quote: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.
The supposed places where you assert that Wierwille claimed that some of his own works were God-breathed have been ably addressed previously by others.
Subtle? The things that you see, Mike, are only there because you want them to be there. Reading what's written without searching for arcane hidden meanings yields results quite different from the cabala that you're putting together.
Oakspear
"We...know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling"
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.?
Your doing a lot of inaccurate armchairing about OMSW.
First you guess it?s publication date wrong. It was many weeks before Dr died. The galleys were done and shipped to the printers probably months before that.
On pages 32 and 33 Kenyon?s name is mentioned in the text, in addition to appearing in the two footnotes. You could have noticed that.
Also, this chapter appeared as a Way Magazine article in the Sep/Oct?80 issue. In that article are both footnotes and only one of the text references. That?s a total of 7 references to Kenyon in print. And this is in addition to all the advanced class stories and SNS taped stories where Dr credited this and other teachers God sent him. Lastly, I trust those OMSW editors, who Dr utilized while he was alive, to have had the ability to get the necessary revelation to cover for Dr?s condition.
WordWolf, I don?t know how you can say:
?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.
Dr never made a point of his originality, and just the opposite, he did cite many sources and often. He also taught us that 5-senses originality was really an illusion, because the stuff gets received spiritually.
Your whole ethical system is valid for the arena of academia where people are competing for grades and degrees, and it?s valid in the arena of the marketplace like newspapers, magazines, and books addressed and/or for the customers of the marketplace.
Dr did not operate in either of these two arenas. He operated in God?s family, where we share, and all the credit goes to God for all new ideas (Deut 29:29).
It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were also operating in Daddy?s family, and that neither they nor Daddy minded. It?s you who inappropriately bring into God?s family your worldly ethical system for students, professors, writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their application to the respective arenas from which they were devised.
Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics.
***************
Here are two excerpts from an old SNS tape #214, October 17, 1965, that show how in the older days Dr was very up front about his sources. He did this so often that the need to do it in his later years was not there, since he had put it in the record. Trouble with the TVT was it drifted from the record of what Dr said about his sources, and people forgot, and manufactured their own inaccurate EXPECTATIONS about Dr?s originality. These two excerpts are from a much larger transcript that can be found at:
?And so I?d read the Word; I?d read it??I?d read it. Then I?d work, start looking??start working, and as we began working this Word of God, is when light began to dawn. And wonderful things that God did for us, He brought men and women across our paths who came just at the right time to help us in our light??men who had gone so far, but no further. But God brought these men so that we could go further because these men brought light. Men like Rufus Mosely; men like E. Stanley Jones; men like Albert Cliff; men like Star Daley; God brought all of these men and others??many of them, across our pathways, just at the right time to add to this revelation and enable us to walk on the Word and understand it.?
?But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He?d teach me the Word if I?d teach it, but I had to study, I had to work. And revelation begins??this is why I know this so well??revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the work that have already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and countless others. But, He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then, what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it, and I?d researched to my fullest ability??tried to find out, then, if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation. Time and time again, He?d take the scripture and make it this big. I?m reading along in a verse and all at once there it is, two words, this big, for instance. Well, you have to be stupid to miss it, you know.?
Of all the message elements I?ve deposited and redeposited here, the biggest one is that Dr did not really write the books.
How odd that we seem to agree on this.
I just didn?t get tricked into thinking that his originating the stuff was all that important. I just wanted to know God, and how it got to me didn?t matter. I wasn?t auditing the Way for proper procedures on copyrights. I was getting FED the Word! I gave God the ultimate credit then and now for the benefits in PFAL.
The 5-senses authorship is just a natural man?s approach to all this.
I chose to look at the spiritual matters involved and the spiritual authorship far supersedes Dr, Kenyon, Stiles, etc.
Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics.
Thank you for the history that made it's way to you on Bullinger.
Do you understand why I brought up the reference to Bullinger?
He was a church member. Church people work together on things. I just can't buy the idea of him doing everything alone. The kind of assistants I GUESS he had would not only not find their names on publications, but they wouldn't be mentioned in biographies and recollections of him by friends BECAUSE it's so commonplace.
For a historical account to have a passage about people helping him would seem profitless. Why bother to mention the mundane? I suspect that if you did the "proper" research you'll find no mention of Bullinger's preferences for toilet paper rolls going over or under. Are you going to conclude he had no such preference? Impossible!
quote:How familiar are you with Living Victoriously?
I read it once about 25 years ago. I could not quote you one single sentence from it.
quote: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.
Mike, Just becasue Wierwille said something does not make it true. - Interesting maybe but I would not consider what Wierwille said on these tapes to be anymore than his opinion.
quote:The year of import, AS I SEE IT in my present state of learning, is 1982.
So then is this a yes in regards to my question? - that you do in fact believe that there was a new administration technically beginning in 1942? Does this according to your present state of learning also mean that the grace administration has been fulfilled or come to a close? -or just added to.
What then shall we call this new administration? Have you named it yet? What is different in this new administration from the grace administration. What has been ommited and what has been added - can you be specific?
quote:I'm not familiar with the word "covenant" so much. I see it like an administration change.
Mike, is it an true administration change or not? Is it just "like" one or is it really a change. You are being vague here. Please be specific.
quote: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, for the sake of clarity, let's not redefine the term 'administration'. Let's stick to the commonly understood meaning like what VPW taught on administrations.
I think it may have slipped by us becasue there really was no fomal announcement - at least not a clear or plain one. Please quote the part of LV where there was a formal announcement of an administration change - I'd like to see it.
