In the 2nd ed of RTHST in 1955, VP credited "a man" for teaching him about the Holy Spirit (he did capitalize the Holy Spirit back then, and JE Stiles was the man VP refused to name- probably because if anyone read Stiles' book and RTHST, they'd see that VP plagiarized it, and VP wanted to hide his academic theft).
The 3rd ed of RTHST two years later in 1957 leaves out the phrase about the man who taught him. In its place, we read VP says, "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 textbok."
So in 1957 VP consciously decided to deceive his readers into thinking he had originated RTHST instead of stealing it. Besides conscious deception (lying) this shows a desire to promote himself as others' expense, arrogant and self-serving. He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to make that conscious choice, and in fact formed his "ministry" around it.
Those are cold, hard facts regarding the question."Was VPW a false prophet or a good minister who happened to fall down the cr@pper"?
If you have cold , hard facts to the contrary, this would be the time and place to state them rather than second guessing someones intentions and resorting to conjecture.
Those are cold, hard facts regarding the question."Was VPW a false prophet or a good minister who happened to fall down the cr@pper"?
If you have cold , hard facts to the contrary, this would be the time and place to state them rather than second guessing someones intentions and resorting to conjecture.
Let me re-quote John for you. Pay particular attention to the word I highlight in red.
In the 2nd ed of RTHST in 1955, VP credited "a man" for teaching him about the Holy Spirit (he did capitalize the Holy Spirit back then, and JE Stiles was the man VP refused to name- probably because if anyone read Stiles' book and RTHST, they'd see that VP plagiarized it, and VP wanted to hide his academic theft).
Next time you want to give a sermon on conjecture save it for your idol John. ;)
Let me re-quote John for you. Pay particular attention to the word I highlight in red.
Next time you want to give a sermon on conjecture save it for your idol John. ;)
John is certainly not my idol.
I've never met or even spoken with him.
I will say, though, that information he has brought forth has helped me personally in putting together the pieces of the puzzle as cliche as that may sound.
As to my post being a *sermon* or *conjecture*, I prefer to think of it as an open invitation.
You are hereby cordially invited to present facts that refute the facts that John J. presented.
Skip the "probably" and address that which is factual if you so desire.
(That's an open invitation, not directed to a particular individual.)
I will say, though, that information he has brought forth has helped me personally in putting together the pieces of the puzzle as cliche as that may sound.
As to my post being a *sermon* or *conjecture*, I prefer to think of it as an open invitation.
You are hereby cordially invited to present facts that refute the facts that John J. presented.
Skip the "probably" and address that which is factual if you so desire.
(That's an open invitation, not directed to a particular individual.)
You just don't get it, do you? John is conjecturing and you ignore it. But if I do the same you condemn it.
John has been invited to answer a question. If he chooses to ignore it -- so be it. If nothing else I'm amused at your attempts to defend him.
”This is ignoring and/or focusing on everything that's wrong with TWI. Iow -- you've concluded that nothing good can come out of TWI and therefore people should be warned against them. We've been over this before - If God is leading people to TWI then either God sees some redeeming qualities and purpose for TWI or God is evil.”—Larry
Only God knows what He is doing. Or why. There isn’t one person on this forum that can say God did or did not lead anyone into Twi. I don’t care what senses arguments a person gives. Does God check in with you? Disclose His heart and will to you? His purposes? I doubt it. Whether you know it not, you just slapped God Almighty in the face. I’m starting to wonder if you even care…
This is not true another spot. Not if the Bible is God's revealed word and will. You are aware of the verse concerning the secret things belonging to God but those that are revealed belong to us.?
There isn’t one person on this forum that can say God did or did not lead anyone into Twi.
If there is no person on this forum that can say one way or another that God hasn't led people to TWI then I would caution them about denigrating TWI. It could be that God is using TWI to lead people to Himself and if you oppose it, you're opposing the will of God.
I don’t care what senses arguments a person gives. Does God check in with you? Disclose His heart and will to you? His purposes? I doubt it. Whether you know it not, you just slapped God Almighty in the face. I’m starting to wonder if you even care…
Am I to believe that God checks in with you and discloses his heart and will to you? His purposes? If I slapped God in the face then I will have to answer to Him for doing so. Just like you will. I'm starting to wonder if you care . . . .
