I was braced for hearing the repetitious sounds from Dr that I did often hear from others.
Strangely, I noticed that quite a few leaders had very little fluency in their SIT. I addressed this issue for myself and it was solved. My fluency shot up very early those years. I then took it on myself to help others with this in the TIP classes. I always volunteered to be an Excellers’ Session Leader and was successful in helping others develop fluency.
But I was plagued with the thought that Dr himself had little fluency from the repetition of the film class and from the repetition of other (supposedly high ranking were some) leaders. Leaders were chosen more for their 5-senses skills, not so much for their spiritual maturity. The latter was never available, and having rejected God’s Plan for Development, they never did mature much.
But finally I actually DID hear Dr SIT and interpret, I think at PFAL 77 or some staff function. BOTH his unknown tongue and his known English gist were SUPERB!
I was quite pleasantly surprised with Dr’s rich fluency in tongues.
The practice was in the natural part, not the spiritual. The "mechanics of speech."
I always taught in Excellor's Sessions that lack of fluency is fear of odd sounds. I got them to laugh and say odd sounds with me just to get over the fears. Then they relaxed and got more fluent. I got them to confront some small fears (of sounding silly) and then the fluency flowed... naturally.
Dr even used that word, "natural" oddly enough, in relation to this. Holy spirit would get an odd sounding word or phrase and the believer could freeze, thinking it may be counterfeit. God had to stick with what they were comfortable with.
I suspect that by Pentecost the apostles had confronted most of their fears, big and little, and thus didn't need my help.
Many leaders were far from relaxed. They often feared being found out that they were not perfect. Their fluency suffered.
No kidding, Exy, Dr's SIT was rich. It was a big surprise.
Fluency in tongues was crap IMHO. It's either the spirit of God or it's not. Who cares what it sounds like. We didn't know what we were saying. Only God was supposed to right?
Why do you say “It's either the spirit of God or it's not.”
God is involved AND people are involved in TIP.
God has His part; we had our part.
God’s part is spiritual, our part was natural.
We were the final arbiter, though, in that we could always STOP.
We were in total control of the on/off switch (natural); God supplied the electricity (spiritual).
In God’s portion of the deal “it's either the spirit of God or it's not,” and it IS the spirit of God there in that part.
In our portion of the deal “it's either the spirit of God or it's not,” and it is NOT the spirit of God there in that part.
***
You wrote: “Who cares what it sounds like. We didn't know what we were saying. Only God was supposed to right?”
No! Not right! This thread is beginning to look a lot like one of those many Excellors’ Session I ran years ago. You have either forgotten what you were taught, or some of it never registered. This happened to absolutely all of us.
Please think it though a little more with me here.
We cared what it sounded like because it was supposed to be SIGN to unbelieving believers, which WE OURSELVES were in many categories. Better SIT fluency meant better sign to those hearing it AND to those speaking it. If I had heard “boop boop boop boop beep beep beep beep” at my early fellowships I’d have not been impressed. When I first developed my own fluency my believing shot up in many ways.
Another reason to develop fluency is to allow a better interpretation to be manifested. Sure these things declined as the 80’s came on, but that’s because by then we earlier grads were drifting from the “book and magazine form” of Dr’s teaching to memory and verbal traditions that were springing up. The complexity of the English message also declined because we were not heeding what we were hearing.
God is looking down one day thinking," Aha!, this guy is at his first 'believer's meeting'.
I sure hope he is impressed with how fluent and diverse the message sounds because he is one of the foreordained ones.Oh, NO! that's just a bunch of those "beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boopers! RATS!"
If God wanted you to be impressed, beep, boop, or rama lama ding dong would do quite nicely, thank you very much.
If God wanted you to be impressed, beep, boop, or rama lama ding dong would do quite nicely, thank you very much.
Being an ardent do-wop fan, I tend to agree with you here, shi-bop bop boom.
However I must remind you and everyone else, that God does not always get His way. Many resist His will. Eventually He will reign supreme, but right now, in this world, He looks like a minority player at best.
Also remember He has foreknowledge and can either prepare twig members' fluency to greet newbies, or come up with some other means if no one overcomes their fluency fears.
