You are rediculous Mike, I am not offering ANY type of control...and if you see Craig in me, you are indeed even more spriritually, and perceptionally obtuse than heretofore imagined...
I didn`t ask you to trust me Mike, didn`t ask you to adopt my pov....don`t care if you do or not, I ASK you to examin gal. and trust THAT!.
I ASK you to explain how you can dismiss a whole chapter of the bible in support of your hypothesis.
It is as always Mike you cannot logically support your dismisal of a very relevant section of scripture ....and so you have to get nasty, invent a persona in me and then attack THAT ....
(That was pretty tricky, turning the post around from your lack of defense... to me having to defend myself and my integrety to you)
You are not interested in the truth, just defending your idol at all cost....that is sad.
I'm thankful to God that I was taught His Word, and the ONLY man who really inspired in me a love for the truth of the Scriptures was Victor Paul Wierwille. Without his teaching I'd be lost, so I'm glad I was found.
Any grad who cannot be similarly thankful is in sad need of recognizing what really counts in this life.
I love truth, but your religion of hate and disgust I'll have no part of. The more you try to foist it on me the uglier it looks. Your understanding of Galatians is pathetic. You're stuck in the SNL church lady mold without a laughs. I'd take the imbalance of licentiousness any day, over the imbalance of law your religion exudes. Your take on us children selecting men to represent God is unacceptable to me. God selected VPW to minister His Word to us and it got done. Your rejection of God?s man is not only impotent, but it?s also several decades late. Your rejection of him does not thwart God?s plan, except perhaps the blessings intended for you.
God did not submit Dr as a possible minister to us for our approval, to be scrutinized by readers of Galatians or Timothy to see if he qualifies. No, it didn?t happen that way at all. God selected Dr IN SPITE of your religion?s objections and placed him in the Body as it pleased Him. God didn?t ask you or anyone else if Dr was an acceptable choice; Dr was God?s choice and that overrules any objections you may have ex post facto.
Ummm Mike, my post still stands...you cannot logically dismiss the instruction of an entire book of the bible, and so...in order to maintain face ....to protect your doctrine, in frustration ... you have to turn it into a personal attack and false accusations against me. How perfectly childish....
I have no religion, of hate or otherwise....I DO however detest evil....and I have seen that there was plenty evil in twi to hate.
No ... God DIDN`T submit vp for our aproval, HOWEVER, if vp HAD been a man of the spirit, capable of recieving revelation from God, he WOULD have submitted HIMSELF to the standard laid out by God in galations for a man after the spirit.
He would not have used the scriptures to hide and justify his sinfull fleshly nature....sorry friend...rage at me all you want, but it was GOD ALMIGHTY who saw fit to lay it all out clearly in galations so that we WOULDN`T be decieved ....had we been paying attention to that....twi would have never had a chance!
As an aside note.....Do you imagine for one miniute, that your anger manifested towards us, your christian bretheren ...... your many unjustified accusations towards our personal character and assigning of false beliefs... the maligning , unrelenting personal attacks against your brothers and sisters is in ANY way remotely pleasing to God?
Isn`t there a verse somewhere about if you CAN`T love your bro`s that you CAN see?
You know, it`s funny how the ONLY law of religion, as you accuse me being consumed with...is simply asking you to honor what God laid out in galations as the standard for a Godly man....... the scriptures in your above post that you purportedly learned to love under vp`s tutelege.....
Because I ask you to believe those scriptures vp touted..you turn me into some hate mongering religious biggot in your mind......THAT way you can *safely* dismiss my valid point in you mind......
[This message was edited by rascal on July 04, 2003 at 13:25.]
You wrote: ?...you cannot logically dismiss the instruction of an entire book of the bible...?
Correct, but I can dismiss YOUR interpretation and application of that book.
I can dismiss it, and I DID dismiss it.
Your religion is evident in your activities. How much time do you spend in trying to thwart of derail my efforts? Your preoccupation with another man?s sin is most disgusting. The darkness you fill your life with is sad. The loving thing for me to do is not join you and be on the lookout for an opportunity to help you out of it. I will not join you, and I will eventually ignore your repeated nagging to reopen the case. One of the few reasons I don?t ignore you now is I still believe that this conversation can be profitable in bringing out details that fit into my message plan. Maybe before the final ignore mode, I?ll try an exhaustive paste job of all the times I?ve treated this very topic. Maybe I?ll just paste in one repeat, like a summer TV re-run, for each nag job you come up with.
Hey! I just had an idea to simplify things. Mike, please teach me the three most important messages from your new understanding of VPW's work. 18 paragraphs or less, OK? Aw, come on, Jesus boiled his stuff down to "Love God and love your neighbor". I'm sure you can give me your own condensed version. I'm totally serious.?
***
MIKE:
I witness a lot, because I like it. I?ve constructed my entire lifestyle around witnessing. One useful trick I have learned is to never ask people for anything at the top of any list. It?s too challenging a question, and people get too easily bogged down in deciding between close ties.
So, I?ve learned to ask them questions like: ?If you had the chance for ANY of your top ten questions about God answered, what would be one of them. It doesn?t have to be first, just ANY of your top ten questions. Pick a random one.?
This takes the pressure off of them to wax philosophic about making sure their priorities look good. It?s a little the same for me. I?d have to do a lot of analysis before I could arrive at a top three. I?ll give you a few high priority ones:
* God works with sinful men, in spite of their flesh, to do great spiritual things.
* God has reissued His Word for us in PFAL, and it?s better than all human efforts to reconstruct and translate the ancient scriptures. It?s like how He re-issued His Word with Moses, after it had been corrupted in the stars. It involved a format change.
* We need to graduate from mental assenting to the PFAL message to mastering it in believing. Most of our ?believing? in the good old days was mental assent.