Would anybody spend any time at all coming to the defense of Jimmy Swaggert, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Peter Popoff, or Ernest Angley? Why go to bat for Mr. Wierwille then?
Jeezus, he was just another self-absorbed, self-serving, narcissistic charlatan among the MANY...
Would anybody spend any time at all coming to the defense of Jimmy Swaggert, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Peter Popoff, or Ernest Angley? Why go to bat for Mr. Wierwille then?
Jeezus, he was just another self-absorbed, self-serving, narcissistic charlatan among the MANY...
In the 2nd ed of RTHST in 1955, VP credited "a man" for teaching him about the Holy Spirit (he did capitalize the Holy Spirit back then, and JE Stiles was the man VP refused to name- probably because if anyone read Stiles' book and RTHST, they'd see that VP plagiarized it, and VP wanted to hide his academic theft).
The 3rd ed of RTHST two years later in 1957 leaves out the phrase about the man who taught him. In its place, we read VP says, "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 textbok."
So in 1957 VP consciously decided to deceive his readers into thinking he had originated RTHST instead of stealing it. Besides conscious deception (lying) this shows a desire to promote himself as others' expense, arrogant and self-serving. He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to make that conscious choice, and in fact formed his "ministry" around it.
How early did VP go bad?
Well, in 1953........according to Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, VPW heard of Rev. B. G. Leonard's class and was a student in this February class. At 37 years old, wierwille had become frustrated and disappointed with his ministerial work UNTIL this turning point. This class thrilled wierwille and focused his direction on the holy spirit field.
Some three months later, in June/July of 1953 wierwille and Mrs. and Don (along with two carloads of wierwille's congregants) attended the next Leonard class. VPW was a grad of the class and wanted to attend again. What else did he learn?.....class registration setup? procedures? class photo? follow-up?
Heading home, vpw starts signing up family, relatives, friends, and neighbors for an October class......a class that HE teaches with no sylllabus, no handouts, no charts. The grads of Leonard's class are considered GRADS in this "wierwille class" and do not have to pay the registration fee.
In that same year, 1953.........The Way, Inc.
How early did VP go bad? I guess that depends on what someone deems "bad".......but he started his plagarism and deception in 1953. The "founder" and president of twi STOLE this work......and the fabrication of lies and deception followed him the rest of his life, unto death.
The one thing that no body can say for certain is at this point in vpw's life did he think that he was working in conjunction with BG or was he fully aware that he was stealing the class and had the intent of doing just that. Well, I say "no body" but maybe somebody can site some credible source to identify motive.
Mind you I am in no way sypethizing with vp. The facts are the facts. The actual changes to the RTHT book are facts. The conjecture of "why" he did it is not fact. It is fact that he started his class just months after attending BG's class and they were all but identical.
Stating the facts is not the same as attacking. But attacking the facts will get you attacked.
I think had you not been seen as attacking someone who was stating a list of facts (with one personal opinion inserted) and a person who has actually helped people heal then you would not have been attacked in turn. Your original question might be answered more quickly if you were to take it to John's site and ask it directly as I do not think that he frequents GS enough to notice a question directed to him on a thread. Perhaps a PM? Just a suggestion.
BTW- I thought I was special! No more nick names! It makes a she-shark jealous.... :(
First off, my dear lady, let me commend you for one of your finest pieces of articulation. You are truly a smart an intelligent woman.
<snip> Your original question might be answered more quickly if you were to take it to John's site and ask it directly as I do not think that he frequents GS enough to notice a question directed to him on a thread. Perhaps a PM? Just a suggestion. <snip>
I'm in no hurry. Patience is a virtue and I've had plenty of experience to develop it. And if by chance John never responds to my question I've also plenty of experience letting go of those things I have no control over. But thanks anyways, for the suggestion.
George, George, George. *sigh* I wonder what your response would be if I were to say: "I get so tired of this (endless bashing of TWI). Would it be: "If you don't like it -- take a hike."