BTW, You did not answer this; Do you believe that you were called by God to reveal and usher in this new administration?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Your reasoning does not make any sense. You stretch the rules of ethics, logic and the bible to justify that VPW was the man of God for all time. You do not even consider the possibility that your hero was not 100 percent perfect.
Do you not understand the beauty of the scriptures? How a man like Moses will all of his doubts of his ability could lead the children of Israel out of Egypt to be the lawgiver? How a sinful man like Paul could check his loathing for his former self and write so many wonderful epistles to us!
The truth of the matter is that not only was VPW dishonest for plagiarizing others works, but he was also lazy. He could have easily re-written all of those manuscripts and make them totally his work. Yet he chose a dishonest shortcut.
Your doing a lot of inaccurate armchairing about...
quote:
Please find a mirror, look into it, and say these same words to the the person you see in that mirror... using any of the books you site for the last word of the sentence.
You know Mike, my problem is not that you choose to try to convince all of us that you actually believe what you type... heck... you want to believe that ice won't melt in the Arizona sun, believe it! More power to you!
My problem is that you address every poster on this thread (and throughout GSC) as an inferior... and that you seem mystified as to why we do not subjugate ourselves to you...
well, I gotta go look up more big words in the dictionary for my next post with you... (please consider the book idea... it'll be a better use of your time)
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
This is an adversarial atmosphere, and I am treated as if I don?t know what I?m talking about by many posters here. I combat their assaults on my postings, and it?s perceived as my aggressiveness only when the aggression of the other posters is factored out.
In person, on the phone, in personal e-mailings, and when approached here personally, I can respond in such gentler atmospheres in more personable ways. Sometimes I treat my attackers kindly as a first gesture. I?m trying to be that way with you now.
Sometimes my aggressive statements of what I believe are perceived by some readers as more hostile than they are because said readers cherished beliefs are being challenged, and many hate this.
Sometimes the harsh world of mere ASCII characters makes it difficult for both writer and reader to diplomatically conduct an intense discussion. I try my best to select the least personally insulting wording, yet thoroughly confront the errors I see as most hurtful.
Mike, You didn't answer Dan's question. Have you or have you not met VPW outside of his frockly duties. I have and thiers definatley two, may be more sides to him.
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... Dovey
Yes. I happened to park next to his camper truck at the 1972 Rock of Ages. For days it was like a football game getting around Mrs. Wierwille to get to Dr with my large list of questions. He thought it was funny and accommodated me for hours of discussion.
Then at Emporia's Advanced Class in '75 he accommodated me some more with questions, especially at the end. My train wasn't leaving until the next day, so I and 3 or 4 others, who also didn't have to pack and leave, hung out with him and talked heart stuff (no Q&A this time) for a long time.
After that I saw him only briefly and occasionally on the field at meetings, until I went to work on staff in '76. He seemed to be much more busy in those days, but there I got to know Uncle Harry very well. He sort of took me under his wing and helped get me an apartment, and took me to auctions, and had me over for dinner. He told me a lot about his brother Vic.
On staff for two years, I worked with an older lady who had gone to high school with Dr, and I heard a lot of stories from her. We worked alone most of the time and had many day-long discussions of how Dr grew up and matured in his wisdom. There's lots I can post of her recollections, but I don't consider that hard data like the tape/print record. It does falls into the category of confirmation data, though, so some I will post some of it only much later.
I lived in town with J.F.W. and family, who had worked with KM on editing the PFAL book from the film soundtrack. For two years I pumped him with questions, like I did Dr in earlier years, about how the editing process worked. We became good friends and stayed in touch. In these last five years I resumed my discussions with him about the editing he had participate in.
It was a very fun and challenging task to approach him with what I had come to believe about the God-breathed status of Dr's books. I was basically telling him I believed he and KM were like Timothy and Silvanus (see a previous post on this) who helped Paul hammer out the Thessalonians texts. It went over better than I had expected, though he didn't jump in with me.
When I approached KM with the same stuff it didn't go as well. I had never known her, so I was a stranger on the phone with a wild idea. We corresponded with about 8 e-mails, but she got exasperated with me at one point (ego leakage again?), which most of you can relate to, and we stopped communicating. Still I learned some more from her about Dr and the book production from her perspective.
Once at HQ while I was on staff, Dr had a private meeting with me in his office. I was proposing a Word in Science project to him, but he rejected it, and we talked of a few other things for a while. About a half hour after our meeting he called for an emergency staff meeting. In turns out the something I had said privately to him was the cause of the "emergency" and in front of 400 people he read me the riot act. He didn't mentioning my name, but he gave just enough clues so that everyone who knew me also knew that it was me on the hot seat.
This was not an easy thing to take because I was told that his hearing in one ear was going bad before out private meeting, and I needed to remember to speak up. What he reported to the staff of my off-the-wall offending statement seemed to be inaccurate. He seemed to either mis-quote me, or he seemed to get the paraphrase of my statement totally wrong. It wasn't what I intended to say at all.
I was pretty sure that he had simply heard me wrong, but what was I to do? Correct him at the staff meeting? Correct him later? Take it on the chin (he gave me a little practice for enduring things here) and just forget about it? It was a quandary that I didn't solve for a long time. Years. I was wondering why didn't he get revelation as to what I said, and I tried to think of all kinds of other scenarios to explain the harsh treatment I got. Slowly over the years I got little flashes as to what it was all about, but after I returned to his books and started learning again, the situation resolved rather neatly, and totally. I'm comfortable with it now, but it took years.
Shortly after my 15 minutes of de-fame at HQ I left the staff for California, not because of the that most embarrassing moment in the BRC, but because I had plans to do so many months prior. There was one other incident that involved him, but it's too private to relate here. I can tell you this, it involved some of the same things that others have complained about him here at GS and elsewhere, and I had to deal with it along with much pain.