God wants ALL to be saved, but are all?
I don't believe God has given Himself access to our minds in that He would twiddle them to be impressed at something non-impressive. He could teach and prepare such a willing mind, and He can prepare a conducive environment, but I don't see Him forcing the impression or all would be saved by now.
However I must remind you and everyone else, that God does not always get His way. Many resist His will. Eventually He ill reign supreme, but right now, in this world, He looks like a minority player at best.
I find this doctrine strange. I don't find it strange that a man holds it; men think of all kinds of kooky things; men judge God, they rebel against God, they curse God, they "explain" God. Another thing along those lines is the expression "allows God..." It's context is often, "When we....(blahblah) it allows God to (blahblah). Honestly, I think this type of thinking is as foolish as carving a wooden god to worship.
I've kept a number of things dear that I learned in the Way ministry and in the classes and programs, but one that I've thrown out is the idea that "God cannot overstep man's freedom of will." Here's another "pitiful God/ big strong man" theory: God can only speak to what He is.
Mike, you feel you "must remind" us of what you believe is literally God-breathed PFAL. I first met you over thirty years ago. We've spoken extensively and fairly recently by phone, and have traded PMs this month. You know where I stand. I love you and like you, but I think you're nuts. It's not what VP Wierwille says, but what does the Word say. That's what he taught. If you revere him, why don't you hear him?
Dan
(He generally comes back with, "but if what VP Wierwille says is what the Word says..." ... ... ... ... ... ... whatever!)
I’m going to have to leave for fellowship soon, but here goes a partial response. I do thank you for discussing these things with me, even though you strongly disagree. I know that you know I’m not nuts, or otherwise you wouldn’t talk to me in PMs.
I do KNOW that my ideas are not easy to take... at first... because they are so different from what’s out there in the world that we breathe every day.
One of the greatest revelations to me is that God is light and in Him is no darkness, NO!, none at all! I think that’s the proper translation if the I John verse.
God can not be darkness. God does not have the ability (anthropopatia - sp?) to be darkness or to contain darkness.
God can not lie. That is an OT verse somewhere.
I find it delicious to know these things and not be burdened with the common shroud of belief that God can and does everything. Sin and sickness are against His will. They are in defiance of His will...CURRENTLY.
The whole idea of “free will” means free of external determining causes, even God. God limited Himself here. When we “allow” God to work within us things can be different, but an unbeliever does not have that advantage.
Allowing God to do something is equivalent to submitting to His will. It’s a figure of speech almost (maybe IS one) where a VERY rare usage is brought out for great emphasis. Allowing God to work with me and in me has more linguistic punch to it than the simple statement of submission to His will.
I see absolutely no disrespect in saying “allowing God” as long as it rightfully sits in a context of us taking something God gave us and giving it back to Him.
***
Trying to avoid the usual charges of derailing, I’ll minimize my response on God-breathed PFAL issue.
1. - We no longer have the authoritative originals, not even close.
2. - We have no authoritative translating agency even if we DID have the originals.
These two points present us with a problem. Your solution (I’m guessing) is that you believe God for revelation on both ancient language problem of fragmentary copies and mis-copies from the originals, and for the problem of translating. On this second problem most grads now defer to some other scholar to do that work and then the grad gets revelation as to WHICH translating scholar to trust and WHERE to trust them.
My fundamental thesis here is that Dr and God addressed these two problems on a grand level, finishing the job for all.
You (probably) believe to get revelation to smooth over these two problems. However, so do many others, and they don’t all agree with each other. I fact, they quite often DISagree.
So whose solution to these problems is best? Yours? Knowing you I’ll be you do not trust your own current solution for all verses, but you are constantly fine-tuning it. If you think your fine tuning in one area is only sense-knowledge, they you know it’s not sure and somewhat a guess. If you think an area is illuminated by revelation then you are more sure.
My main theses here is that God contacted Dr in 1942 to THE grand solution to these problems. That’s not so nuts!
My main thesis here is that God gave Dr revelation on the best ancient texts when necessary and revelation on the best translations when necessary. When there weren’t any good texts or translations available for any one area, then God had to give him the revelation from scratch.