Would anybody spend any time at all coming to the defense of Jimmy Swaggert, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Peter Popoff, or Ernest Angley? Why go to bat for Mr. Wierwille then?
Oh, I don't know. Why don't you start a thread discussing them and I'll see if I can come up with anything. ;)
Jeezus, he was just another self-absorbed, self-serving, narcissistic charlatan among the MANY...
Nice rant.
I just don't get you Larry...
It's not a requirement.
I take it you didn't like my response to your "honest" question.
Btw -- What do you consider a dishonest question to be?
In the 2nd ed of RTHST in 1955, VP credited "a man" for teaching him about the Holy Spirit (he did capitalize the Holy Spirit back then, and JE Stiles was the man VP refused to name- probably because if anyone read Stiles' book and RTHST, they'd see that VP plagiarized it, and VP wanted to hide his academic theft).
The 3rd ed of RTHST two years later in 1957 leaves out the phrase about the man who taught him. In its place, we read VP says, "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 textbok."
So in 1957 VP consciously decided to deceive his readers into thinking he had originated RTHST instead of stealing it.
Everything up to this point is statement of fact.
All of these are documented.
Besides conscious deception (lying) this shows a desire to promote himself as others' expense, arrogant and self-serving. He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to make that conscious choice, and in fact formed his "ministry" around it.
"Conscious deception (lying)" is a fact.
(That's rephrasing what was already said.)
"He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to
make that conscious choice"- conclusions based directly on the facts.
(He made a number of decisions across the years, including the mentioned ones- that indicate those
were his conscious choices, and CONSISTENT conscious choices.)
That the conscious deceptions "show a desire to promote himself at others' expense" is a direct conclusion
based on the initial quoted facts.
(He lied about being the source of the materials, rather than naming the sources, and promoted
himself at others' expense. That's because he wanted to. For most people, this is not that hard
to see.)
"Arrogant and self-serving" is an interpretation of the facts.
(He promoted himself at others' expense- why? Arrogance and self-serving desire.
That's technically conjecture, but hardly drawn from thin air.
It's a conclusion based on what was already known.)
For those of you that forgot about the Tulsa snow job, here's what vpw said
about it in TW:LiL:
pg-198.
So I left the meeting, slipped out, went to my hotel and called the airport. I was all set to check out. But a funny thing had happened-
there was a blizzard in Tulsa. All the planes were grounded, So I couldn't get a plane. I tried the trains-they were all snowed in. The buses-same thing. The city was snowbound. I just couldn't get out!
Well, I called back the airport, and they said they could put me on standby for the night. I asked the girl on the phone, 'Does this happen all the time?' She said, 'No, this is the first time."'
=====
Meanwhile,
"The Tulsa Tribune notes that the temperature that day was 60 degrees [Farenheit], and the overnight
low never even got down to freezing. December 1951 records in 'Climatological Data for Oklahoma'
show only 5/10 an inch of snow in Dec 8 and 6/10 inch on Dec 20. NEITHER date concurs with
Wierwille's visit, and neither records anything near a blizzard which could stop ALL BUSSES AND TRAINS.
Way Corps graduate Barries Hill later confirmed that the rally was the Divine Healing Convention,
December 11-13, 1951, sponsored by 'the Voice of Healing' magazine, and that Wierwille stayed
at the Hotel Tulsa (which was razed in 1973.) Hill notes that the weather bureau, newspapers and airport
do NOT record a snowstorm at that time. When she mentioned this to Wierwille, he dismissed these facts
by suggesting that the blizzard was "a phenomenon" or that he "spoke with angels" when he called
the airport, train station and bus station. (Wierwille conveniently blames holy angels for LYING to him
about the weather rather than admit his fabrication!)"
==========
For those curious about what was conjecture and what was fact, here's the score:
Blizzard in Tulsa: proven lie
vpw lied about blizzard in Tulsa: fact (unless one is prepared to accept "angels lied to me" as "evidence")
angels covered up all evidence the city was not having any SNOW, let alone a blizzard: unsupported
conjecture offered by vpw.