Back to you, Dan. The times I saw him at the 1972 Rock were quite numerous. I had several other times with him at HQ not mentioned above, and at Emporia in 1975. He visited San Diego several times, but by then there were too many other people taking up his time for much of an interaction.
I always thought the spiritual action FOR ME was NOT around Dr and HQ so I left after two years. I love the field and witnessing. Witnessing was very hard in New Knoxville, but I still did it. I was appreciative of what ?man-breathed? teaching Dr had given me, as I perceived it, and I wanted to apply it on the field, not hang around the administrative machinery of a publishing company, which is what TWI was. I used PFAL as a window into my KJV, and it was the KJV that I studied intensely.
Compared to many of those around me, I did not get all that excited about Dr being all that great and good a person. Now, in the face of lots of negative reports, I still don?t get all that excited about him NOT being all that much of a nice guy. What got me excited then was the Word I could get out of the KJV, and what gets me excited now is the MORE Word I can now get out of PFAL.
I was somewhat impressed with Dr?s accomplishments and abilities, but not so much as to go into his Corps. There were several years in the 80?s, before and after he died, when I felt a degree of annoyance at him.
Dr is not at all central to my message, Jesus Christ and his appearance is. Dr was a key player, but his role is over. The Word he put into written form for God is still here.
Mike - Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe. If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country.
Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance?
To what degree have the group's various members received (developed ?) the ACFW (Advanced Christ Formed Within) spirit? Is it a uniform thing, or are some members farther along than others?
Do various members contribute what their ACFW spirits are teaching them to the body of knowledge amassed by the group? If so, how are their contributions judged? How can the group as a whole tell whether some new data is really revelation, or just one person's 5-senses reasoning?
I know you are concerned with my motivation in asking these questions. You wrote, "Instead of trying to definitely shoot it [your message] down immediately, why not play with it and see where THAT line of logic takes you."
Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU.
For now I'd rather focus on the needs of people, and this is where the people are.
This is the ONLY gathering of grads anywhere where full and frank discussion is totally allowed.
I've been shown information that I totally believe will help my fellow PFAL grads both understand and deal with many people and events of the past, but more important, the things that are happening now with PFAL.
Because I think it will help her to think more clearly. This works with all people, not just her. Proof reading what we write is important too. We saw her do it once before, and here posts were easier on us readers too. If I didn't know she has the ability like I do, I'd have never utilized that one thought provoker as a shield against her assaults.
Let me ask you, Steve, why do you have a double standard in viewing my posts with her versus her posts? You're not curious about her gripes with me being unreasonable?
Mike, pretending that this is an *adversarial* place, and that we are all attacking you, we get it....( even if you don`t) If you can make us all out to be *bad* people...it makes it easier to be nasty ....makes it ok in your mind to dismiss what we say.... removes attention fromn the fact that you cannot answere honest questions....
This is patently obvious to all of us...
It`s funny ...you are following in vp`s footsteps even closer probaly, than you have imagined...He too believed that he was *entitled to behave as outragiously as he liked.... was permitted to hurt folks...to maligne inocent ... believed he was entitled to his *fun*....consequences be damned..all because HE was the bearer of THE *word*...
Emmulating his behavior is NOT a good thing.
[This message was edited by rascal on July 07, 2003 at 17:04.]
You wrote: ?Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe.?
Often totally alone on these boards, but one or two or three semi sympathizers, show up from time to time.
You wrote: ?If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country.?
All correct, except that the ten?s are in the leaning positively category, mostly. Under ten are gun ho.
You wrote: ?Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance??
Very small, very loose knit.
Our main activity is reading the books. It?s very time consuming and very satisfying. We?re not into taking an inventory of who?s at what stage of development. It?s a very casual atmosphere where none of the ministry meltdown stuff ever comes up. The focus is the material in the books.
We?re not into devising tests for discerning revelation that can be thumbnail into an internet post. We?re getting to know our Daddy through His Word.
You wrote: ?Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU.?
Put yourself into my shoes here. How would you respond to an antagonist asking you those same questions?
If I had a glowing story of great deliverance and miracles, it would distract from your getting into the reading of the books.
I?m not going to try and prove with formal logic to you that coming back to PFAL is the best thing for an OLG such as yourself.
I?m not going to try and entice you with great stories of healing and success into coming back to PFAL.
I?m simply announcing that coming back to PFAL and mastering it will be a wonderful thing to do. I?m also supplying some of the details that may have slipped my most of us but are in the record. With these details we can make more informed decisions as to whether to come back to PFAL. Along the way of doing all this, I also engage in SOME discussion. There are some areas of discussion, especially public discussion, that I wont go into. The affairs of other people is one.
In this limited arena of public discussion I don?t want to bring in the people I am learning from. I volunteered of my own volition to come to GS and distribute what some of what I?ve learned, to the best of my ability to get it accurate. I volunteered with my eyes open to come here and take the heat. They, my friends, did not. They don?t ever read GS and we hardly ever talk about it. I have the time to internet surf and post because I have no wife or children. Their time is taken up with family and study of the books.
If you were approaching me privately, and you had convinced me that you want to learn from my teachers, that would be a different matter, but here in public, I think we should respect their privacy.
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
Oakspear
Subtle? The things that you see, Mike, are only there because you want them to be there. Reading what's written without searching for arcane hidden meanings yields results quite different from the cabala that you're putting together.
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
Jim
Yawn... Yawn...
Thump...
Scrape, scrape.
As Jim's head nods over, his Cambridge wide-margin drops to the floor, and he jerks upright on his folding chair....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote:
?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.?
