFAL.
Dr TOLD us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from.
Dr TOLD us that once there, he got revelation as to what to accept and what to reject from these Godly teachers.
Once Dr collected from many various sources he then had to get revelation as to the order to place it on film, and then the order to place it in print.
The text of PFAL is a mixture of all the above PLUS any outright ?Take a note, Vic.? revelations from God, and Dr was totally up front in telling us OLGs these things. I don?t know how things were handled for people after the 80?s but all us OLGs know Dr was totally honest with us about the hybrid sources of PFAL text.
Dr never asserted it was by divine dictation, and neither have I. A small amount may have been, but Dr said on the Thessalonians tapes #1 and #11 that most revelation is hashed around a bit before put into written form.
***********
One last note on BG Leonard and his adoring fans I?ve seen here. I could be wrong about this, and I will stand corrected if anyone can pinpoint another name for this story, but I think I remember Dr saying it was BG.
Anyway, what Dr said was that the thing that really built respect in his (Dr?s) mind for him is that Dr saw him throw a student out of the class. This was a literal throwing out, even to the point of throwing him down a flight of stairs! Apparently there was a disagreement and the student was asked to leave. Upon refusing, the student found himself very quickly on the sidewalk below. Dr laughed out loud when he told us this, I think, at AC ?75 at Emporia.
So there were some things that Dr had to discard and omit from PFAL that he learned from these other men of God, flawed as they too were.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 21:34.]
Didn't I tell you I know nothing of such a threat? Did you miss my post? Here it is again:
************
karmicdebt,
What makes you think I even KNOW the answer to your question? I'm not into finding things like that out.
If you don't believe in the truth of the Bible as originally given, they what the heck do you CARE what I believe, what Dr believes, or what GOD says?
Why would you even be interested in such a question?
I'm investigating what happens to me as I OBEY Dr's final instructions. I already KNOW what happened when I (and everyone else) disobeyed Dr's final instructions. Why would I care to inquire about the consequences of unbelief here? The only possible reason I could imagine is to use such a piece of information as a fear motivator. I?m just not into that. Sorry. You?re asking a question that doesn?t hold much of a curiosity lure for me to want to bother to investigate. I?m into knowing what is available from God and how to receive it. The consequences are NOT receiving it. Beyond that I?m quite uninterested.
Hey, I got a question for you: Do I know you? Did we cross paths at all in SD? Your posted history of what happened here was somewhat over abbreviated.
How about the logic handstands one must go through to "prove" that the received scriptures are valid?
Who's able to prove that no valid book of the Bible ever got lost?
Who's able to prove that the adversary hasn't subtly tampered with the academic fields of ancient languages?
Most of us are hardly even AWARE of these subtle leaps of faith required of all believers, but they are there. Most students leave this one for the professors, and the professors quietly shove it under the rug when no one?s looking.
Many guts feel decisions are made. Scholars have to make guts feel guesses about which texts to feel firm with, while English-only students have to make guts feel guesses as to which Greek scholars they can trust with their lives.
**********
Anyway, Goey, it finally time to clear up the famous telescope mystery, an urban legend of GS proportions.
In the same chapter I?ve been quoting from lately, chapter 2 of OMSW, there is an interesting passage. From page 26 I?ve mentioned the microscope Dr challenged us to use in seeing the perfection in God?s Word. In that same chapter, on page 33, Dr mentions ANOTHER Kenyon credit, and this time a telescope is mentioned.
In the very first days of my posting, when I was still learning the ropes, I meant to make mention of Dr?s microscope challenge from OMSW Chapter Two, but I typed ?telescope? by mistake, a merged association from that same chapter.
Once I made the goof, it was quickly spotted by some, and derided as nonsensical. I was still stuck on the mis-association though, and could see what was wrong. When I finally got it, it was too late to correct. I waited all this time to correct it, because there was just never the context or the time. Tonight was the night.
You wrote: ?I find it amazing that no one called mike (GC as I call him) on his forgeries remark. If the translations are forgeries then how can ever know if pfal is god's word? Since piffle uses those "forgeries" and the weakest of the "forgeries" (KJV) then it seems mike mogfot liked it well enough??
You are on to a valid point, but I?d disagree with your choice of some vocabulary to express it. This is a point which I have made here before, but from a slightly more friendly-to-me perspective.
In a nutshell, the answer is that the forgeries work pretty good as approximations.
If the adversary had TOTALLY messed them up people?d know. So he messes up only the most subtle things he needs to mess up to keep the power from flowing. I?ve mentioned before the actual manuscript messing may be minimal. The ways ancient language schools could be messed with is rarely discussed, but it exists. I see this as a target of greater opportunity than the ancient manuscripts. On one strategic point, where the ancient mms may have it relatively together, ALL the language schools may get it wrong. Result: mere approximations make it to the English-only student.