There?s three biggies. There are others, even bigger, but they fall on deaf ears until the above are acknowledged. I?ve tried posting some of the bigger items, but they are usually ignored.
***
POSTER:
Out of the three messages you chose to share, I can apply the first one to my life. But this is not a profound new message. Everybody knows God works around our screw-ups. And lots of folks do great spiritual things.
***
MIKE:
There are two extreme applications of this principle that may be passing you by. The first is that God DID INDEED work very closely with Dr to bring forth His Word like it has not been known since the first century. One of the MAJOR themes in this GS atmosphere is that God was not willing or able to do this with Dr because of his flesh failures.
The other extreme application is that we are to do all the things that Jesus Christ did, all nine all the time. None of us has learned the ?other? six manifestations yet, like we did learn the first three. There is a reason. Dr?s teachings are the only ones I know of where we believers are not to follow Jesus Christ at a distance, but that we are to fill his shoes, and BECOME him. Most grads totally forgot that we are supposed to become The Word in the flesh.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 04, 2003 at 14:44.]
You wrote: ?Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable when Mike does it".?
I see anecdotal information as useful in sowing up a subject after the main data has been considered, like a confirmation. It?s like numbers in scripture: where blazing a new trail with numerology is a dubious methodology, but seeing interesting confirmation in numbers as a last step is acceptable.
I would never try to build anything on anecdotal information, but final decorations with it can be ok. I just think it is sadly interesting how people who beat themselves up for falling into hero worship with Dr, now look with big goo-goo eyes at new heroes like Bullinger and Kenyon and BG Leonard. I thought a little anecdotal information on BG?s tough army general M.O. was called for, seeing how conveniently forgotten it was.
As for BG being a lightweight in VP?s eyes, I wouldn?t agree with that. Did you read the entire passage? I only quoted a tiny sliver. I see Dr as thankful to God for those teachers of his and that thankfulness rubs off onto me. We all have a place in the Body, and no member can be said to be lightweight. It is the case that Dr?s job was one of pulling together and refining. Dr taught a lot of things missing from BG?s understanding. Dr had the believing to move it around the world and BG didn?t. Dr reached me, and BG couldn?t have.
Have you forgotten how Dr taught us there is no such thing as originality and that all new ideas come spiritually? Why do you worship this non-existent commodity of originality? Have you ever wondered what will happen to your world if you were to find that BG or Kenyon ?lifted? some of their material from an uncited source? It?s SURELY the case that they did! Everyone does in to some degree, cutting and pasting, mixing and matching lifted elements and re-packaging them as something new. Have you looked into the George Harrison case where he was ?convicted? of lifting a song from another writer? It?s quite interesting how all that happened.
Dr referenced his teachers lots of times, but not formally, as you seem to insist on, ex post facto. You are all hung up on ego when you insist on this. What?s the PURPOSE of formal citations? In academia it?s to spur further research where a student may search out the sources of an author?s work to improve on of go beyond that author?s understanding. That?s fine for academia, but here we encounter the end of the line on ?going beyond.?
I see no possibility of going beyond God-breathed writings, so footnote citations are useless to me, a meek student of God?s selected teacher. Footnotes clutter up books. I think it?s nice that some of Dr?s books are footnote free. Some others do have lots of footnotes, and that?s fine too.
To me, the big hoopla is just a bit ego trip. Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good product. Instead of you getting ruffled ego feathers that Dr had his part in the Body, why don?t you find out what YOUR glorious part in the body is? I?m sure God has more in store for you than being an internet Lone Ranger fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for truth justice and the American way! I?m also sure that within PFAL is the key for us ALL to maximize our potential in Christ.
We OLGs were all gathered together in the class back in those 70?s for a reason, a GODLY reason. It looked like all was lost for a decade there, but now there has been a resurrection. It?s now all coming out that God had a great plan for us then in PFAL but EVEN MORE is the case that God has a GREATER plan for us NOW in PFAL.
This plan is most awesome!
There are still some more things in the print/tape record about the Return of Christ and the Appearing and the Gathering Together that I?ve only dared hint at, but sooner or later I?ll be posting them in full... I hope...
All ego trips will fade when it is seen that Dr?s part in this plan is not NEARLY as glorious as ours!
Dr said, and wrote, and even chiseled in stone ?I wish I were the man I know to be.? When we see what we get to enjoy in PFAL, we?ll see that we CAN NOW BECOME that man Dr knew to be, and put into written form for us.
We get to become that man Dr wished he could become but couldn?t!
Dr admitted he fell short of the PFAL man, the new man, the Jesus Christ men and women we can now become. This here is a much higher level confession of his own shortcomings and guilt by Dr than anyone here on GS has yet thought to demand.
It?s very much like Moses not getting to enter the promised land for his sin, but WE DO GET TO ENTER. The PFAL writings are our guide.
*************
You then wrote: ?Are you aware that there were whole research teams
at hq that produced some of the weightier, "original" books??
Yes. In the 70?s I knew some of those team members. I lived with one. I pumped them with questions back then as part of my natural curiosity, and then again in the last 5 years as part of my PFAL revival.
I have systematically sought out and sorted MUCH information about these teams. I see many parallels between them and similar ancient teams that put earlier revelations into written form. I?ve mentioned some such teams here: Paul/Timothy/Silas and Jeuemiah/Baruch. There are many others in the OT. All the scriptures were produced this way, as body of people working together with God. God?s selected men had many assistants and consultants, like Jethro was to Moses.
Dr mentions his team at the end of the Preface in RHST. He credits them with Biblical (5-senses/mental/scholarly) abilities AND spiritual abilities (revelation and inspiration). I believe that part of the PFAL revelations being put into written form involves Dr's team members operating all nine manifestations. I know that in all my ministry activities, at HQ and on the field, I always TRIED to get revelation where needed. I think sometimes it worked, too! All nine some of the time is better than nothing. I saw MANY people getting revelation back then. Ralph and others have testified here of the power that flowed from US, and not at all confined to the research and print teams.