Your doing a lot of inaccurate armchairing about OMSW.
First you guess it?s publication date wrong. It was many weeks before Dr died. The galleys were done and shipped to the printers probably months before that.
On pages 32 and 33 Kenyon?s name is mentioned in the text, in addition to appearing in the two footnotes. You could have noticed that.
Also, this chapter appeared as a Way Magazine article in the Sep/Oct?80 issue. In that article are both footnotes and only one of the text references. That?s a total of 7 references to Kenyon in print. And this is in addition to all the advanced class stories and SNS taped stories where Dr credited this and other teachers God sent him. Lastly, I trust those OMSW editors, who Dr utilized while he was alive, to have had the ability to get the necessary revelation to cover for Dr?s condition.
WordWolf, I don?t know how you can say:
?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.
Dr never made a point of his originality, and just the opposite, he did cite many sources and often. He also taught us that 5-senses originality was really an illusion, because the stuff gets received spiritually.
Your whole ethical system is valid for the arena of academia where people are competing for grades and degrees, and it?s valid in the arena of the marketplace like newspapers, magazines, and books addressed and/or for the customers of the marketplace.
Dr did not operate in either of these two arenas. He operated in God?s family, where we share, and all the credit goes to God for all new ideas (Deut 29:29).
It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were also operating in Daddy?s family, and that neither they nor Daddy minded. It?s you who inappropriately bring into God?s family your worldly ethical system for students, professors, writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their application to the respective arenas from which they were devised.
Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics.
***************
Here are two excerpts from an old SNS tape #214, October 17, 1965, that show how in the older days Dr was very up front about his sources. He did this so often that the need to do it in his later years was not there, since he had put it in the record. Trouble with the TVT was it drifted from the record of what Dr said about his sources, and people forgot, and manufactured their own inaccurate EXPECTATIONS about Dr?s originality. These two excerpts are from a much larger transcript that can be found at:
http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...42&m=6816064602
and at:
http://www.gscafe.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc...0821#4006050821
******************************************************************
?And so I?d read the Word; I?d read it??I?d read it. Then I?d work, start looking??start working, and as we began working this Word of God, is when light began to dawn. And wonderful things that God did for us, He brought men and women across our paths who came just at the right time to help us in our light??men who had gone so far, but no further. But God brought these men so that we could go further because these men brought light. Men like Rufus Mosely; men like E. Stanley Jones; men like Albert Cliff; men like Star Daley; God brought all of these men and others??many of them, across our pathways, just at the right time to add to this revelation and enable us to walk on the Word and understand it.?
?But there was a hunger in my heart and God said He?d teach me the Word if I?d teach it, but I had to study, I had to work. And revelation begins??this is why I know this so well??revelation begins where the senses cease. What you can know by your senses, God expects you to know. He expects you to study the work that have already been worked out. Men like Bulinger; men like Stevie Ginsberg; God expected me to work those men and countless others. But, He taught me how to get the error out when there was any. And out of that process He taught me then, what was truth. And when there was no way of knowing it, and I?d researched to my fullest ability??tried to find out, then, if there is no other way, He showed it to me by direct revelation. Time and time again, He?d take the scripture and make it this big. I?m reading along in a verse and all at once there it is, two words, this big, for instance. Well, you have to be stupid to miss it, you know.?
******************************************************************
Of all the message elements I?ve deposited and redeposited here, the biggest one is that Dr did not really write the books.
How odd that we seem to agree on this.
I just didn?t get tricked into thinking that his originating the stuff was all that important. I just wanted to know God, and how it got to me didn?t matter. I wasn?t auditing the Way for proper procedures on copyrights. I was getting FED the Word! I gave God the ultimate credit then and now for the benefits in PFAL.
The 5-senses authorship is just a natural man?s approach to all this.
I chose to look at the spiritual matters involved and the spiritual authorship far supersedes Dr, Kenyon, Stiles, etc.
Within the family of God, I completely reject your worldly system of man-made ethics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
EWB,
Thank you for the history that made it's way to you on Bullinger.
Do you understand why I brought up the reference to Bullinger?
He was a church member. Church people work together on things. I just can't buy the idea of him doing everything alone. The kind of assistants I GUESS he had would not only not find their names on publications, but they wouldn't be mentioned in biographies and recollections of him by friends BECAUSE it's so commonplace.
For a historical account to have a passage about people helping him would seem profitless. Why bother to mention the mundane? I suspect that if you did the "proper" research you'll find no mention of Bullinger's preferences for toilet paper rolls going over or under. Are you going to conclude he had no such preference? Impossible!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
I read it once about 25 years ago. I could not quote you one single sentence from it.
Mike, Just becasue Wierwille said something does not make it true. - Interesting maybe but I would not consider what Wierwille said on these tapes to be anymore than his opinion.
So then is this a yes in regards to my question? - that you do in fact believe that there was a new administration technically beginning in 1942? Does this according to your present state of learning also mean that the grace administration has been fulfilled or come to a close? -or just added to.What then shall we call this new administration? Have you named it yet? What is different in this new administration from the grace administration. What has been ommited and what has been added - can you be specific?
Mike, is it an true administration change or not? Is it just "like" one or is it really a change. You are being vague here. Please be specific. Mike, for the sake of clarity, let's not redefine the term 'administration'. Let's stick to the commonly understood meaning like what VPW taught on administrations.I think it may have slipped by us becasue there really was no fomal announcement - at least not a clear or plain one. Please quote the part of LV where there was a formal announcement of an administration change - I'd like to see it.
BTW, You did not answer this; Do you believe that you were called by God to reveal and usher in this new administration?