(This would require them intercepting phonecalls to bus, train and plane lines, as well as
deceiving the people at the convention and deceiving vpw so he saw people entering the building
covered in snow.)
Most logical conclusion: vpw lied about the snowstorm.
Alternate conclusion: angels lied to vpw, who truthfully passed on their lies in ignorance
Those of you playing along have the choice of which conclusion you think is correct.
Then of course, there's the non-committal conclusion:
"I do not wish to think about this at all or form any opinion on this."
Of course, that raises the question of what one is avoiding. but anyone can choose this...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
28
46
60
Popular Days
Aug 6
89
Aug 5
64
Aug 7
52
Sep 5
42
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 39 posts
ex10 28 posts
Ham 46 posts
Larry N Moore 60 posts
Popular Days
Aug 6 2007
89 posts
Aug 5 2007
64 posts
Aug 7 2007
52 posts
Sep 5 2007
42 posts
Popular Posts
mamouda
Quote Teach. Apt to teach, he must be able to teach. Apt to teaching. I so believe that I’m apt to teach that when I finish tonight, I don’t expect any questions left over the
mamouda
I had to put up with one for 6 years after I divorced. I understand how Mrs W became another woman after he died! I wrote a blog about them while I was in this relationship and I learned so much doing
mamouda
Rocky I also can tell you I'm very frustrated because I have to unlearn the things I learned and I'm very bad at studying God's Word. So when I have a question I ask God to show me and He leads me to
waysider
Those are cold, hard facts regarding the question."Was VPW a false prophet or a good minister who happened to fall down the cr@pper"?
If you have cold , hard facts to the contrary, this would be the time and place to state them rather than second guessing someones intentions and resorting to conjecture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Let me re-quote John for you. Pay particular attention to the word I highlight in red.
Next time you want to give a sermon on conjecture save it for your idol John. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
John is certainly not my idol.
I've never met or even spoken with him.
I will say, though, that information he has brought forth has helped me personally in putting together the pieces of the puzzle as cliche as that may sound.
As to my post being a *sermon* or *conjecture*, I prefer to think of it as an open invitation.
You are hereby cordially invited to present facts that refute the facts that John J. presented.
Skip the "probably" and address that which is factual if you so desire.
(That's an open invitation, not directed to a particular individual.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
You just don't get it, do you? John is conjecturing and you ignore it. But if I do the same you condemn it.
John has been invited to answer a question. If he chooses to ignore it -- so be it. If nothing else I'm amused at your attempts to defend him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
”This is ignoring and/or focusing on everything that's wrong with TWI. Iow -- you've concluded that nothing good can come out of TWI and therefore people should be warned against them. We've been over this before - If God is leading people to TWI then either God sees some redeeming qualities and purpose for TWI or God is evil.”—Larry
Only God knows what He is doing. Or why. There isn’t one person on this forum that can say God did or did not lead anyone into Twi. I don’t care what senses arguments a person gives. Does God check in with you? Disclose His heart and will to you? His purposes? I doubt it. Whether you know it not, you just slapped God Almighty in the face. I’m starting to wonder if you even care…
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
This is not true another spot. Not if the Bible is God's revealed word and will. You are aware of the verse concerning the secret things belonging to God but those that are revealed belong to us.?
If there is no person on this forum that can say one way or another that God hasn't led people to TWI then I would caution them about denigrating TWI. It could be that God is using TWI to lead people to Himself and if you oppose it, you're opposing the will of God.Am I to believe that God checks in with you and discloses his heart and will to you? His purposes? If I slapped God in the face then I will have to answer to Him for doing so. Just like you will. I'm starting to wonder if you care . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe I'm missing something here.
John laid some facts on the table regarding authorship of RTHS.
Yes, he injected some conjecture and opinion.
I'm not asking anyone to address that aspect of the post.
What I am inviting is disputation of the portions that were stated as being factual.
For the record
I'm not in any kind of position to condemn ANYONE.
Feel free to offer your own conjecture of what the facts may be telling us.
I may or may not agree but I promise you I will not ignore your response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I get so tired of this.