Yes. I?ve included this in my pondering, in great detail, and for 30 year?s.
***********
You then wrote: ?"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??
It is a well established custom for team leaders to place their name on the cover as author, and not the names of all the contributing researchers. All graduate schools I am aware of operate this way. The professor teaches the students a general concept with some details filled in. The students, as part of their training, contribute their efforts back to the teacher in the form of research and collecting of MORE details to fill out more. The teacher gets the professional credit on the final paper or book, but the teacher also must bear the responsibility of the integrity of the work. The teacher gets the honors, but the liability also.
Bullinger did it this way. Much of what he did was the grunt work of his graduate students.
When I first heard of the team effort books in the 70?s I looked into this well established custom. Some of the team members themselves told me of how it worked. They considered it a privilege to serve in this particular way, and an excellent learning opportunity as well. Everyone benefited. There was no ego problem of Dr?s name going on the final product. The ultimate glory REALLY goes to God Who REALLY authored it.
***********
Lastly you wrote of OMSW: ?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??
Yes, I have noticed a BIG difference in the revelation that book embraces. The transition from pre?82, 5-senses perspective, magazine articles into post?82, spiritual perspective, book chapters is quite spectacular. How God pulled off the slight changes in format and the great changes in perspective are irrelevant to me. Whether He utilized the larger teams available for Vol.V to implement these changes, or He simply told Dr outright, doesn?t concern me. I just read and master the finished product.
You wrote: "Bullinger did it this way. Much of what he did was the grunt work of his graduate students."
To the best of my research Bullinger never had 'graduate students' or the Victorian equivalent of them. He was a curate and later a vicar. He also worked part time at a workhouse school and later he was the chaplin of a woman's prison ministry. For many years while he was doing other things he was the secretary of the Triniatian Bible Society. I see no record of him having any assiatant.
Most of the work in his Companion Bible and other books were based on his preparation for his preaching. In his later life most of his income was royalties from publishing.
It's my understanding that Bullinger did have quite an assortment of assistants. Whether they were the equivalent of our present day graduate school students is irrelevant to my point. They did assist. Some were family members. Some carried on a society of sorts after his death publishing newsletters and such. I believe the Berean Bible Students Association is such a Bullinger splinter group. I have to admit that it is that rickety old TVT I am leaning on for this supplemental ?data? but I remember many leaders in the 70?s mentioning Bullinger?s ?graduate students? as a kind of a ?school of the prophets? that the Corps was somewhat patterned after.
This is NOT a fatal flaw, however, in my original argument where Bullinger was used as an example among many.
I STILL think Bullinger had other people around him doing grunt work and not getting named or credited.
I can back off of the specifics, but it's just logical that if Bullinger had fans buying his books, then he'd have groupies of one sort or another helping him publish. The market success of one book leads to volunteers who want to help him with his next book.
Selling authors naturally attract assistants.
When Ken Kesey wrote "One Flew Over the Coo Coo?s Nest" in 1962 it attracted some of the key beatniks out of the 50?s to ?hang out? with him. Kesey and his assistants, the Merry Pranksters, together invented the hippie movement, or helped it a lot.
I've noted this author-attracting-followers phenomenon with other books and topics. Powerful thinkers attract schools of thought who do a lot of the writing for them. This is a well established tradition in many cultures. Jesus' apostles are a key example, where they did all of Jesus? writing for him. This was my main point about Bullinger and his "assistants" paralleling Dr and his assistants.
I think it makes sense for Bullinger to have had assistants or apprentices or whatever helping him, too. However, there appears to be no evidence to support this, and EW the poster appears to have evidence to the contrary.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
quote:We OLGs were all gathered together in the class back in those 70?s for a reason, a GODLY reason. It looked like all was lost for a decade there, but now there has been a resurrection. It?s now all coming out that God had a great plan for us then in PFAL but EVEN MORE is the case that God has a GREATER plan for us NOW in PFAL.
This plan is most awesome!
Interesting statement Mike. If according to what you have previously posted - that there was actually a new covenant techically beginning in 1942 (that was never fully revealed), then your statement above would seem to suggest that there is yet another plan being revealed now.
Since VPW never openly declared or revealed a new covenant as a result he 1942 promise, we would then have to assume that though technically in force, it was to be revealed at a later date. So then we might also surmise that the practical beginning of tis new covenant/administration would be when it was plainly revealed.
The implication of all this is that the 1942 Covenant, although technicaly in force, was concealed and held in abeyance for 60 years, but is now being made manifest, and that you are the person selected to usher in this new administration. How am I doing here?
Mike, have you been called of God to usher in this new administration and to reveal this new plan? Is that why you are here? What administration do you believe that we are currently in?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
My main beef with the "Mikean Heresy" ;)--> is not the position itself, but the utter lack of foundation thereof. If Mike or anyone else wants to believe that Wierwille is the fourth person in the then inaptly named trinity (previous line adapted from Douglas Adams) I don't care; if anyone wants to believe that there really is a sun god, or a fertility godess, I still don't care.
What I do have an issue with is the lack of logic that supports the "PFAL as Scripture" theory. The guy who wrote PFAL didn't claim it, and most ( an overwhelming majority most) didn't either. The theory rests upon a rat's nest of illogic and twisting of the plain meaning of words.
Thanks to all who are exposing this ridiculous theory for what it is...nonsense.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
I have very little time this morning, and I can?t even remember who brought this up, but BG Leonard?s grasp of the scriptures seemed weak to me from one modern story about him I have heard.
I?m asking for verification of this story for any Corps people who were there. I was never Corps, and I think this happened at Corps Week 1985, a few months after Dr died.