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Mike:
A) I'm not going to keep pushing the anomalous
references in OMSW, since you refuse to get the
most likely reason for it. That's ok-anybody
ELSE could see it. So, I'll move on to some
fun stuff...
:)-->
B) I had said
"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 replied (7/5/02. 10:46pm, this page)
"WordWolf, I don't know how you can say [that].
Dr never made a point of his originality..."
Well, since I was addressing the orange and white books,
I thought I'd direct you to what the ORANGE AND WHITE BOOKS
say on the subject.....
--------
Power for Abundant Living, pages 119-120.
"For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I
uesd to read two or three theological works weekly for
month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor
so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend
so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had
not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired
of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes
of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit
reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years
studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, irs words.
Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know
what His Word says."
----------------------------------------------
For those of you following along at home, if he read FOUR
books a week (as opposed to "2 or 3" as he said) every week,
every year, it would take 15 years to make it thru 3,000
volumes-without rereading any. (4 books times 52 weeks is
208 books a year. 15 years at that pace would make it thru
all those books.) Considering he had to be either
completing his education, working, or both during this time,
and including things like a trip to India interrupting this,
this would be an INCREDIBLE pace to maintain.
(Of course, if you think he was at the pinnacle of human
ability, this is not an unreasonable feat.) Just thought
you guys would like the numbers crunched.
Ok, back to the main point.
He contrasted "reading 2 or 3 theological works"-his
past behavior-with his current behavior. After he dumped
"over 3,000 volumes" , he "decided to quit reading around
The Word." He contrasted reading 2 or 3 theological works
a week with "spending years studying The Word."
In plain English, what would a normal reader make of this
citation?
He or she would say that vpw has just claimed that he gave
up reading commentaries and other books ABOUT Scripture,
discarded his entire library of such books, and set about
reading only The Word, and no commentaries.
Yes, that's not what YOU'RE going to say it says, but that's
what anybody without a vested interest in the sentence would
take its meaning to be.
(Anybody know where he kept such a collection of books?
If he could fit 25 books on a shelf-which would mean they
are pretty small books-he would need 120 shelves. If he
could fit each shelf in a 3-foot space, and stacked the
shelves 7 high, he would need over 40 stacks. This would
require at least 2 regular rooms just to store all the
books, or one room with 48' on 2 walls, and 12' on the other
2 walls.)
--------------------
So, if we are to consider the orange book AUTHORITATIVE and
CANONICAL, we MUST accept vpw's statement at face value-
he had such a storage space for that many books, he had that
many books IN that space, he had read all of them over a
period of time 15 years or more (more if he read "2 or 3"
every week), he made the deliberate decision to trash them
all and forsake commentaries, and he then spent the next
several years studying The Word while forsaking any further
commentaries. Do you DARE contradict the "clear meaning"
of that passage?
If the orange PFAL book is canonical-The Word of God-and
perfect, as The Word of God MUST be, and its own explanation
as to how it is to be read is to be accepted
(more than 80-85% of The Word of God read plainly, just as
it's written), then we DARE not claim vpw did anything other
than forsake all commentaries and study ONLY The Word.
-----------------------------------------
If you are prepared to claim the orange book is WRONG on
this, and that it is NOT The Word, and perfect, then you
can discard this passage, but you must forsake your theology
as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, the orange book PLAINLY claims it (the orange book) was
the results of his OWN work, and NOT primarily the
contributions of others. In fact, its claim is that the
work of others is the ANTITHESIS of its contents-it is
the OPPOSITE of a book containing work of others-studies
of other theologians, scholars, etc.
I don't know how you can claim otherwise-
if you TRUST the orange book's testimony of itself.
---------------------------------------------------------
What about the WHITE book? Does the white book contain
such a claim as well?
-------
The white "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book...
The preface, pages ix to xi (the ENTIRE preface.)
"When I was serving my first congregation, a Korean
missionary asked me, Why don't you search for the greatest
of all things in life which would teach Christian believers
the HOW of a really victorious life?" This challenge was the
beginning of a search which led me through many, many hours
of examining different English translations, the various
critical Greek texts, and Aramaic "originals", looking for
the source of the power which was manifested in the early
Church.
Finally I realized that the experience referred to as
"receiving the holy spirit" in the Scriptures WAS and IS
actually available to every born-again believer today. I
believed to receive the gift og holy spirit and I, too,
manifested.
Ever since receiving into manifestation the holy spirit, I
have had the desire to put in written form the longings and
fears that were mine regarding the receiving thereof. I
believe that sharing my quest with the believers who are
today seeking to be endued with power from on high may be
instrumental in leading them to the answer of their hearts'
desires.
I knew from the Bible that what God sent at Pentecost was
still available. It had to be, for God does not change. I
knew that the receiving of the power from on high on the
day of Pentecost had meant increased ability for the
apostles and disciples years ago, and that I needed and
wanted the same blessing. I knew that if the Church ever
needed the holy spirit in manifestation it needed it now.
Throughout my academic training in a college, a university,
four seminaries, from the commentaries I studied, and from
my years of questing and research among the various
religious groups claiming adherence to the holy spirit's
availability, there appeared many things contradictory to
the accuracy of the recorded Word of God. I knew their
teachings were sincere, but sincerity is no guarantee for
truth.
The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside
all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew
with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I
did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,
the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must
fit like a hand in a glove.
If you are a Christian believer, I sincerely encourage you
to study this book. Do not allow your past teachings or
feelings to discourage you from going on to receive God's
best. If you need power and ability to face up to the snares
of this life, you may find your answer while reading this
book. It is my prayer that you may be edified, exhorted,
and comforted.