Would anybody spend any time at all coming to the defense of Jimmy Swaggert, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Peter Popoff, or Ernest Angley? Why go to bat for Mr. Wierwille then?
Jeezus, he was just another self-absorbed, self-serving, narcissistic charlatan among the MANY...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
How early did VP go bad?
Well, in 1953........according to Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, VPW heard of Rev. B. G. Leonard's class and was a student in this February class. At 37 years old, wierwille had become frustrated and disappointed with his ministerial work UNTIL this turning point. This class thrilled wierwille and focused his direction on the holy spirit field.
Some three months later, in June/July of 1953 wierwille and Mrs. and Don (along with two carloads of wierwille's congregants) attended the next Leonard class. VPW was a grad of the class and wanted to attend again. What else did he learn?.....class registration setup? procedures? class photo? follow-up?
Heading home, vpw starts signing up family, relatives, friends, and neighbors for an October class......a class that HE teaches with no sylllabus, no handouts, no charts. The grads of Leonard's class are considered GRADS in this "wierwille class" and do not have to pay the registration fee.
In that same year, 1953.........The Way, Inc.
How early did VP go bad? I guess that depends on what someone deems "bad".......but he started his plagarism and deception in 1953. The "founder" and president of twi STOLE this work......and the fabrication of lies and deception followed him the rest of his life, unto death.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
wowzer, i wasn't even born yet, and that jerk was starting his stuff !!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I just don't get you Larry...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
doojable.....I think it's called distraction.
Anything to distract others from wierwille.....the thread title.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Ok...I'm you're Huckleberry...God has never led anyone to twi...
it was an Amway-like scam...wake up and smell the coffee.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it took me (taking me) a lot longer to get over my problems after TWI (that i got from TWI)
does that make sense or answer the question ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
It is amazing isnt it?
Larry,
The one thing that no body can say for certain is at this point in vpw's life did he think that he was working in conjunction with BG or was he fully aware that he was stealing the class and had the intent of doing just that. Well, I say "no body" but maybe somebody can site some credible source to identify motive.
Mind you I am in no way sypethizing with vp. The facts are the facts. The actual changes to the RTHT book are facts. The conjecture of "why" he did it is not fact. It is fact that he started his class just months after attending BG's class and they were all but identical.
Stating the facts is not the same as attacking. But attacking the facts will get you attacked.
I think had you not been seen as attacking someone who was stating a list of facts (with one personal opinion inserted) and a person who has actually helped people heal then you would not have been attacked in turn. Your original question might be answered more quickly if you were to take it to John's site and ask it directly as I do not think that he frequents GS enough to notice a question directed to him on a thread. Perhaps a PM? Just a suggestion.
BTW- I thought I was special! No more nick names! It makes a she-shark jealous.... :(
Edited 'cause I fat finned it!
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I clean the toilet sometimes, and I can't exactly put a tag on who gets the praise for that either..
it isn't exactly a pleasant job.. but if somebody doesn't do it, it just won't get done..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
who said that ? what glorifies god ? how silly
wierwille in the dark night of the soul (ha, motorcoach) certainly didn't glorify god !!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That it is! That it is, indeed.
First off, my dear lady, let me commend you for one of your finest pieces of articulation. You are truly a smart an intelligent woman.
I'm in no hurry. Patience is a virtue and I've had plenty of experience to develop it. And if by chance John never responds to my question I've also plenty of experience letting go of those things I have no control over. But thanks anyways, for the suggestion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
George, George, George. *sigh* I wonder what your response would be if I were to say: "I get so tired of this (endless bashing of TWI). Would it be: "If you don't like it -- take a hike."
Oh, I don't know. Why don't you start a thread discussing them and I'll see if I can come up with anything. ;)Nice rant.
It's not a requirement.
I take it you didn't like my response to your "honest" question.
Btw -- What do you consider a dishonest question to be?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Everything up to this point is statement of fact.
All of these are documented.
"Conscious deception (lying)" is a fact.
(That's rephrasing what was already said.)