Dr showed that although he had some outrageous things to teach, outrageous to tradition, yet there they were in the Bible (the approximate KJV Bible) all that time. This gave us the confidence to trust him for more. If we get this trust balanced just right so that it isn?t in the extreme of hero worship and it isn?t in the other extreme of skeptical cynicism, then God can work with us to show us He had His hand in there. God will prove His Word to those who come back to PFAL to see it better the second time around.
The received texts and versions like KJV are great for many, many things; good for anything BUT the power. That?s why God had to step in with Power for Abundant Living. He had many agents working on it years, even generations, before Dr showed up. Dr was His last agent to get the revelation into written form, and WE HAVE IT NOW! We are God?s agents to master it and serve it to others.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 22:33.]
I've told you before that I don't trust YOUR application of that chapter, NOR your understanding of that chapter. You haven't earned that kind of respect from me. Dr did. I'm not ignoring you, I just ain't changing my mind on who I trust. I've eaplained how I closed my mind on this subject after 30 some years of deliberation, and that included a lot more information than you can contribute.
I totally throw YOUR argument out of the courtroom of my mind!
So Mike, YOU read it and tell me YOUR application....maybe if I understood how you can dismiss a whole chapter in the bible to that gives us explicit instructions on how to determine the difference between a man of the flesh verses a man of the spirit......possibly I could consider that I am wrong about vp....because galations is what I base my apraisal of vp`s worthiness to recive anything spiritually healthy.
Have you considered the fact that in totally closing your mind to galations that you might be slamming the door on God also?
Mike you threatened us with the following statement:
"All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong."
If you didn't mean it...if it is not really what you meant to imply...if there is no wager for which we are at risk then edit your freakin' post.
And I would not speak to anyone regarding composition when you post a sentence like this one...
"Dr TOLD us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from."
If you want to write it with a lot of extra words that's fine. Then write, "Dr. told us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from, ladies and gentlemen."
But a better sentence is:
Dr. told us he, guided by God, sought answers from certain men.
Come on, Mike didn't you ever read Strunk and White's Elements of Style? I thought every OLG had a copy.
Check the green book...I bet there is a hidden reference to it in there somewhere.
You wrote: "Have you considered the fact that in totally closing your mind to galations that you might be slamming the door on God also?"
Yes! I most certainly DID consider that, and many times too! My closed door was proceeded by many years of open consideration.
I don't see Galatians as being a checklist for determining who will minister the spirit or the Word to us. It's much bigger in scope than that puny SNL Church lady perspective you exude. Galatians is teaching us more how tune things up within our unrenewed minds, not a how-to for setting up churches with ?official? ministers.
The Galatians were not mature enough, having been freshly bewitched, to conduct such high level matters. Paul talks about these matters with Timothy and Titus, but not with the Galatians. You need to study Galatians with the PFAL keys in operation. ...like context. In fact, I see your focus on the flesh as exactly opposite of what Galatians as a whole teaches.
Because you have not earned my trust and respect, and because you HAVE give me much reason to totally DIStrust you, therefore you would be one of the LAST people I would consult to tell me about the heart relationship that Dr had with God. I can?t trust your observations in the book of Galatians, and I can?t trust your firsthand observations of Dr?s personal life, and I can?t trust your choice of friends to relate first hand experiences you may not have to tell about.
People who have positive contributions earn my respect, even if they disagree with me on many matters. I have yet to see any positive contribution to anyone?s renewed mind coming from you on ?my? threads. If you have some on other threads, show me, and you may come up closer to zero form your current state of negative trust.
Your demand that I adopt your perspective is very Craig-like. Are you a control freak?
Have you noticed that ?Christ Formed In You? comes from Galatians 4:19?
You?ve refused to answer my question if I knew you in SD, so I?m beginning to conclude it?s yes. If not, you?d have little reason to refuse. If so, I know we could better communicate if I could take into consideration what you were exposed to here. Are you afraid if I know your identity I might communicate TOO well with you? Oh, well, I?ll respect your privacy, but I?ve been open enough as to who I am. I have no secrets... hardly.
******
You then wrote: ?Mike you threatened us with the following statement: ?All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong.??
Oh THAT! I was referring to the stakes that Steve Lortz had threatened ME with.
You'll have to ask HIM what exactly he had in mind there. Meantime, since you insist, I'll brainstorm a few consequences with you.