That’s not in any way fundamentally different than your (and/or others’) approach except that I believe Dr’s set of revelations (from scratch and from others’ revelations chosen by revelation) is best, the best since the first century.
We all know that what we ancient scriptures have on paper needs work and is only approximate.
We all know we need to go beyond the traditional text and translations.
God solved these two thorny problems with PFAL so that we could really obtain The Word and not merely a hand-me-down approximation of His Word.
God changed the format of His written Word long ago, from the stars to paper. Does that bother you?
The star reading understanding and skills of people had corrupted and so eventually God reformatted the whole thing on paper, instead of constantly correcting sincere, seeking, believers as they would try to read His Word in the stars.
Those people who had become inordinately attached to the tradition of the star method probably thought that the paper readers of Moses’ time and after were NUTS!
Those grads who are inordinately attached to the KJV canon and all that tradition think it’s nuts to junk it. I think many of them simply want it to be THEY THEMSELVES who are the grand fixers of the two problems outlined above.
God gave Dr revelation. God had Dr write it down for us, so FOR US it’s much better than the old traditional format and procedures. That’s not so nuts, just superficially threatening if it is the case that God really DID give that revelation.
I constantly point out here how much we either forgot or never registered of Dr’s teaching, so we are not in a good position to judge the truth of whether the revelation really was given to him. We CAN however finish listening to Dr’s teaching and then ask God. I master PFAL because Dr told us to and I found out how VERY FAR from mastering it we did.
I gotta go now, and if you want to respond further on this, Dan, I suggest you start a new thread in Doctrinal on it.
Your solution (I’m guessing) is that you believe God for revelation on both ancient language problem of fragmentary copies and mis-copies from the originals, and for the problem of translating. On this second problem most grads now defer to some other scholar to do that work and then the grad gets revelation as to WHICH translating scholar to trust and WHERE to trust them.
Not. You're off by a few ticks. I do apply to God for wisdom and discretion when reading the Scriptures. I do have the Comforter Jesus said he would send in his name, who will guide me into all truth. I do believe the words of the Lord Jesus, who said to ask, and it shall be given, to seek, and I shall find, to knock, and it shall be opened to me. This "invitation to prayer" in the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to me. I have come to this conclusion because God contacted me to give me THE grand solution to these problems, and here it is: Jesus is Lord.
snip snip snip
My main theses here is that God contacted Dr in 1942 to THE grand solution to these problems. That’s not so nuts!
OK, I concede the point. How could that be nuts? John Smith and Moroni have a similar story. Maybe they're right too.
I constantly point out here how much we either forgot or never registered of Dr’s teaching, so we are not in a good position to judge the truth of whether the revelation really was given to him. We CAN however finish listening to Dr’s teaching and then ask God. I master PFAL because Dr told us to and I found out how VERY FAR from mastering it we did.
"and then ask God" is exactly how the Mormons challenge unbelievers of the Book of Mormon (I love the name of that angel: Moroni! That cracks me up!) not that there's any guilt by association, it's just interesting that you'd phrase it like that. You take the cake, Mike. You are One of a Kind.
I gotta go now, and if you want to respond further on this, Dan, I suggest you start a new thread in Doctrinal on it.
I think Excie will grant me this one reply, and I don't intend to engage further with you on the subject. WILD HORSES could not drag me over to Doctrine to post an invitation to discuss the Scriptures seriously with you. You're nuts, Mike. Hammeroni food. 100% certifiable. I love you, Mike. I like you too, but you're nuts.
One of the most startling things you ever said to me was that you don't read the Word... you don't trust yourself to be able to read it and understand it, until you're done "mastering" the class. You read the Word only in the context of PFAL. That's consistent with your principles, which I suppose is admirable in its own right, but it seems to be a jarring contradiction of what it seemed to me Dr. was supposedly doing... getting people to read the Word and understand it for themselves. Only you can decide for yourself in what way you want to honor the man, honor God, etc. I'm just saying, the way it looks from here is that DrW himself, in his better moments, would be ashamed of what you're saying about the class. I knew him and loved him. I learned from him. I believe you're wasting a good mind and a beautiful heart (your own) with this foolishness, Mike.