For those searching the Scriptures, desiring to know the
reasons why, how, what or where, I suggest you do a
carefult study of the introductions as well as the
appendicies in this volume. For those who simply desire to
receive, read chapters 1 through 5 and enjoy God's great
presence and power.
II Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.
To his helpers and colleagues every writer owes a profound
depth. This seventh edition has been read and studied
carefully by men and women of Biblical and spiritual
ability. To all of these I am most grateful."
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok, that's a lot of writing. The meaning is straightforward,
however.
The preface says that this book is the result of vpw's own
personal search for "the source of the power which was
manifested in the early Church." This search was prompted
by a question from a Korean missionary, and was conducted
through "translations", "Greek text", and "Aramaic". This
personal "quest" "put aside" everything he had "heard"
from "college, a university, four seminaries",
"commentaries", and "various religious groups claiming
adherence to the holy spirit's availability", "sincere"
thought they were. This personal "quest", instead,
was conducted with the Bible only, as "handbook" and
"textbook".
So, in plain English, this book was the product of vpw's
studies in the Bible, and contains nothing from religious
groups, commentaries, and so on.
In case you are wondering, the introduction and appendicies
do NOT invalidate this claim. There's 2 footnotes on
Lamsa in the LAST appendix, and NO mention of Stile,
Leonard or Bullinger in them at all.
So, that is what the white book clearly claims of itself.
It is the byproduct of the work of one man, vpw. This one
man consulted with Lamsa on a few points in the last
appendix, and several other people proofread the finished
work and latest edition, but NOBODY else wrote the material
upon which the book is based.
That's the plain meaning of the preface, as anyone CAN
clearly see. (Whether or not everyone would ADMIT to it is
a different story.)
--------------------------------------------
You said "Dr never made a point of his originality."
vpw clearly wrote the opposite in RTHST. Now, if RTHST
is The Word of God and canonical, you DARE not contradict
its claim to be an original work.
If you dare to claim otherwise, you must repudiate your
claim it is canonical.
(Either it is wrong, or you are.)
------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
BTW, you said of Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon,
that they didn't mind that vpw plagiarized them.
"It seems that the men Dr utilized text templates from were
also operating in Daddy's family, and that neither they nor
Daddy minded. It's you who inappropriately bring into God's
family your worldly ethical system for students, professors,
writers, reporters, and the like. I see some wisdom in their
application to the respective arenas from which they were
devised. Within the family of God, I completely reject your
worldly system of man-made ethics."
-------
First of all, Mike,
Bullinger was DEAD when vpw added one of his books to the
RTHST book in one edition (and all successive editions), and
could hardly endorse this from the grave.
Second of all, Mike,
you're speculating wildly when you say the other men didn't
mind, and neither did God.
Neither such endorsement was ever given. That's mainly
because none was SOUGHT. VPW claimed it was his own work,
then kept it carefully from public circulation. Stiles
probably never heard of RTHST before HE died, and Leonard
added elaborate copyright warnings to all his work after he
learned of it. So Leonard, at least, DID mind, quite a bit.
Perhaps it was because he was mindful of fellow Christians
that he did not seek to recover damages, as he was legally
entitled to do. A "worldly ethical system" would try to
"get away with whatever you can". An ethical system for the
family would seek to treat each member respectfully, whether
they be present or not. The fact that all OTHER Christians
besides YOU are mindful of copyrights and respecting the
property and work of each other does not move you, I
suppose. I suppose you think this disregard makes you more
"spiritual" somehow.
(I am a little curious how you'd feel if someone else
rereleased vpw's books and claimed to be the author of
original works. No, don't answer-I don't expect a truthful
answer to that one.)
==========================================================
==========================================================
In case you missed it, side-comments made in a few tapes
here and there don't absolve one from responsibility of
giving proper credit where it is due. Several editions were
made of BOTH books. In ANY of them, credit could easily have
been added. vpw CHOSE not to do so. Since we were unaware
they were not wholly original books, we didn't pry when he
made comments that he learned a few things here and there
from other Christians. We believed vpw would never lie to
us, and that if his books contained work by someone else,
he'd CERTAINLY have told us.
We were trusting fools that way.
Never again.
----------------------------------------------------------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
E. W. Bullinger
Dear Mike:
Your reasoning does not make any sense. You stretch the rules of ethics, logic and the bible to justify that VPW was the man of God for all time. You do not even consider the possibility that your hero was not 100 percent perfect.
Do you not understand the beauty of the scriptures? How a man like Moses will all of his doubts of his ability could lead the children of Israel out of Egypt to be the lawgiver? How a sinful man like Paul could check his loathing for his former self and write so many wonderful epistles to us!
The truth of the matter is that not only was VPW dishonest for plagiarizing others works, but he was also lazy. He could have easily re-written all of those manuscripts and make them totally his work. Yet he chose a dishonest shortcut.
EWB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
O.K.
After thirty-some pages of this "stuff", the question must be asked...
What's worse, to be mentally unhinged, or to argue with someone who is?
Just wondering...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
George Wrote:
Actually George, it is probably worse for someone who has no real interest in the debate to attempt to show both sides in a bad light.
Goey
"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Goey said:
"Actually George, it is probably worse for someone who has no real interest in the debate to attempt to show both sides in a bad light."
Point taken, please proceed.
Let me know when you need a Tylenol er two...
geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Garcon,
I'll have whatever Goey's having.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike...earlier you posted (to Wordguy):
Your doing a lot of inaccurate armchairing about...Please find a mirror, look into it, and say these same words to the the person you see in that mirror... using any of the books you site for the last word of the sentence.
You know Mike, my problem is not that you choose to try to convince all of us that you actually believe what you type... heck... you want to believe that ice won't melt in the Arizona sun, believe it! More power to you!