BG Leonard visited HQ and in an address to some body of people he said that God?s blessing was off TWI because we didn?t teach that the manifestations were GIFTS of the spirit. I seem to remember being told this happened by a 6th Corps Rev months afterwards, and he also said that a lot of people in the audience were shook by it.
Did this happen?
Was this just a TVT thing that stuck in my memory?
It was made available in tape form and I've studied the tapes quite a bit.
There are some very interesting things Dr said in that class regarding what happened as a result of the 1942-82 intervention.
The year of import, AS I SEE IT in my present state of learning, is 1982.
In LV that year he hit on some MOST unusual points at times.
I'm not familiar with the word "covenant" so much. I see it like an administration change.
When an administration changes FROM GOD'S spiritual point of view, that doesn't mean people automatically enter into the new administration with their 5-senses understanding. Many of the denominations out there I see are still living in the Christ Administration or even the Law. Look at the slow transition to the Grace administration of Peter. It took God a long time to find someone who was willing to believe the new revelation, Paul, and then it took Peter a long time to believe what Paul wrote.
I see administration changes as meaning God places something new on the Available List that we can believe for. The Living Victoriously Class was the formal announcement of the new administration, and it slipped right by us, like so many things.
Mike, I am a little rusty with this, so bear with me.
You have said that we are now in a new administration. If that is true, do you believe our salvation now hinges on believing your presentation about VP and PFAL?
If memory serves me correct, and it has been a long time since I gave this any thought, didn?t administrational changes also effect the requirements for salvation?
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
rascal
You are rediculous Mike, I am not offering ANY type of control...and if you see Craig in me, you are indeed even more spriritually, and perceptionally obtuse than heretofore imagined...
I didn`t ask you to trust me Mike, didn`t ask you to adopt my pov....don`t care if you do or not, I ASK you to examin gal. and trust THAT!.
I ASK you to explain how you can dismiss a whole chapter of the bible in support of your hypothesis.
It is as always Mike you cannot logically support your dismisal of a very relevant section of scripture ....and so you have to get nasty, invent a persona in me and then attack THAT ....
(That was pretty tricky, turning the post around from your lack of defense... to me having to defend myself and my integrety to you)
You are not interested in the truth, just defending your idol at all cost....that is sad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
I'm thankful to God that I was taught His Word, and the ONLY man who really inspired in me a love for the truth of the Scriptures was Victor Paul Wierwille. Without his teaching I'd be lost, so I'm glad I was found.
Any grad who cannot be similarly thankful is in sad need of recognizing what really counts in this life.
I love truth, but your religion of hate and disgust I'll have no part of. The more you try to foist it on me the uglier it looks. Your understanding of Galatians is pathetic. You're stuck in the SNL church lady mold without a laughs. I'd take the imbalance of licentiousness any day, over the imbalance of law your religion exudes. Your take on us children selecting men to represent God is unacceptable to me. God selected VPW to minister His Word to us and it got done. Your rejection of God?s man is not only impotent, but it?s also several decades late. Your rejection of him does not thwart God?s plan, except perhaps the blessings intended for you.
God did not submit Dr as a possible minister to us for our approval, to be scrutinized by readers of Galatians or Timothy to see if he qualifies. No, it didn?t happen that way at all. God selected Dr IN SPITE of your religion?s objections and placed him in the Body as it pleased Him. God didn?t ask you or anyone else if Dr was an acceptable choice; Dr was God?s choice and that overrules any objections you may have ex post facto.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ummm Mike, my post still stands...you cannot logically dismiss the instruction of an entire book of the bible, and so...in order to maintain face ....to protect your doctrine, in frustration ... you have to turn it into a personal attack and false accusations against me. How perfectly childish....
I have no religion, of hate or otherwise....I DO however detest evil....and I have seen that there was plenty evil in twi to hate.
No ... God DIDN`T submit vp for our aproval, HOWEVER, if vp HAD been a man of the spirit, capable of recieving revelation from God, he WOULD have submitted HIMSELF to the standard laid out by God in galations for a man after the spirit.
He would not have used the scriptures to hide and justify his sinfull fleshly nature....sorry friend...rage at me all you want, but it was GOD ALMIGHTY who saw fit to lay it all out clearly in galations so that we WOULDN`T be decieved ....had we been paying attention to that....twi would have never had a chance!
As an aside note.....Do you imagine for one miniute, that your anger manifested towards us, your christian bretheren ...... your many unjustified accusations towards our personal character and assigning of false beliefs... the maligning , unrelenting personal attacks against your brothers and sisters is in ANY way remotely pleasing to God?
Isn`t there a verse somewhere about if you CAN`T love your bro`s that you CAN see?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
You know, it`s funny how the ONLY law of religion, as you accuse me being consumed with...is simply asking you to honor what God laid out in galations as the standard for a Godly man....... the scriptures in your above post that you purportedly learned to love under vp`s tutelege.....
Because I ask you to believe those scriptures vp touted..you turn me into some hate mongering religious biggot in your mind......THAT way you can *safely* dismiss my valid point in you mind......
[This message was edited by rascal on July 04, 2003 at 13:25.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
rascal,
You wrote: ?...you cannot logically dismiss the instruction of an entire book of the bible...?
Correct, but I can dismiss YOUR interpretation and application of that book.
I can dismiss it, and I DID dismiss it.
Your religion is evident in your activities. How much time do you spend in trying to thwart of derail my efforts? Your preoccupation with another man?s sin is most disgusting. The darkness you fill your life with is sad. The loving thing for me to do is not join you and be on the lookout for an opportunity to help you out of it. I will not join you, and I will eventually ignore your repeated nagging to reopen the case. One of the few reasons I don?t ignore you now is I still believe that this conversation can be profitable in bringing out details that fit into my message plan. Maybe before the final ignore mode, I?ll try an exhaustive paste job of all the times I?ve treated this very topic. Maybe I?ll just paste in one repeat, like a summer TV re-run, for each nag job you come up with.