BTW, I did hear DrW SIT and interpret. His "tongues" were a slight variation of what he does in the class, and his "interpretation" was very right-on with what he taught interpretation of tongues should be... no guidance, comforting words "from God" in the first Person, and "exhortation." We all felt very privileged and edified. I once heard LCM "correct" a "minor" leader for EVER calling on a visiting minister to prophesy or SIT/INT. This was NOT to be done, period.
Mike, please don't respond. Please. Let excie have her thread back.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
17
18
41
Popular Days
Sep 9
48
Sep 11
40
Sep 13
22
Mar 21
12
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 13 posts
johniam 17 posts
Ham 18 posts
waysider 41 posts
Popular Days
Sep 9 2007
48 posts
Sep 11 2007
40 posts
Sep 13 2007
22 posts
Mar 21 2010
12 posts
waysider
Nope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
No
Just the one or two lines in the class
Lashanta laka maka seeto....
That is easy enough to memorize....
Could it have been BG's tongue or J. E. Stiles or Rufus Mosley's... plagerized tongue?
Never heard Howard Allen SIT or interpret either
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes!
I did hear him SIT and interpret.
I was braced for hearing the repetitious sounds from Dr that I did often hear from others.
Strangely, I noticed that quite a few leaders had very little fluency in their SIT. I addressed this issue for myself and it was solved. My fluency shot up very early those years. I then took it on myself to help others with this in the TIP classes. I always volunteered to be an Excellers’ Session Leader and was successful in helping others develop fluency.
But I was plagued with the thought that Dr himself had little fluency from the repetition of the film class and from the repetition of other (supposedly high ranking were some) leaders. Leaders were chosen more for their 5-senses skills, not so much for their spiritual maturity. The latter was never available, and having rejected God’s Plan for Development, they never did mature much.
But finally I actually DID hear Dr SIT and interpret, I think at PFAL 77 or some staff function. BOTH his unknown tongue and his known English gist were SUPERB!
I was quite pleasantly surprised with Dr’s rich fluency in tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
get out !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bulwinkl
Eye-talian tomatoes??? that's superb????
Gar` en t - Superb?????/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
"Fluency" in tongues was always an odd concept ... did the apostles have excellors' sessions pre-Pentecost?
you move your mouth your lips ... but the holy spirit gives the utterance ... once it practices learning new words ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
even the holy spirit needs practice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The practice was in the natural part, not the spiritual. The "mechanics of speech."
I always taught in Excellor's Sessions that lack of fluency is fear of odd sounds. I got them to laugh and say odd sounds with me just to get over the fears. Then they relaxed and got more fluent. I got them to confront some small fears (of sounding silly) and then the fluency flowed... naturally.
Dr even used that word, "natural" oddly enough, in relation to this. Holy spirit would get an odd sounding word or phrase and the believer could freeze, thinking it may be counterfeit. God had to stick with what they were comfortable with.
I suspect that by Pentecost the apostles had confronted most of their fears, big and little, and thus didn't need my help.
Many leaders were far from relaxed. They often feared being found out that they were not perfect. Their fluency suffered.
No kidding, Exy, Dr's SIT was rich. It was a big surprise.
***
Summary: fears fought fluency.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well....keep us in suspense no longer ..
what exactly was the 'gist' that was so superb?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Tsk,Tsk, Mstar1
It was only for those present at the time.
Geeze! Don't youze guyz remember nuttin'?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry to keep you in suspenders forever, but I totally forgot the message.
It was comforting, exhorting, and edifying, though.
Do you remember what you had for breakfast on September 9, 1977?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, and his BULLsit was even richer!
Edited by George AarLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Actually, yes.
Same cr@ppy mush and familia we had EVERY morning in FLO!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nottawayfer
Fluency in tongues was crap IMHO. It's either the spirit of God or it's not. Who cares what it sounds like. We didn't know what we were saying. Only God was supposed to right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Nottawafer,
Why do you say “It's either the spirit of God or it's not.”
God is involved AND people are involved in TIP.
God has His part; we had our part.