It should be obvious that a most severe consequence is coming SOOO close to having something really good, and then letting it slip away. It?s the kick-yourself-in-the-pants consequence. Coming close to "all nine all the time" and getting it snatched away with a mob mentality for sorting baby from bathwater is like getting the big rasberries on "Truth or Consequences."
How about the consequence of missing the Gathering Together? Have you ever wondered if it was volunteer or mandatory? Does it require believing to receive or forced on us in spite of negative believing. How confident are you in Dr?s teaching that you will never see the wrath?
Like I said before, though, I don?t like thinking through this line of reasoning. Why do you insist on it so? Why are you so demanding of me on this? Was there a booby trap I could have fallen into if I answered it wrong in your eyes? If I answered it well would I get points toward converting you to Mikianity?
*********
You then wrote:
"Dr. told us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from, ladies and gentlemen."
and
?Dr. told us he, guided by God, sought answers from certain men.?
Hey! I like what you wrote there!
Looks like I chalked up a few of those points after all. Golly, I wonder what I?ll buy with your abundant sharing.
No Mike, your response is pretty much what I expected...now back to the other question since you have terrible recall except for PFAL and even that is spotty...here is a cut and paste from the thread "promises never fulfilled":
Starting with your post:
Hi Galen,
I can take it, but it seems this thread is bothering others here more. Hey! I?ve been looking for your e-mail address. You posted it on the old GS, before it?s present incarnation, and I wrote you once. Since then I found out we both know Frank, here in SD. Please write me someday, ok?
Bumbyrama,
As long as you hide out in your secret troll identity it?s hard to answer your charges. Did we meet in a previous lifetime? Is this how you skip out on your karmic debt? ...by throwing accusations at people? ...by pretending that you know me when we?ve never met, not even once?
What?s your REAL problem with me?
I?ll leave this thread now so that you can get back to haranguing me unhampered. By the way, I think it?s somewhat dishonest (in most circumstances, Paw, I can think of) to change handles, but retain the same personality. You need not be spooked by thoughts of me creeping around the board or into this thread in an alter handle ego costume.
Mike, I really hope you are not refering to me in anyway. I know you make up memory as it suits you....this person wants something you said you give. keep me out of it, psycho. You don't know who I am either....
PS: The last thing I want is reading material from you.
Well, to tell the truth, I'm pretty confused here on this thread as to who's who...
who I promised a book to...
who lived in SD...
who knows me...
If you and/or Bump can e-mail me with your actual identities, then I can answer the latest charges against me.
I haven't promised that many books, and in only one case do I remember backing off from a person who had initially contacted me. Until this post, you karmicdebt, were the only person I thought fit that situation.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 13:14.]
Ok, Ok. I did a little research in my e-mail files. I?m not doing too well with my promise to only post once here, but little mysteries sometimes need to be solved.
******************
karmicdebt, I apologize.
If you are who I think you are, I wanted to give you a Blue Book, but our schedules didn?t mesh to your satisfaction, and you asked that I not call you anymore. I didn?t call or write any more. You had initially contacted me by e-mail from my e-address posted here at GS. We never met in person, but exchanged a few e-mails and about 3 phone calls. That was the end of our contact ...if you are who I?m guessing.
******************
Bumbyrama,
If you are who I think you are, and again I?m guessing, my e-mail records show no promise of any book whatsoever to you. You were posting heavily on eph320.com and asked if anyone knew where Frank was, the same Frank that Galen and I know, mentioned above. So I responded to your request, we e-mailed about ten times. Then you suddenly stopped answering my letters, and I noticed a lot of situations in your family life requiring prayer from your many, many posts on eph320. I did pray as you requested.
I think you may have lost track of me during your all you many postings there. Then you came here to GS and saw the fur flying. Maybe you picked up on some other situation involving promised books, and erroneously thought I had promised you a book.
That's one theory. Another theory is that I'm not the same Mike you think I am. I have posted MANY clues to my identity, Mike is my actual given name that I've always gone by, and I've posted my e-mail address. If you had a real beef with me, why didn't you confront me privately first? That's how Jesus taught we should do it. Why splash it in public and distract many people needlesly?
I suggest you search your e-mail files and see that there was no promise of books at all. If I?m wrong, there?ll be a UPS truck headed in your direction with anything I promised. I think you fell in with the crowd mentality here and started picking up stones because it looked like all the others were having such fun getting on my case. This is all I know about all this, and I feel pretty darned innocent.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 13:20.]
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 16:55.]
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 16:58.]
No - Mike, I have a blue book. I did not contact you. And we never exchanged e-mails. And I may be pushy on the boards, but like all passive/aggressive ex-cult members, I have excellent phone manners.