"He didn't slip, he made an early choice, and future lies like the non-existent Tulsa snowstorm showed he continued to
make that conscious choice"- conclusions based directly on the facts.
(He made a number of decisions across the years, including the mentioned ones- that indicate those
were his conscious choices, and CONSISTENT conscious choices.)
That the conscious deceptions "show a desire to promote himself at others' expense" is a direct conclusion
based on the initial quoted facts.
(He lied about being the source of the materials, rather than naming the sources, and promoted
himself at others' expense. That's because he wanted to. For most people, this is not that hard
to see.)
"Arrogant and self-serving" is an interpretation of the facts.
(He promoted himself at others' expense- why? Arrogance and self-serving desire.
That's technically conjecture, but hardly drawn from thin air.
It's a conclusion based on what was already known.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For the curious, here's the difference we were discussing.
Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in
the 2nd edition, (pg-8):
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my
handbook as well as my textbook.
It took me seven years to find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit,
a man who knew the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that
I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage.
He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove,
and when you can do that, you can be assured of having
truth."
Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition,
the one most of us got to read:
======
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
that 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."
======
In "the Way:Living in Love", vpw has a chance to set the record straight concerning
the White Book. Here's what he says about Stiles' book with Bullinger's stuff
and a little Leonard attached to it:
"TW:LIL, pg-209.
"Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year.
I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place."
"We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.
It's a great piece of research."
==
He was speaking of the year 1954.
Also the "385 scriptures" is a number he got specifically from Bullinger's book
"the Giver and His Gifts" (now known as "Word Studies in the Holy Spirit"),
which is devoted entirely to listing all 385 instances. No mention of that, either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For those of you that forgot about the Tulsa snow job, here's what vpw said
about it in TW:LiL:
pg-198.
So I left the meeting, slipped out, went to my hotel and called the airport. I was all set to check out. But a funny thing had happened-
there was a blizzard in Tulsa. All the planes were grounded, So I couldn't get a plane. I tried the trains-they were all snowed in. The buses-same thing. The city was snowbound. I just couldn't get out!
Well, I called back the airport, and they said they could put me on standby for the night. I asked the girl on the phone, 'Does this happen all the time?' She said, 'No, this is the first time."'
=====
Meanwhile,
"The Tulsa Tribune notes that the temperature that day was 60 degrees [Farenheit], and the overnight
low never even got down to freezing. December 1951 records in 'Climatological Data for Oklahoma'
show only 5/10 an inch of snow in Dec 8 and 6/10 inch on Dec 20. NEITHER date concurs with
Wierwille's visit, and neither records anything near a blizzard which could stop ALL BUSSES AND TRAINS.
Way Corps graduate Barries Hill later confirmed that the rally was the Divine Healing Convention,
December 11-13, 1951, sponsored by 'the Voice of Healing' magazine, and that Wierwille stayed
at the Hotel Tulsa (which was razed in 1973.) Hill notes that the weather bureau, newspapers and airport
do NOT record a snowstorm at that time. When she mentioned this to Wierwille, he dismissed these facts
by suggesting that the blizzard was "a phenomenon" or that he "spoke with angels" when he called
the airport, train station and bus station. (Wierwille conveniently blames holy angels for LYING to him
about the weather rather than admit his fabrication!)"
==========
For those curious about what was conjecture and what was fact, here's the score:
Blizzard in Tulsa: proven lie
vpw lied about blizzard in Tulsa: fact (unless one is prepared to accept "angels lied to me" as "evidence")
angels covered up all evidence the city was not having any SNOW, let alone a blizzard: unsupported
conjecture offered by vpw.
(This would require them intercepting phonecalls to bus, train and plane lines, as well as
deceiving the people at the convention and deceiving vpw so he saw people entering the building
covered in snow.)
Most logical conclusion: vpw lied about the snowstorm.
Alternate conclusion: angels lied to vpw, who truthfully passed on their lies in ignorance
Those of you playing along have the choice of which conclusion you think is correct.
Then of course, there's the non-committal conclusion:
"I do not wish to think about this at all or form any opinion on this."
Of course, that raises the question of what one is avoiding. but anyone can choose this...
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.