In pfal, wierwille tells the story of the mother and her son.
As he builds the story to a climax.....giving the students the vivid mind picture of this mother worrying and worrying about her "little Johnnie." According to vicster....."she *held that fear and held that fear until ONE DAY, IT HAPPENED. Little Johnnie was killed outright."
Wierwille continues to say......"YOU KNOW what killed that little boy, you just quit your yakking................
IT WAS THE FEAR IN THE HEART OF THAT WOMAN THAT KILLED HER LITTLE BOY.
Why didn't wierwille use the word *alleged* murderer......???
No conviction, right??
Or.......was wierwille the judge and jury and news reporter at the scene of this crime?
Note: This thread needs to be read in context with The Voice of Offense thread.
Maybe because the story was not about real people. but if it was then he should have .
I remember that story both the first time I heard it and the many times it was referred to.
There was never, ever, any indication that it was anything other than a first person account by VPW. It was told in such a way that everyone received the distinct impression that this was a real woman and child, known to VPW and that he was telling us about actual events--events that supported the doctrine of "believing equals receiving"
He was murdered by his mother. Im trying to use the words you want to be used.
Now if VPW had said :He was murded by mother , then he could be in trouble for lible or slander, unless he could prove he had facts that prove his statement.
he didnt he gave his opinion on what he thinks happened to the boy, he said he was run over by a car.
We can say anything we like as long as we do not implicate another or accuse or give false information that can be proven other wise.
If you say someone raped me , or another person and their is NO facts to prove it you could be in trouble.
If you say I think that person looks like he may rape somone it can lead to trouble it is a slanderous statement.
i write this only to clarify if your really confused on why sentence structure makes a difference.
He didnt give a name, Sue Smith Murdered her son. it was a story. did he know somone that happened to?
i do not know he did present it as such but he never gave a name or a time. he was a story teller we tell sotrys everyday in our music and preachin , the old I knew a guy once is used often on GS.
naw.. it was the wierwillian theology that killed that little boy..
the fear.. in the heart.. in the life.. of that mother..
let's not stew and yak about what it was..
it was the embodiment of "da word as it hath not a been a known since the foist century" that was responsible. At least it was the contributing factor that "led to the death of that boy"..
Getting back to the mother and son story, in my branch there was a family involved with TWI - daughter gone WOW, father in twig, mother not. Turns out that the mother had lost her son at an early age. She had taken the class was deeply hurt by VP's implication that her believing might have killed her child.
Even the chapters of "his" collaterals and I'm sure the content too.
It's like the perpetual liar or thief, once he got away with the main batch of lies, he just couldn't stop, talk about debil spurts!!! Â LOL! Â He was the king of a conscience seared with a hot iron...incredible.
And we all swallowed his sheet when he fed it to us, liked it, and asked for more, he must have beenÂ
laughing all the way to the bank.
Good one Skyrider, priceless comeback!! Â Slam dunk!! Â Â
All said and done, it was not a good example at all.
Now anyone who has a child would live in a world of guilt if something ever happened to them.
I think VP just rehashed stuff that he heard without even thinking about it.
Just part of the VP the great show.
I disagree.
I think vpw very carefully selected that example BECAUSE it would scare the lcm out of
anyone who was accepting what he said.
Don't take this class seriously? Well, then people you love could DIE!
How's that for a motivation to complete a class?
It was obviously a "parable" set forth by the teacher. As with most parables, the characters are fictional and the true meaning is hidden
to the spiritually ignorant until the meaning of the parable is revealed.
The mother represents ______________.
The child represents _______________.
The mothers unbelief represents ______________ .
The death of the child represents _____________.
And the moral of the story is _________________________________________________ .
Fill in the blanks
In 20/20 hindsight, most or all of us say that it "obviously" was meant as some sort of story.
One thing we're NOW confident of, was that vpw put forth this actually happened,
and we were to believe
a) this mother existed and feared, and this caused her child to be killed
b) her child existed-and was killed by his mother's fear
c) this was an example of an operation of a principle that was effectively a Law of Physics
(because for it to not work, "God would have to change the laws of the universe")
We're also confident now that this didn't happen, and the entire thing is made-up.
(Anyone ever wonder what town the woman lived in-the woman with the red drapes?)
Getting back to the mother and son story, in my branch there was a family involved with TWI - daughter gone WOW, father in twig, mother not. Turns out that the mother had lost her son at an early age. She had taken the class was deeply hurt by VP's implication that her believing might have killed her child.
What can you say to something like that?