Ok karmicdebt. This is pretty confusing. Now I have to re-think the MH situation, if you're not her.
BTW, along with my apology, I edited out the "pushy" comment.
posted April 25, 2003 13:12
________________________________________
End of cut and paste.
Last thing...sorry no ABS...I bought a 32" Sony flat screen with it...I enjoy sweet fellowship with the Father watching it for He is always with me.... :)-->
Oh WOW! What a flashback! You're right, I lost the detail where youu said I did not know you. I do pay more attention to doctrine, but people are important too. I have had a difficult time getting to know all the 74 posters pirate1974 culled plus others, and keeping each one's details in mind is challenging to say the least.
Thanks for answering my question this second time.
...and if you ever change your mind about the... nevermind...
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
Exy,
That pic appears to be from one of my favorite books. I met the author.
Is there any way you can trim it? It's stretching the page.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
wyteduv58,
As every good English teacher knows, the more you consideration put into your writing, the more consideration you can expect from your reader.
OLG stands for Older Leader Grads.
It's a very loose term for those grads who were even just a little matured in PFAL during the period 1982-85. I feel it was us OLGs who dropped the ball by failing to perceive and obey Dr's post presidency ministry. It was also us OLGs who saw PFAL work well in the 70's, so we are the ones with the most motivation to come back to PFAL.
It was us OLGs who were the many villains who REALLY took down the ministry. We were the ones who were supposed to be representing Dr?s ministry to new people, but we got sloppy in our memory of the written forms of PFAL, and refused to refresh those memories when repeatedly told to master the written materials.
We OLGs repeatedly disobeyed him from 1979 to 1985 and I have posted the proof here.
If you took the class after 1985 you are COMPLETELY innocent of these charges.
We OLGs started taking the ministry away from the Word almost immediately after Dr stepped down from power in late 1982. By 1985 we OLGs were so far out, so deep into our own counterfeits, that we universally ignored his dying last words to us, and his final instructions fell to the floor. Anything good that happened in the ministry after 1985 was grace and grace alone.
*****
You then wrote: ?Another thought came to me.....if pfal is God breathed, then God didn't give it to VPW, he gave it to B G Leonard, Bullinger, Stiles and all the others that VPW stole from. Victor just had the audacity to credit himself with "the God breathed word" that wasn't his to begin with.?
I?m just reading pages 206 and 207 of ?The Way Living In Love? where Dr remembers taking BG Leonard?s class. So Dr didn?t credit himself as you charge, he credited BG for helping him with ideas for the PFAL class.
Here?s what you forgot, or never read, and got caught up in the mob accusing Dr of not crediting his 5-senses sources. Here?s what Dr says on page 207:
?We took his whole trip ? really learned a lot about the other manifestations of the holy spirit. But he worked from experiences. I worked what he taught from the accuracy of the Scriptures.?
*********
Remember I posted of Dr?s on page 30, this thread?s previous page? They were from OMSW p.24 about the Forest Queen mine and on page 26 about the microscope. In those SAME pages Dr credits Kenyon for something, page 25 to be exact.
Now it would be my guess that if Dr mentions in print both Kenyon and BG Leonard, and he sold Bullinger stuff in the bookstore, I?d say Dr was NOT trying to hide anything at all. When people steal something they hide their deed.
Dr TOLD us in print and on tape how God guided other men to come up with many (not all) of the answers that later appeared in PFAL.
Dr TOLD us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from.
Dr TOLD us that once there, he got revelation as to what to accept and what to reject from these Godly teachers.
Once Dr collected from many various sources he then had to get revelation as to the order to place it on film, and then the order to place it in print.
The text of PFAL is a mixture of all the above PLUS any outright ?Take a note, Vic.? revelations from God, and Dr was totally up front in telling us OLGs these things. I don?t know how things were handled for people after the 80?s but all us OLGs know Dr was totally honest with us about the hybrid sources of PFAL text.
Dr never asserted it was by divine dictation, and neither have I. A small amount may have been, but Dr said on the Thessalonians tapes #1 and #11 that most revelation is hashed around a bit before put into written form.
***********
One last note on BG Leonard and his adoring fans I?ve seen here. I could be wrong about this, and I will stand corrected if anyone can pinpoint another name for this story, but I think I remember Dr saying it was BG.
Anyway, what Dr said was that the thing that really built respect in his (Dr?s) mind for him is that Dr saw him throw a student out of the class. This was a literal throwing out, even to the point of throwing him down a flight of stairs! Apparently there was a disagreement and the student was asked to leave. Upon refusing, the student found himself very quickly on the sidewalk below. Dr laughed out loud when he told us this, I think, at AC ?75 at Emporia.