God’s part is spiritual, our part was natural.
We were the final arbiter, though, in that we could always STOP.
We were in total control of the on/off switch (natural); God supplied the electricity (spiritual).
In God’s portion of the deal “it's either the spirit of God or it's not,” and it IS the spirit of God there in that part.
In our portion of the deal “it's either the spirit of God or it's not,” and it is NOT the spirit of God there in that part.
***
You wrote: “Who cares what it sounds like. We didn't know what we were saying. Only God was supposed to right?”
No! Not right! This thread is beginning to look a lot like one of those many Excellors’ Session I ran years ago. You have either forgotten what you were taught, or some of it never registered. This happened to absolutely all of us.
Please think it though a little more with me here.
We cared what it sounded like because it was supposed to be SIGN to unbelieving believers, which WE OURSELVES were in many categories. Better SIT fluency meant better sign to those hearing it AND to those speaking it. If I had heard “boop boop boop boop beep beep beep beep” at my early fellowships I’d have not been impressed. When I first developed my own fluency my believing shot up in many ways.
Another reason to develop fluency is to allow a better interpretation to be manifested. Sure these things declined as the 80’s came on, but that’s because by then we earlier grads were drifting from the “book and magazine form” of Dr’s teaching to memory and verbal traditions that were springing up. The complexity of the English message also declined because we were not heeding what we were hearing.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Man, I can just see it now.
God is looking down one day thinking," Aha!, this guy is at his first 'believer's meeting'.
I sure hope he is impressed with how fluent and diverse the message sounds because he is one of the foreordained ones.Oh, NO! that's just a bunch of those "beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boopers! RATS!"
If God wanted you to be impressed, beep, boop, or rama lama ding dong would do quite nicely, thank you very much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Being an ardent do-wop fan, I tend to agree with you here, shi-bop bop boom.
However I must remind you and everyone else, that God does not always get His way. Many resist His will. Eventually He will reign supreme, but right now, in this world, He looks like a minority player at best.
Also remember He has foreknowledge and can either prepare twig members' fluency to greet newbies, or come up with some other means if no one overcomes their fluency fears.
God wants ALL to be saved, but are all?
I don't believe God has given Himself access to our minds in that He would twiddle them to be impressed at something non-impressive. He could teach and prepare such a willing mind, and He can prepare a conducive environment, but I don't see Him forcing the impression or all would be saved by now.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I find this doctrine strange. I don't find it strange that a man holds it; men think of all kinds of kooky things; men judge God, they rebel against God, they curse God, they "explain" God. Another thing along those lines is the expression "allows God..." It's context is often, "When we....(blahblah) it allows God to (blahblah). Honestly, I think this type of thinking is as foolish as carving a wooden god to worship.
I've kept a number of things dear that I learned in the Way ministry and in the classes and programs, but one that I've thrown out is the idea that "God cannot overstep man's freedom of will." Here's another "pitiful God/ big strong man" theory: God can only speak to what He is.
Mike, you feel you "must remind" us of what you believe is literally God-breathed PFAL. I first met you over thirty years ago. We've spoken extensively and fairly recently by phone, and have traded PMs this month. You know where I stand. I love you and like you, but I think you're nuts. It's not what VP Wierwille says, but what does the Word say. That's what he taught. If you revere him, why don't you hear him?
Dan
(He generally comes back with, "but if what VP Wierwille says is what the Word says..." ... ... ... ... ... ... whatever!)
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Dan,
I’m going to have to leave for fellowship soon, but here goes a partial response. I do thank you for discussing these things with me, even though you strongly disagree. I know that you know I’m not nuts, or otherwise you wouldn’t talk to me in PMs.
I do KNOW that my ideas are not easy to take... at first... because they are so different from what’s out there in the world that we breathe every day.
One of the greatest revelations to me is that God is light and in Him is no darkness, NO!, none at all! I think that’s the proper translation if the I John verse.
God can not be darkness. God does not have the ability (anthropopatia - sp?) to be darkness or to contain darkness.
God can not lie. That is an OT verse somewhere.
I find it delicious to know these things and not be burdened with the common shroud of belief that God can and does everything. Sin and sickness are against His will. They are in defiance of His will...CURRENTLY.