My problem is that you address every poster on this thread (and throughout GSC) as an inferior... and that you seem mystified as to why we do not subjugate ourselves to you...
well, I gotta go look up more big words in the dictionary for my next post with you... (please consider the book idea... it'll be a better use of your time)
I looked behind the curtain and saw that it was bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mike-
Out of curiosity, had you ever actually met VPW, and seen him in action when he wasn't playing his onstage/class persona?
I ask this partly due to a recent discussion on the "Brush with Fame" thread.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
This is an adversarial atmosphere, and I am treated as if I don?t know what I?m talking about by many posters here. I combat their assaults on my postings, and it?s perceived as my aggressiveness only when the aggression of the other posters is factored out.
In person, on the phone, in personal e-mailings, and when approached here personally, I can respond in such gentler atmospheres in more personable ways. Sometimes I treat my attackers kindly as a first gesture. I?m trying to be that way with you now.
Sometimes my aggressive statements of what I believe are perceived by some readers as more hostile than they are because said readers cherished beliefs are being challenged, and many hate this.
Sometimes the harsh world of mere ASCII characters makes it difficult for both writer and reader to diplomatically conduct an intense discussion. I try my best to select the least personally insulting wording, yet thoroughly confront the errors I see as most hurtful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wyteduv58
Mike, You didn't answer Dan's question. Have you or have you not met VPW outside of his frockly duties. I have and thiers definatley two, may be more sides to him.
Dovey....proud owner of two low riders...Dovey's Doxies...... Dovey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
TheInvisibleDan,
Someone here asked me something like this on a much earlier thread.
Here was how it went:
*****************************************************************
>Did you ever meet VPW?
>
Yes. I happened to park next to his camper truck at the 1972 Rock of Ages. For days it was like a football game getting around Mrs. Wierwille to get to Dr with my large list of questions. He thought it was funny and accommodated me for hours of discussion.
Then at Emporia's Advanced Class in '75 he accommodated me some more with questions, especially at the end. My train wasn't leaving until the next day, so I and 3 or 4 others, who also didn't have to pack and leave, hung out with him and talked heart stuff (no Q&A this time) for a long time.
After that I saw him only briefly and occasionally on the field at meetings, until I went to work on staff in '76. He seemed to be much more busy in those days, but there I got to know Uncle Harry very well. He sort of took me under his wing and helped get me an apartment, and took me to auctions, and had me over for dinner. He told me a lot about his brother Vic.
On staff for two years, I worked with an older lady who had gone to high school with Dr, and I heard a lot of stories from her. We worked alone most of the time and had many day-long discussions of how Dr grew up and matured in his wisdom. There's lots I can post of her recollections, but I don't consider that hard data like the tape/print record. It does falls into the category of confirmation data, though, so some I will post some of it only much later.
I lived in town with J.F.W. and family, who had worked with KM on editing the PFAL book from the film soundtrack. For two years I pumped him with questions, like I did Dr in earlier years, about how the editing process worked. We became good friends and stayed in touch. In these last five years I resumed my discussions with him about the editing he had participate in.
It was a very fun and challenging task to approach him with what I had come to believe about the God-breathed status of Dr's books. I was basically telling him I believed he and KM were like Timothy and Silvanus (see a previous post on this) who helped Paul hammer out the Thessalonians texts. It went over better than I had expected, though he didn't jump in with me.
When I approached KM with the same stuff it didn't go as well. I had never known her, so I was a stranger on the phone with a wild idea. We corresponded with about 8 e-mails, but she got exasperated with me at one point (ego leakage again?), which most of you can relate to, and we stopped communicating. Still I learned some more from her about Dr and the book production from her perspective.
Once at HQ while I was on staff, Dr had a private meeting with me in his office. I was proposing a Word in Science project to him, but he rejected it, and we talked of a few other things for a while. About a half hour after our meeting he called for an emergency staff meeting. In turns out the something I had said privately to him was the cause of the "emergency" and in front of 400 people he read me the riot act. He didn't mentioning my name, but he gave just enough clues so that everyone who knew me also knew that it was me on the hot seat.
This was not an easy thing to take because I was told that his hearing in one ear was going bad before out private meeting, and I needed to remember to speak up. What he reported to the staff of my off-the-wall offending statement seemed to be inaccurate. He seemed to either mis-quote me, or he seemed to get the paraphrase of my statement totally wrong. It wasn't what I intended to say at all.
I was pretty sure that he had simply heard me wrong, but what was I to do? Correct him at the staff meeting? Correct him later? Take it on the chin (he gave me a little practice for enduring things here) and just forget about it? It was a quandary that I didn't solve for a long time. Years. I was wondering why didn't he get revelation as to what I said, and I tried to think of all kinds of other scenarios to explain the harsh treatment I got. Slowly over the years I got little flashes as to what it was all about, but after I returned to his books and started learning again, the situation resolved rather neatly, and totally. I'm comfortable with it now, but it took years.
Shortly after my 15 minutes of de-fame at HQ I left the staff for California, not because of the that most embarrassing moment in the BRC, but because I had plans to do so many months prior. There was one other incident that involved him, but it's too private to relate here. I can tell you this, it involved some of the same things that others have complained about him here at GS and elsewhere, and I had to deal with it along with much pain.
*****************************************************************
Back to you, Dan. The times I saw him at the 1972 Rock were quite numerous. I had several other times with him at HQ not mentioned above, and at Emporia in 1975. He visited San Diego several times, but by then there were too many other people taking up his time for much of an interaction.