***
Here?s the first such paste job.
This is a reformatted version of an exchange I had with a poster on the ?promises never fulfilled? thread at http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?q=Y&a...=1226063003&p=2
***
POSTER:
Hey! I just had an idea to simplify things. Mike, please teach me the three most important messages from your new understanding of VPW's work. 18 paragraphs or less, OK? Aw, come on, Jesus boiled his stuff down to "Love God and love your neighbor". I'm sure you can give me your own condensed version. I'm totally serious.?
***
MIKE:
I witness a lot, because I like it. I?ve constructed my entire lifestyle around witnessing. One useful trick I have learned is to never ask people for anything at the top of any list. It?s too challenging a question, and people get too easily bogged down in deciding between close ties.
So, I?ve learned to ask them questions like: ?If you had the chance for ANY of your top ten questions about God answered, what would be one of them. It doesn?t have to be first, just ANY of your top ten questions. Pick a random one.?
This takes the pressure off of them to wax philosophic about making sure their priorities look good. It?s a little the same for me. I?d have to do a lot of analysis before I could arrive at a top three. I?ll give you a few high priority ones:
* God works with sinful men, in spite of their flesh, to do great spiritual things.
* God has reissued His Word for us in PFAL, and it?s better than all human efforts to reconstruct and translate the ancient scriptures. It?s like how He re-issued His Word with Moses, after it had been corrupted in the stars. It involved a format change.
* We need to graduate from mental assenting to the PFAL message to mastering it in believing. Most of our ?believing? in the good old days was mental assent.
There?s three biggies. There are others, even bigger, but they fall on deaf ears until the above are acknowledged. I?ve tried posting some of the bigger items, but they are usually ignored.
***
POSTER:
Out of the three messages you chose to share, I can apply the first one to my life. But this is not a profound new message. Everybody knows God works around our screw-ups. And lots of folks do great spiritual things.
***
MIKE:
There are two extreme applications of this principle that may be passing you by. The first is that God DID INDEED work very closely with Dr to bring forth His Word like it has not been known since the first century. One of the MAJOR themes in this GS atmosphere is that God was not willing or able to do this with Dr because of his flesh failures.
The other extreme application is that we are to do all the things that Jesus Christ did, all nine all the time. None of us has learned the ?other? six manifestations yet, like we did learn the first three. There is a reason. Dr?s teachings are the only ones I know of where we believers are not to follow Jesus Christ at a distance, but that we are to fill his shoes, and BECOME him. Most grads totally forgot that we are supposed to become The Word in the flesh.
[This message was edited by Mike on July 04, 2003 at 14:44.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: ?Come, come! Either hearsay IS admissable in your system, or it isn't. It can't be "only admissable when Mike does it".?
I see anecdotal information as useful in sowing up a subject after the main data has been considered, like a confirmation. It?s like numbers in scripture: where blazing a new trail with numerology is a dubious methodology, but seeing interesting confirmation in numbers as a last step is acceptable.
I would never try to build anything on anecdotal information, but final decorations with it can be ok. I just think it is sadly interesting how people who beat themselves up for falling into hero worship with Dr, now look with big goo-goo eyes at new heroes like Bullinger and Kenyon and BG Leonard. I thought a little anecdotal information on BG?s tough army general M.O. was called for, seeing how conveniently forgotten it was.
As for BG being a lightweight in VP?s eyes, I wouldn?t agree with that. Did you read the entire passage? I only quoted a tiny sliver. I see Dr as thankful to God for those teachers of his and that thankfulness rubs off onto me. We all have a place in the Body, and no member can be said to be lightweight. It is the case that Dr?s job was one of pulling together and refining. Dr taught a lot of things missing from BG?s understanding. Dr had the believing to move it around the world and BG didn?t. Dr reached me, and BG couldn?t have.
Have you forgotten how Dr taught us there is no such thing as originality and that all new ideas come spiritually? Why do you worship this non-existent commodity of originality? Have you ever wondered what will happen to your world if you were to find that BG or Kenyon ?lifted? some of their material from an uncited source? It?s SURELY the case that they did! Everyone does in to some degree, cutting and pasting, mixing and matching lifted elements and re-packaging them as something new. Have you looked into the George Harrison case where he was ?convicted? of lifting a song from another writer? It?s quite interesting how all that happened.
Dr referenced his teachers lots of times, but not formally, as you seem to insist on, ex post facto. You are all hung up on ego when you insist on this. What?s the PURPOSE of formal citations? In academia it?s to spur further research where a student may search out the sources of an author?s work to improve on of go beyond that author?s understanding. That?s fine for academia, but here we encounter the end of the line on ?going beyond.?
I see no possibility of going beyond God-breathed writings, so footnote citations are useless to me, a meek student of God?s selected teacher. Footnotes clutter up books. I think it?s nice that some of Dr?s books are footnote free. Some others do have lots of footnotes, and that?s fine too.
To me, the big hoopla is just a bit ego trip. Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good product. Instead of you getting ruffled ego feathers that Dr had his part in the Body, why don?t you find out what YOUR glorious part in the body is? I?m sure God has more in store for you than being an internet Lone Ranger fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for truth justice and the American way! I?m also sure that within PFAL is the key for us ALL to maximize our potential in Christ.
We OLGs were all gathered together in the class back in those 70?s for a reason, a GODLY reason. It looked like all was lost for a decade there, but now there has been a resurrection. It?s now all coming out that God had a great plan for us then in PFAL but EVEN MORE is the case that God has a GREATER plan for us NOW in PFAL.
This plan is most awesome!
There are still some more things in the print/tape record about the Return of Christ and the Appearing and the Gathering Together that I?ve only dared hint at, but sooner or later I?ll be posting them in full... I hope...
All ego trips will fade when it is seen that Dr?s part in this plan is not NEARLY as glorious as ours!