The whole idea of “free will” means free of external determining causes, even God. God limited Himself here. When we “allow” God to work within us things can be different, but an unbeliever does not have that advantage.
Allowing God to do something is equivalent to submitting to His will. It’s a figure of speech almost (maybe IS one) where a VERY rare usage is brought out for great emphasis. Allowing God to work with me and in me has more linguistic punch to it than the simple statement of submission to His will.
I see absolutely no disrespect in saying “allowing God” as long as it rightfully sits in a context of us taking something God gave us and giving it back to Him.
***
Trying to avoid the usual charges of derailing, I’ll minimize my response on God-breathed PFAL issue.
1. - We no longer have the authoritative originals, not even close.
2. - We have no authoritative translating agency even if we DID have the originals.
These two points present us with a problem. Your solution (I’m guessing) is that you believe God for revelation on both ancient language problem of fragmentary copies and mis-copies from the originals, and for the problem of translating. On this second problem most grads now defer to some other scholar to do that work and then the grad gets revelation as to WHICH translating scholar to trust and WHERE to trust them.
My fundamental thesis here is that Dr and God addressed these two problems on a grand level, finishing the job for all.
You (probably) believe to get revelation to smooth over these two problems. However, so do many others, and they don’t all agree with each other. I fact, they quite often DISagree.
So whose solution to these problems is best? Yours? Knowing you I’ll be you do not trust your own current solution for all verses, but you are constantly fine-tuning it. If you think your fine tuning in one area is only sense-knowledge, they you know it’s not sure and somewhat a guess. If you think an area is illuminated by revelation then you are more sure.
My main theses here is that God contacted Dr in 1942 to THE grand solution to these problems. That’s not so nuts!
My main thesis here is that God gave Dr revelation on the best ancient texts when necessary and revelation on the best translations when necessary. When there weren’t any good texts or translations available for any one area, then God had to give him the revelation from scratch.
That’s not in any way fundamentally different than your (and/or others’) approach except that I believe Dr’s set of revelations (from scratch and from others’ revelations chosen by revelation) is best, the best since the first century.
We all know that what we ancient scriptures have on paper needs work and is only approximate.
We all know we need to go beyond the traditional text and translations.
God solved these two thorny problems with PFAL so that we could really obtain The Word and not merely a hand-me-down approximation of His Word.
God changed the format of His written Word long ago, from the stars to paper. Does that bother you?
The star reading understanding and skills of people had corrupted and so eventually God reformatted the whole thing on paper, instead of constantly correcting sincere, seeking, believers as they would try to read His Word in the stars.
Those people who had become inordinately attached to the tradition of the star method probably thought that the paper readers of Moses’ time and after were NUTS!
Those grads who are inordinately attached to the KJV canon and all that tradition think it’s nuts to junk it. I think many of them simply want it to be THEY THEMSELVES who are the grand fixers of the two problems outlined above.
God gave Dr revelation. God had Dr write it down for us, so FOR US it’s much better than the old traditional format and procedures. That’s not so nuts, just superficially threatening if it is the case that God really DID give that revelation.
I constantly point out here how much we either forgot or never registered of Dr’s teaching, so we are not in a good position to judge the truth of whether the revelation really was given to him. We CAN however finish listening to Dr’s teaching and then ask God. I master PFAL because Dr told us to and I found out how VERY FAR from mastering it we did.
I gotta go now, and if you want to respond further on this, Dan, I suggest you start a new thread in Doctrinal on it.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
BTW, I did hear DrW SIT and interpret. His "tongues" were a slight variation of what he does in the class, and his "interpretation" was very right-on with what he taught interpretation of tongues should be... no guidance, comforting words "from God" in the first Person, and "exhortation." We all felt very privileged and edified. I once heard LCM "correct" a "minor" leader for EVER calling on a visiting minister to prophesy or SIT/INT. This was NOT to be done, period.
Mike, please don't respond. Please. Let excie have her thread back.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Has anyone OTHER THAN MIKE ever heard Vp speak in tongues outside of the class?
Or Howard Allen?
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.