I always thought the spiritual action FOR ME was NOT around Dr and HQ so I left after two years. I love the field and witnessing. Witnessing was very hard in New Knoxville, but I still did it. I was appreciative of what ?man-breathed? teaching Dr had given me, as I perceived it, and I wanted to apply it on the field, not hang around the administrative machinery of a publishing company, which is what TWI was. I used PFAL as a window into my KJV, and it was the KJV that I studied intensely.
Compared to many of those around me, I did not get all that excited about Dr being all that great and good a person. Now, in the face of lots of negative reports, I still don?t get all that excited about him NOT being all that much of a nice guy. What got me excited then was the Word I could get out of the KJV, and what gets me excited now is the MORE Word I can now get out of PFAL.
I was somewhat impressed with Dr?s accomplishments and abilities, but not so much as to go into his Corps. There were several years in the 80?s, before and after he died, when I felt a degree of annoyance at him.
Dr is not at all central to my message, Jesus Christ and his appearance is. Dr was a key player, but his role is over. The Word he put into written form for God is still here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Mike - Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe. If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country.
Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance?
To what degree have the group's various members received (developed ?) the ACFW (Advanced Christ Formed Within) spirit? Is it a uniform thing, or are some members farther along than others?
Do various members contribute what their ACFW spirits are teaching them to the body of knowledge amassed by the group? If so, how are their contributions judged? How can the group as a whole tell whether some new data is really revelation, or just one person's 5-senses reasoning?
I know you are concerned with my motivation in asking these questions. You wrote, "Instead of trying to definitely shoot it [your message] down immediately, why not play with it and see where THAT line of logic takes you."
Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I've got a lot of catching up to do, because of my absence.
Hey, Mike - How come you gripe about mj412's punctuation when you continually type "Dr" instead of "Dr."?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
WordWolf, Goey, EWB, et al. - GOOD STUFF!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thank you, Mike, for sharing your experiences and taking all the time to gather and post all that material.
You really should start a website, to better arrange all these topics and experiences.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Dan,
For now I'd rather focus on the needs of people, and this is where the people are.
This is the ONLY gathering of grads anywhere where full and frank discussion is totally allowed.
I've been shown information that I totally believe will help my fellow PFAL grads both understand and deal with many people and events of the past, but more important, the things that are happening now with PFAL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
Because I think it will help her to think more clearly. This works with all people, not just her. Proof reading what we write is important too. We saw her do it once before, and here posts were easier on us readers too. If I didn't know she has the ability like I do, I'd have never utilized that one thought provoker as a shield against her assaults.
Let me ask you, Steve, why do you have a double standard in viewing my posts with her versus her posts? You're not curious about her gripes with me being unreasonable?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Mike, pretending that this is an *adversarial* place, and that we are all attacking you, we get it....( even if you don`t) If you can make us all out to be *bad* people...it makes it easier to be nasty ....makes it ok in your mind to dismiss what we say.... removes attention fromn the fact that you cannot answere honest questions....
This is patently obvious to all of us...
It`s funny ...you are following in vp`s footsteps even closer probaly, than you have imagined...He too believed that he was *entitled to behave as outragiously as he liked.... was permitted to hurt folks...to maligne inocent ... believed he was entitled to his *fun*....consequences be damned..all because HE was the bearer of THE *word*...
Emmulating his behavior is NOT a good thing.
[This message was edited by rascal on July 07, 2003 at 17:04.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Steve,
You wrote: ?Sometimes posters write that you are alone in what you believe.?
Often totally alone on these boards, but one or two or three semi sympathizers, show up from time to time.
You wrote: ?If my memory is correct, you have written that there was a group of people working on these ideas at least seven years ago, and that you became committed to this doctrine only five years ago. I believe I also remember you writing that there is a group that meets fairly regularly about an hour's travel from where you live, and that there are tens of other people around the country.?
All correct, except that the ten?s are in the leaning positively category, mostly. Under ten are gun ho.
You wrote: ?Is it safe to say that there was a loose-knit group organized around the "God-breathed PFAL" doctrine before you came to it, and that loose-knit group is still in existance??
Very small, very loose knit.
Our main activity is reading the books. It?s very time consuming and very satisfying. We?re not into taking an inventory of who?s at what stage of development. It?s a very casual atmosphere where none of the ministry meltdown stuff ever comes up. The focus is the material in the books.
We?re not into devising tests for discerning revelation that can be thumbnail into an internet post. We?re getting to know our Daddy through His Word.
You wrote: ?Before "playing" with your line of logic, I would like to know more about where it has taken YOU.?
Put yourself into my shoes here. How would you respond to an antagonist asking you those same questions?
If I had a glowing story of great deliverance and miracles, it would distract from your getting into the reading of the books.
I?m not going to try and prove with formal logic to you that coming back to PFAL is the best thing for an OLG such as yourself.
I?m not going to try and entice you with great stories of healing and success into coming back to PFAL.
I?m simply announcing that coming back to PFAL and mastering it will be a wonderful thing to do. I?m also supplying some of the details that may have slipped my most of us but are in the record. With these details we can make more informed decisions as to whether to come back to PFAL. Along the way of doing all this, I also engage in SOME discussion. There are some areas of discussion, especially public discussion, that I wont go into. The affairs of other people is one.
In this limited arena of public discussion I don?t want to bring in the people I am learning from. I volunteered of my own volition to come to GS and distribute what some of what I?ve learned, to the best of my ability to get it accurate. I volunteered with my eyes open to come here and take the heat. They, my friends, did not. They don?t ever read GS and we hardly ever talk about it. I have the time to internet surf and post because I have no wife or children. Their time is taken up with family and study of the books.
If you were approaching me privately, and you had convinced me that you want to learn from my teachers, that would be a different matter, but here in public, I think we should respect their privacy.
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.