Dr said, and wrote, and even chiseled in stone ?I wish I were the man I know to be.? When we see what we get to enjoy in PFAL, we?ll see that we CAN NOW BECOME that man Dr knew to be, and put into written form for us.
We get to become that man Dr wished he could become but couldn?t!
Dr admitted he fell short of the PFAL man, the new man, the Jesus Christ men and women we can now become. This here is a much higher level confession of his own shortcomings and guilt by Dr than anyone here on GS has yet thought to demand.
It?s very much like Moses not getting to enter the promised land for his sin, but WE DO GET TO ENTER. The PFAL writings are our guide.
*************
You then wrote: ?Are you aware that there were whole research teams
at hq that produced some of the weightier, "original" books??
Yes. In the 70?s I knew some of those team members. I lived with one. I pumped them with questions back then as part of my natural curiosity, and then again in the last 5 years as part of my PFAL revival.
I have systematically sought out and sorted MUCH information about these teams. I see many parallels between them and similar ancient teams that put earlier revelations into written form. I?ve mentioned some such teams here: Paul/Timothy/Silas and Jeuemiah/Baruch. There are many others in the OT. All the scriptures were produced this way, as body of people working together with God. God?s selected men had many assistants and consultants, like Jethro was to Moses.
Dr mentions his team at the end of the Preface in RHST. He credits them with Biblical (5-senses/mental/scholarly) abilities AND spiritual abilities (revelation and inspiration). I believe that part of the PFAL revelations being put into written form involves Dr's team members operating all nine manifestations. I know that in all my ministry activities, at HQ and on the field, I always TRIED to get revelation where needed. I think sometimes it worked, too! All nine some of the time is better than nothing. I saw MANY people getting revelation back then. Ralph and others have testified here of the power that flowed from US, and not at all confined to the research and print teams.
Yes. I?ve included this in my pondering, in great detail, and for 30 year?s.
***********
You then wrote: ?"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??
It is a well established custom for team leaders to place their name on the cover as author, and not the names of all the contributing researchers. All graduate schools I am aware of operate this way. The professor teaches the students a general concept with some details filled in. The students, as part of their training, contribute their efforts back to the teacher in the form of research and collecting of MORE details to fill out more. The teacher gets the professional credit on the final paper or book, but the teacher also must bear the responsibility of the integrity of the work. The teacher gets the honors, but the liability also.
Bullinger did it this way. Much of what he did was the grunt work of his graduate students.
When I first heard of the team effort books in the 70?s I looked into this well established custom. Some of the team members themselves told me of how it worked. They considered it a privilege to serve in this particular way, and an excellent learning opportunity as well. Everyone benefited. There was no ego problem of Dr?s name going on the final product. The ultimate glory REALLY goes to God Who REALLY authored it.
***********
Lastly you wrote of OMSW: ?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??
Yes, I have noticed a BIG difference in the revelation that book embraces. The transition from pre?82, 5-senses perspective, magazine articles into post?82, spiritual perspective, book chapters is quite spectacular. How God pulled off the slight changes in format and the great changes in perspective are irrelevant to me. Whether He utilized the larger teams available for Vol.V to implement these changes, or He simply told Dr outright, doesn?t concern me. I just read and master the finished product.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Mike:
You wrote: "Bullinger did it this way. Much of what he did was the grunt work of his graduate students."
To the best of my research Bullinger never had 'graduate students' or the Victorian equivalent of them. He was a curate and later a vicar. He also worked part time at a workhouse school and later he was the chaplin of a woman's prison ministry. For many years while he was doing other things he was the secretary of the Triniatian Bible Society. I see no record of him having any assiatant.
Most of the work in his Companion Bible and other books were based on his preparation for his preaching. In his later life most of his income was royalties from publishing.
EWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Yawn.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
karmicdebt
E.W
Thanks for the history lesson. I never knew that. Very cool....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jim,
Thanks for sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
EWB,
It's my understanding that Bullinger did have quite an assortment of assistants. Whether they were the equivalent of our present day graduate school students is irrelevant to my point. They did assist. Some were family members. Some carried on a society of sorts after his death publishing newsletters and such. I believe the Berean Bible Students Association is such a Bullinger splinter group. I have to admit that it is that rickety old TVT I am leaning on for this supplemental ?data? but I remember many leaders in the 70?s mentioning Bullinger?s ?graduate students? as a kind of a ?school of the prophets? that the Corps was somewhat patterned after.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
There you go again Mike, you are accusing ME of focusing on a mans sin....that is not true and you KNOW it!
*I* am focusing on GALATIONS ....since WHEN is examining scripture darkness?
You reject my interpretation...I ASK you to give me the *apropriate* translation....
and then you just turn nasty again and make rediculous unfounded accusations.
My guess is that the focus on galations enrages you because it shines the light of truth on vp.
So what about your treatment of your spiritual bretheren here Mike? How do you justify your lies and treatment of us?
Does that then make it easier for you to ignore the truth we speak?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
The poster EW Bullinger based his post about the original EW Bullinger on research that he did on the man's life.
Mike based his post on what he calls TWI Verbal Tradition which he elsewhere derides as untrustworthy.
I guess stuff you heard from the OLG's that later caused TWI to fall is sound when it backs up your opinion.
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
Mike
.
.
.
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
MOMMIE! Rascal?s not letting me play in my thread! Make her STOP!
.
.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oakspear,
I?ll yield to EWB?s report about EWB.
You?re right, my data is flimsy there.
This is NOT a fatal flaw, however, in my original argument where Bullinger was used as an example among many.
I STILL think Bullinger had other people around him doing grunt work and not getting named or credited.
I can back off of the specifics, but it's just logical that if Bullinger had fans buying his books, then he'd have groupies of one sort or another helping him publish. The market success of one book leads to volunteers who want to help him with his next book.
Selling authors naturally attract assistants.