So there were some things that Dr had to discard and omit from PFAL that he learned from these other men of God, flawed as they too were.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 21:34.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cindy!
you say nothing yet you use a lot of words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
karmicdebt,
Didn't I tell you I know nothing of such a threat? Did you miss my post? Here it is again:
************
karmicdebt,
What makes you think I even KNOW the answer to your question? I'm not into finding things like that out.
If you don't believe in the truth of the Bible as originally given, they what the heck do you CARE what I believe, what Dr believes, or what GOD says?
Why would you even be interested in such a question?
I'm investigating what happens to me as I OBEY Dr's final instructions. I already KNOW what happened when I (and everyone else) disobeyed Dr's final instructions. Why would I care to inquire about the consequences of unbelief here? The only possible reason I could imagine is to use such a piece of information as a fear motivator. I?m just not into that. Sorry. You?re asking a question that doesn?t hold much of a curiosity lure for me to want to bother to investigate. I?m into knowing what is available from God and how to receive it. The consequences are NOT receiving it. Beyond that I?m quite uninterested.
Hey, I got a question for you: Do I know you? Did we cross paths at all in SD? Your posted history of what happened here was somewhat over abbreviated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
How about the logic handstands one must go through to "prove" that the received scriptures are valid?
Who's able to prove that no valid book of the Bible ever got lost?
Who's able to prove that the adversary hasn't subtly tampered with the academic fields of ancient languages?
Most of us are hardly even AWARE of these subtle leaps of faith required of all believers, but they are there. Most students leave this one for the professors, and the professors quietly shove it under the rug when no one?s looking.
Many guts feel decisions are made. Scholars have to make guts feel guesses about which texts to feel firm with, while English-only students have to make guts feel guesses as to which Greek scholars they can trust with their lives.
**********
Anyway, Goey, it finally time to clear up the famous telescope mystery, an urban legend of GS proportions.
In the same chapter I?ve been quoting from lately, chapter 2 of OMSW, there is an interesting passage. From page 26 I?ve mentioned the microscope Dr challenged us to use in seeing the perfection in God?s Word. In that same chapter, on page 33, Dr mentions ANOTHER Kenyon credit, and this time a telescope is mentioned.
In the very first days of my posting, when I was still learning the ropes, I meant to make mention of Dr?s microscope challenge from OMSW Chapter Two, but I typed ?telescope? by mistake, a merged association from that same chapter.
Once I made the goof, it was quickly spotted by some, and derided as nonsensical. I was still stuck on the mis-association though, and could see what was wrong. When I finally got it, it was too late to correct. I waited all this time to correct it, because there was just never the context or the time. Tonight was the night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You wrote: ?I find it amazing that no one called mike (GC as I call him) on his forgeries remark. If the translations are forgeries then how can ever know if pfal is god's word? Since piffle uses those "forgeries" and the weakest of the "forgeries" (KJV) then it seems mike mogfot liked it well enough??
You are on to a valid point, but I?d disagree with your choice of some vocabulary to express it. This is a point which I have made here before, but from a slightly more friendly-to-me perspective.
In a nutshell, the answer is that the forgeries work pretty good as approximations.
If the adversary had TOTALLY messed them up people?d know. So he messes up only the most subtle things he needs to mess up to keep the power from flowing. I?ve mentioned before the actual manuscript messing may be minimal. The ways ancient language schools could be messed with is rarely discussed, but it exists. I see this as a target of greater opportunity than the ancient manuscripts. On one strategic point, where the ancient mms may have it relatively together, ALL the language schools may get it wrong. Result: mere approximations make it to the English-only student.
Dr showed that although he had some outrageous things to teach, outrageous to tradition, yet there they were in the Bible (the approximate KJV Bible) all that time. This gave us the confidence to trust him for more. If we get this trust balanced just right so that it isn?t in the extreme of hero worship and it isn?t in the other extreme of skeptical cynicism, then God can work with us to show us He had His hand in there. God will prove His Word to those who come back to PFAL to see it better the second time around.
The received texts and versions like KJV are great for many, many things; good for anything BUT the power. That?s why God had to step in with Power for Abundant Living. He had many agents working on it years, even generations, before Dr showed up. Dr was His last agent to get the revelation into written form, and WE HAVE IT NOW! We are God?s agents to master it and serve it to others.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 03, 2003 at 22:33.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks Exy,
But now I can't see Nurse Kratchet's face!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
def59,
You are an OLG.
I?m an OLG too. I was a lower level leader myself: twig coordinator.