When Ken Kesey wrote "One Flew Over the Coo Coo?s Nest" in 1962 it attracted some of the key beatniks out of the 50?s to ?hang out? with him. Kesey and his assistants, the Merry Pranksters, together invented the hippie movement, or helped it a lot.
I've noted this author-attracting-followers phenomenon with other books and topics. Powerful thinkers attract schools of thought who do a lot of the writing for them. This is a well established tradition in many cultures. Jesus' apostles are a key example, where they did all of Jesus? writing for him. This was my main point about Bullinger and his "assistants" paralleling Dr and his assistants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Mike:
I think it makes sense for Bullinger to have had assistants or apprentices or whatever helping him, too. However, there appears to be no evidence to support this, and EW the poster appears to have evidence to the contrary.
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
Goey
Mike,
Interesting statement Mike. If according to what you have previously posted - that there was actually a new covenant techically beginning in 1942 (that was never fully revealed), then your statement above would seem to suggest that there is yet another plan being revealed now.
Since VPW never openly declared or revealed a new covenant as a result he 1942 promise, we would then have to assume that though technically in force, it was to be revealed at a later date. So then we might also surmise that the practical beginning of tis new covenant/administration would be when it was plainly revealed.
The implication of all this is that the 1942 Covenant, although technicaly in force, was concealed and held in abeyance for 60 years, but is now being made manifest, and that you are the person selected to usher in this new administration. How am I doing here?
Mike, have you been called of God to usher in this new administration and to reveal this new plan? Is that why you are here? What administration do you believe that we are currently in?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
Hey Mikey
look
what
I
can
do
thanks Vickles
love ya
girl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike,
this may come as a surprise to you, but so far,
nobody's posted that anybody is the be-all and
end-all guy, EXCEPT YOU. You've said that about
vpw.
Nobody's "looking with big goo-goo eyes" at
Bullinger, Kenyon, Leonard, Stiles or anybody
else. We learned the hard way that making any
man EXCEPT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST the be-all and
the end-all is bad news.
(At least, those of us HERE learned that.)
BTW, yes, I read the passage. I didn't say vpw
made Leonard out to be a lightweight. I said he
made out that Leonard was a lightweight
CONCERNING SCRIPTURE.
(Please read my posts as carefully as I read
yours.)
The point was that vpw deliberately gave the
impression that, regardless of any other person
out there, the orange book and the white book
were the results of his OWN work, and NOT
primarily the contributions of others.
You can compare that with your copy of "Babylon
Mystery Religion". All over that book are the
citations to "the Two Babylons". BMR was
basically a reworking of the book TTB. When I
read BMR, I was thankful for it, AND I was
thankful for TTB. I went out and bought BOTH. I
was thankful for BOTH and I read BOTH. (The fact
that they were later proven wrong doesn't
invalidate this.) Woodrow never claimed to
originate the material. NO edition of RSHST
references Stiles or Leonard. (I'd have to check
of they reference Bullinger's book.) As has been
shown by people doing line-by-line comparisons,
there were whole sentences, paragraphs, and
section outlines taken from each author.
If I had done that, I would have had NO difficulty
citing each, and mentioning each author in the
acknowledgements (among other places.) I've never
presented anyone else's work as my own. Once, I
did a Bible study on a subject. Once I was done,
I checked the Companion Bible to see what
Bullinger had to say on the subject. As it turns
out, he made the same point, and superceded mine.
I taught the fuller version, citing Bullinger.
If he had made the SAME points, I would have left
Bullinger out-he did NOT add to the teaching.
That was in front of a handful of people. When
something is in print, there's a greater
responsibility, legally, ethically and morally.
You seem to be unable to distinguish between
plagiarism, similar work and contributions.
If Rascal and Mike each do a study on Galatians,
and both (somehow) come up with the same points
independently, that's NOT plagiarism. If Rascal
and Mike each do a study on Galatians, and Mike
later takes sections of Rascal's study and
publishes a book with his own study, NEGLECTING
to cite Rascal, then it's plagiarism. If Mike
publishes the SAME book and acknowledges what
work is Rascal's, there might still be copyright
issues, but it is NOT plagiarism, nor is it
morally problematic. Further, while I wouldn't
lose sleep over a thick book having a sentence
somewhere being the work of a contributor, or an
assistant compiling data later used for an
analysis, it is NOT customary, nor is it legal,
to take an assistant's work-or a staff's work-
and slap your name on it after making a few
minor changes. You may put list yourself as the
"editor", but not as the WRITER. If vpw had
simply listed himself as the EDITOR of the
weightier books, that even you admit were the work
of the research staff, and gave their names,
say, in the acknowledgements if no where else and
said "this is their work" there, then, again,
it would be legal and correct.
Every time Leonard's name is mentioned in one of
"American Christian Press"'s books, his knowledge
of SCRIPTURE is slighted, NO citations of his
books or classes are given, and the impression
given by vpw (and Mrs vpw, in one citation) were
that vpw had to go find the verses covering the
material Leonard taught.
BTW, it is not "SURELY the case" that the other
authors used the work of others and neglected to
cite them. Plagiarism is not a matter of
speculation-it is a matter of PRINT and RECORD.
If you have even ONE uncited source for work
by Stiles, Leonard, or Bullinger, go ahead and
present it. Otherwise, to SUPPOSE they engaged in
the same illegal and immoral practice is sloppy.
(And also libel, BTW.)
---------------------------------------
This is an issue of honesty and integrity. It's a
character issue, and, if I really wanted to be
petty, I'd have contacted the holders of the
copyrights to the materials. It is not an
"ego trip". (How would it make ME more special
to point out someone else's illegal activity?)
"Dr was a mere servant, and he served you a good
product."
Ever see the movie "the Road to Wellville"?
Someone makes a breakfast cereal. At one point,
someone else intercepts his delivery truck,
takes the cereal, and repackages the cereal under
his OWN label. It is EXACTLY the same product,
with the SAME nutritional value. Would a
consumer, then, be wrong to want to know that it
was the OTHER product repackaged?
Whether or not the material we were taught is
any good is an entirely different subject from
whether or not it was illegally lifted from other
authors. Again, if the EXACT SAME BOOKS had
been printed with the proper citations,
acknowledgements and footnoting, this would not be
an issue. Children are taught to do this in
elementary school. Teens are taught this in high
school. Young adults are taught this in college.
Are you telling me that vpw-a man who received
a Masters degree and a Doctorate (regardless of
the source) was NOT aware this was both legal AND
fair? I mean, perhaps my schooling was superior
to his at the elementary and high school level
(which, considering my education at those levels,
is statistically likely), but at the collegiate
level, that gets hammered into any student trying
to graduate, in the subject of his major.
I am NOT complaining that vpw or anyone ELSE has
or had a function in The Body. Was it beneficial
for him to disregard the legally proper way to
conduct himself?
BTW, the distribution of vpw's books was tightly
held. Only innies had the books. He never
circulated them popularly. I take it that the
possible benefit that millions of Christians could
have received-and possibly followed back to TWI
for more books-was circumvented by other concerns.
(It couldn't be money, because even a poor seller
would have made a lot. It couldn't be criticism,
since he was already being criticized by some
organizations as a cult leader. If he'd released
quality books into the mainstream, it would have
gone a long way to silencing his critics.)
I know you find it inconceivable that he'd
consider the possibility of his books comparing
poorly with other books out there, and withhold
the books on that basis or other reasons-but some
of us think that may have been the reason, or A
reason.
BTW, Mike, you missed my point about OMSW. It's
my assertion that the anomalous appearance of a
citation there would be the act of the EDITOR.
Since vpw was dying during the book's compilation,
I hardly think he was pausing to spend hours on
it, editing. Cancer is a painful, debilitating
illness. If he tried to do that while in the
finals stages, he'd be unable to do much editing.
"Why don't you find out what YOUR glorious part
in the body is? I'm sure God has more in store
for you than being an internet Lone Ranger
fighting off bad guys and evil doctrines for
truth, justice and the American way!"
Mike?
Who said my time on the GSC was my MAIN job for
God at present? It's a sideline. Trust me-if it
was, I'd spend a LOT more time here and post a
LOT more weighty material. I'd also give my posts
here more attention than I do. (Trust me-this
is usually my 2nd-best effort, not my best.)
---------------------------------------------
Oakspear, you caught that, eh?
If it disagrees with Mike, it was "TVT".
If it disagrees with Mike, it's hearsay.
If it agrees with Mike, it's "facts".
(Even when it's opinion.)
Oakspear, I bet you didn't even lose track of
the points that I made that Mike has failed to
address from a few weeks ago, when he asked me to
stop focusing on him. (I have more of those
points that I'm saving for the appropriate time.
Also, I'd rather see him try to address the
original points first.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Wolf:
Pretty good for a second best effort
:D-->
My main beef with the "Mikean Heresy"
;)--> is not the position itself, but the utter lack of foundation thereof. If Mike or anyone else wants to believe that Wierwille is the fourth person in the then inaptly named trinity (previous line adapted from Douglas Adams) I don't care; if anyone wants to believe that there really is a sun god, or a fertility godess, I still don't care.
What I do have an issue with is the lack of logic that supports the "PFAL as Scripture" theory. The guy who wrote PFAL didn't claim it, and most ( an overwhelming majority most) didn't either. The theory rests upon a rat's nest of illogic and twisting of the plain meaning of words.
Thanks to all who are exposing this ridiculous theory for what it is...nonsense.
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
Mike
Oakspear,
Dr claimed some of his writings to us were God-breathed non-subtly in 3 places:
1. TNDC p.116
2. TNDC p. 34
3. PFAL p. 83
I have found about 90 others, most very subtle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Howdy Folks,
I have very little time this morning, and I can?t even remember who brought this up, but BG Leonard?s grasp of the scriptures seemed weak to me from one modern story about him I have heard.
I?m asking for verification of this story for any Corps people who were there. I was never Corps, and I think this happened at Corps Week 1985, a few months after Dr died.
BG Leonard visited HQ and in an address to some body of people he said that God?s blessing was off TWI because we didn?t teach that the manifestations were GIFTS of the spirit. I seem to remember being told this happened by a 6th Corps Rev months afterwards, and he also said that a lot of people in the audience were shook by it.
Did this happen?
Was this just a TVT thing that stuck in my memory?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
How familiar are you with Living Victoriously?
It was made available in tape form and I've studied the tapes quite a bit.
There are some very interesting things Dr said in that class regarding what happened as a result of the 1942-82 intervention.
The year of import, AS I SEE IT in my present state of learning, is 1982.
In LV that year he hit on some MOST unusual points at times.
I'm not familiar with the word "covenant" so much. I see it like an administration change.
When an administration changes FROM GOD'S spiritual point of view, that doesn't mean people automatically enter into the new administration with their 5-senses understanding. Many of the denominations out there I see are still living in the Christ Administration or even the Law. Look at the slow transition to the Grace administration of Peter. It took God a long time to find someone who was willing to believe the new revelation, Paul, and then it took Peter a long time to believe what Paul wrote.
I see administration changes as meaning God places something new on the Available List that we can believe for. The Living Victoriously Class was the formal announcement of the new administration, and it slipped right by us, like so many things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesseJoe
Mike, I am a little rusty with this, so bear with me.
You have said that we are now in a new administration. If that is true, do you believe our salvation now hinges on believing your presentation about VP and PFAL?
If memory serves me correct, and it has been a long time since I gave this any thought, didn?t administrational changes also effect the requirements for salvation?
Jesse
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.