Goey and EWB got it pretty right. Thanks guys. I wrote my post explaining OLG before I read your explanations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Come on Mike, are you ignoring me because you can`t argue with gal.5?
You have to totally throw out that chapter in the bible in order to acknowledge vp as a Godly leader.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
I've told you before that I don't trust YOUR application of that chapter, NOR your understanding of that chapter. You haven't earned that kind of respect from me. Dr did. I'm not ignoring you, I just ain't changing my mind on who I trust. I've eaplained how I closed my mind on this subject after 30 some years of deliberation, and that included a lot more information than you can contribute.
I totally throw YOUR argument out of the courtroom of my mind!
Next case!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
So Mike, YOU read it and tell me YOUR application....maybe if I understood how you can dismiss a whole chapter in the bible to that gives us explicit instructions on how to determine the difference between a man of the flesh verses a man of the spirit......possibly I could consider that I am wrong about vp....because galations is what I base my apraisal of vp`s worthiness to recive anything spiritually healthy.
Have you considered the fact that in totally closing your mind to galations that you might be slamming the door on God also?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
Mike you threatened us with the following statement:
"All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong."
If you didn't mean it...if it is not really what you meant to imply...if there is no wager for which we are at risk then edit your freakin' post.
And I would not speak to anyone regarding composition when you post a sentence like this one...
"Dr TOLD us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from."
If you want to write it with a lot of extra words that's fine. Then write, "Dr. told us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from, ladies and gentlemen."
But a better sentence is:
Dr. told us he, guided by God, sought answers from certain men.
Come on, Mike didn't you ever read Strunk and White's Elements of Style? I thought every OLG had a copy.
Check the green book...I bet there is a hidden reference to it in there somewhere.
big kiss!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
You wrote: "Have you considered the fact that in totally closing your mind to galations that you might be slamming the door on God also?"
Yes! I most certainly DID consider that, and many times too! My closed door was proceeded by many years of open consideration.
I don't see Galatians as being a checklist for determining who will minister the spirit or the Word to us. It's much bigger in scope than that puny SNL Church lady perspective you exude. Galatians is teaching us more how tune things up within our unrenewed minds, not a how-to for setting up churches with ?official? ministers.
The Galatians were not mature enough, having been freshly bewitched, to conduct such high level matters. Paul talks about these matters with Timothy and Titus, but not with the Galatians. You need to study Galatians with the PFAL keys in operation. ...like context. In fact, I see your focus on the flesh as exactly opposite of what Galatians as a whole teaches.
Because you have not earned my trust and respect, and because you HAVE give me much reason to totally DIStrust you, therefore you would be one of the LAST people I would consult to tell me about the heart relationship that Dr had with God. I can?t trust your observations in the book of Galatians, and I can?t trust your firsthand observations of Dr?s personal life, and I can?t trust your choice of friends to relate first hand experiences you may not have to tell about.
People who have positive contributions earn my respect, even if they disagree with me on many matters. I have yet to see any positive contribution to anyone?s renewed mind coming from you on ?my? threads. If you have some on other threads, show me, and you may come up closer to zero form your current state of negative trust.
Your demand that I adopt your perspective is very Craig-like. Are you a control freak?
Have you noticed that ?Christ Formed In You? comes from Galatians 4:19?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
karmicdebt,
You?ve refused to answer my question if I knew you in SD, so I?m beginning to conclude it?s yes. If not, you?d have little reason to refuse. If so, I know we could better communicate if I could take into consideration what you were exposed to here. Are you afraid if I know your identity I might communicate TOO well with you? Oh, well, I?ll respect your privacy, but I?ve been open enough as to who I am. I have no secrets... hardly.
******
You then wrote: ?Mike you threatened us with the following statement: ?All I can say is control your emotions, and consider how high the stakes are if you?re wrong.??
Oh THAT! I was referring to the stakes that Steve Lortz had threatened ME with.
You'll have to ask HIM what exactly he had in mind there. Meantime, since you insist, I'll brainstorm a few consequences with you.
It should be obvious that a most severe consequence is coming SOOO close to having something really good, and then letting it slip away. It?s the kick-yourself-in-the-pants consequence. Coming close to "all nine all the time" and getting it snatched away with a mob mentality for sorting baby from bathwater is like getting the big rasberries on "Truth or Consequences."
How about the consequence of missing the Gathering Together? Have you ever wondered if it was volunteer or mandatory? Does it require believing to receive or forced on us in spite of negative believing. How confident are you in Dr?s teaching that you will never see the wrath?
Like I said before, though, I don?t like thinking through this line of reasoning. Why do you insist on it so? Why are you so demanding of me on this? Was there a booby trap I could have fallen into if I answered it wrong in your eyes? If I answered it well would I get points toward converting you to Mikianity?
*********
You then wrote:
"Dr. told us that he was guided by God as to which men to seek answers from, ladies and gentlemen."
and
?Dr. told us he, guided by God, sought answers from certain men.?
Hey! I like what you wrote there!
Looks like I chalked up a few of those points after all. Golly, I wonder what I?ll buy with your abundant sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mike -
"As every good English teacher knows, the more you consideration put into your writing, the more consideration you can expect from your reader. "
I hate to nit-pick, but would you please give further consideration to the first part of that tortured phrase?
It's late, I know.
Happy 4th to everyone here.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oops! Thanks for the tip.
How's this:
"As every well English teacher knows goodly, the more you consideration put into your expect, the more writing you can consider from your reader."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
No Mike, your response is pretty much what I expected...now back to the other question since you have terrible recall except for PFAL and even that is spotty...here is a cut and paste from the thread "promises never fulfilled":
Starting with your post:
Hi Galen,
I can take it, but it seems this thread is bothering others here more. Hey! I?ve been looking for your e-mail address. You posted it on the old GS, before it?s present incarnation, and I wrote you once. Since then I found out we both know Frank, here in SD. Please write me someday, ok?
Bumbyrama,
As long as you hide out in your secret troll identity it?s hard to answer your charges. Did we meet in a previous lifetime? Is this how you skip out on your karmic debt? ...by throwing accusations at people? ...by pretending that you know me when we?ve never met, not even once?
What?s your REAL problem with me?
I?ll leave this thread now so that you can get back to haranguing me unhampered. By the way, I think it?s somewhat dishonest (in most circumstances, Paw, I can think of) to change handles, but retain the same personality. You need not be spooked by thoughts of me creeping around the board or into this thread in an alter handle ego costume.
posted April 25, 2003 11:38
_________________________________________________________________
karmicdebt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike, I really hope you are not refering to me in anyway. I know you make up memory as it suits you....this person wants something you said you give. keep me out of it, psycho. You don't know who I am either....
PS: The last thing I want is reading material from you.
posted April 25, 2003 11:54
______________________________________________________________
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, to tell the truth, I'm pretty confused here on this thread as to who's who...
who I promised a book to...
who lived in SD...
who knows me...
If you and/or Bump can e-mail me with your actual identities, then I can answer the latest charges against me.
I haven't promised that many books, and in only one case do I remember backing off from a person who had initially contacted me. Until this post, you karmicdebt, were the only person I thought fit that situation.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 13:14.]
posted April 25, 2003 12:25
______________________________________________________________
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, Ok. I did a little research in my e-mail files. I?m not doing too well with my promise to only post once here, but little mysteries sometimes need to be solved.
******************
karmicdebt, I apologize.
If you are who I think you are, I wanted to give you a Blue Book, but our schedules didn?t mesh to your satisfaction, and you asked that I not call you anymore. I didn?t call or write any more. You had initially contacted me by e-mail from my e-address posted here at GS. We never met in person, but exchanged a few e-mails and about 3 phone calls. That was the end of our contact ...if you are who I?m guessing.
******************
Bumbyrama,
If you are who I think you are, and again I?m guessing, my e-mail records show no promise of any book whatsoever to you. You were posting heavily on eph320.com and asked if anyone knew where Frank was, the same Frank that Galen and I know, mentioned above. So I responded to your request, we e-mailed about ten times. Then you suddenly stopped answering my letters, and I noticed a lot of situations in your family life requiring prayer from your many, many posts on eph320. I did pray as you requested.
I think you may have lost track of me during your all you many postings there. Then you came here to GS and saw the fur flying. Maybe you picked up on some other situation involving promised books, and erroneously thought I had promised you a book.
That's one theory. Another theory is that I'm not the same Mike you think I am. I have posted MANY clues to my identity, Mike is my actual given name that I've always gone by, and I've posted my e-mail address. If you had a real beef with me, why didn't you confront me privately first? That's how Jesus taught we should do it. Why splash it in public and distract many people needlesly?
I suggest you search your e-mail files and see that there was no promise of books at all. If I?m wrong, there?ll be a UPS truck headed in your direction with anything I promised. I think you fell in with the crowd mentality here and started picking up stones because it looked like all the others were having such fun getting on my case. This is all I know about all this, and I feel pretty darned innocent.
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 13:20.]
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 16:55.]
[This message was edited by Mike on April 25, 2003 at 16:58.]
posted April 25, 2003 12:53
____________________________________________________________________
karmicdebt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No - Mike, I have a blue book. I did not contact you. And we never exchanged e-mails. And I may be pushy on the boards, but like all passive/aggressive ex-cult members, I have excellent phone manners.
posted April 25, 2003 12:58
______________________________________________________________________
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok karmicdebt. This is pretty confusing. Now I have to re-think the MH situation, if you're not her.
BTW, along with my apology, I edited out the "pushy" comment.
posted April 25, 2003 13:12
________________________________________
End of cut and paste.
Last thing...sorry no ABS...I bought a 32" Sony flat screen with it...I enjoy sweet fellowship with the Father watching it for He is always with me....
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
karmicdebt,
Oh WOW! What a flashback! You're right, I lost the detail where youu said I did not know you. I do pay more attention to doctrine, but people are important too. I have had a difficult time getting to know all the 74 posters pirate1974 culled plus others, and keeping each one's details in mind is challenging to say the least.
Thanks for answering my question this second time.
...and if you ever change your mind about the... nevermind...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Ouch. Sounds like something my German translation software would churn out.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Why?
Are them Germans in an even later time zone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
?¥µéü?????ã?
Don'tcha see it peepul?
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
WordWolf
Fair's fair, Mike.
You discard anything we say that's not
line-by-line directly out of the books, claiming
we have faulty memories, or problems with tapes,
and so on.
However, you find it acceptable to make comments
about things you were TOLD.
Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your
system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable
when Mike does it".
Amazingly, you missed something in your OWN
citation. You claim VPW offered full disclosure
in his passing comment in that book, in regards
to BG Leonard. That quote makes it clear that
he was claiming that BG Leonard was a LIGHTWEIGHT
concerning SCRIPTURE, which is the ONE issue VPW
claims was uniquely his OWN. He claimed he took
what BG Leonard taught and then ADDED Scripture to
it, making for a heavier punch. What has been
demonstrated was a direct lifting of material from
Leonard. If you took out the direct quoted
material from BG Leonard, JE Stiles, EW Bullinger,
and EW Kenyon, there would be almost no writing
in the PFAL books at all.
Please cite the book and page where VPW claims
that he "assembled" the class from work by the
4 authors, rather than authoring it himself.
Again, references to Stiles and Leonard were
nearly nonexistent. Considering how much of the
PFAL Foundational class was their work, you would
think, if he was offering full disclosure, we'd
be able to at least single out a handful of
doctrines that VPW claimed he learned from them.
Instead, we have them teaching him a little here
and there in a practical sense, and then him
going to the Bible and working the material
himself.
-------------------------------------------------
On a related subject....
Are you aware that there were whole research teams
at hq that produced some of the weightier,
"original" books? "Jesus Christ:Our Passover",
for example, was a hefty book written by the
research dept and edited by VPW. Ever see the
words "edited by" on the covers? No? Is it
because he didn't know the names of the research
team? Is it because they refused to allow their
names to be connected with their work? Is it
because he just thought the manuscripts just
materialized, and he had no idea the research team
had done it?
Or was it a matter of VPW wanting all the credit?
I'm sure you'll have a creative answer to that one
that absolves VPW of that, somehow. To the rest
of us, it sounds at least somewhat deceptive, even
dishonest. It would be like me taking credit for
writing all the intelligent rebuttals that Rafael,
Goey and Zixar wrote to your doctrines.
Somehow, it's not something we can just blow off.
-------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Oh, Mike?
You ARE aware that "Order My Steps in Thy Word"
WAS published posthumously, right? That the
editing process was NOT overseen by VPW, right?
You ARE aware that the main editor of "OMSW" was
possibly the ONLY "OLG" to ever invoke the name
of BG Leonard, even in passing, right?
So, you ARE aware that there is a VERY STRONG
possibility that Kenyon's name coming up might
have been an editorial insertion, right?
Supposedly, VPW's style should remain fairly
static throughout the years, and major changes in
style are likely to be the results of other
things, like a complete change of the editorial
process. That book has a somewhat different
"feel" than the first four-you DID notice that,
right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
...ixnay Ordwolfway...
(~~I hope he can read this secret code~~)
...OMSW was ublishedpay a few onthsmay before his eathday... I got the apetay...
... an ideovay of the ookbay, red cover and all, like on e-bay...
...it was acedplay in the ornerstoncay of the auditorium at it?s peningoay an onthmay before Dr iedday...
...the alleysgay were oneday a few onthsmay before that...
...all but one apterchay is a re-work of eviouspay agazinemay articles...
...where you gettin your ataday oybay?...
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.