Lots of parents have lost children. Sad, but true.
Some of the parents took pfal.
More than one felt VERY bad-and blamed THEMSELVES for the deaths of their children.
Those who didn`t lose children...family members...have car accidents....money troubles....etc were the GOOD believers.
Have any problems, sickness etc....and it was because you personally were blowing it some where.
This was one of the most personally destructive teachings in pfal.
It caused the most heart ache because folks were blamed and many times abandoned when they needed support the most.
There was so much shame when things didn`t work out as anticipated....we always blamed ourselves instead of questioning whether it was a valid teaching :(
I think what we need to remember is VPW's tremendous ego. Everything was a result of him, in his world.
While our 20/20 hindsight may want to believe that these were parables or for demonstration purposes at the time-- I will wager that most of us , including myself, believed what he said was first person knowledge. Just like snow covered gas pumps, hook shots etc.
Face it, we were convinced this man was the greatest thing since the first century church -- we bought this story hook, line, and sinker as a real event that VPW knew about personally. That was the power base that he had, he knew so much and he was willing to impart it to us know-nothings.
Maybe it's just me... but I never took it as anything more than 'another one of his stories'... but it certainly made me realize the power of FEAR!
Yeah.....in hindsight, it was probably "another one of his stories."
Wierwille definitely planted this one in the student's mind for maximum impact on his doctrine of *the law of believing.* This woman had FEAR.......and her son died. In contrast, wierwille cites how HE operated this *law of believing* with his family. HE prayed with his family at the breakfast table (implication ---- without fear)......and his family flourished. (another story??)
What about wierwille hauling some 3,000 volumes of commentaries to the trash dumpster??
What about his story of black heart/ white heart revelation? Just another made-up story??
Getting back to the mother and son story, in my branch there was a family involved with TWI - daughter gone WOW, father in twig, mother not. Turns out that the mother had lost her son at an early age. She had taken the class was deeply hurt by VP's implication that her believing might have killed her child.
What can you say to something like that?
You tell her that every parent fears something awful will happen to their children, and for some parents, that fear becomes a reality. It is not the fear that causes it, for if that were the case, humanity would have not gone more than three generations.
Recommended Posts
WhiteDove
Maybe because the story was not about real people. but if it was then he should have .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
What???!!!???.......you mean, he made that sh1t up?
How about the "red drapes" story? Not real, either???
How about the "India--train scene?" Not real, either???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I remember that story both the first time I heard it and the many times it was referred to.
There was never, ever, any indication that it was anything other than a first person account by VPW. It was told in such a way that everyone received the distinct impression that this was a real woman and child, known to VPW and that he was telling us about actual events--events that supported the doctrine of "believing equals receiving"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
it is a past tense sentence.
He was murdered by his mother. Im trying to use the words you want to be used.
Now if VPW had said :He was murded by mother , then he could be in trouble for lible or slander, unless he could prove he had facts that prove his statement.
he didnt he gave his opinion on what he thinks happened to the boy, he said he was run over by a car.
We can say anything we like as long as we do not implicate another or accuse or give false information that can be proven other wise.
If you say someone raped me , or another person and their is NO facts to prove it you could be in trouble.
If you say I think that person looks like he may rape somone it can lead to trouble it is a slanderous statement.
i write this only to clarify if your really confused on why sentence structure makes a difference.
Edited by pondLink to comment
Share on other sites
pond
He didnt give a name, Sue Smith Murdered her son. it was a story. did he know somone that happened to?
i do not know he did present it as such but he never gave a name or a time. he was a story teller we tell sotrys everyday in our music and preachin , the old I knew a guy once is used often on GS.
it doesnt implicate anyone .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
naw.. it was the wierwillian theology that killed that little boy..
the fear.. in the heart.. in the life.. of that mother..
let's not stew and yak about what it was..
it was the embodiment of "da word as it hath not a been a known since the foist century" that was responsible. At least it was the contributing factor that "led to the death of that boy"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
It was obviously a "parable" set forth by the teacher. As with most parables, the characters are fictional and the true meaning is hidden
to the spiritually ignorant until the meaning of the parable is revealed.
The mother represents ______________.
The child represents _______________.
The mothers unbelief represents ______________ .
The death of the child represents _____________.
And the moral of the story is _________________________________________________ .
Fill in the blanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Perhaps a clue to the India--train scene is hidden in the works of----------
Eli Stanley Jones
E. Stanley Jones, as you may recall, spent many years as a missionary in India.
So many, in fact, that he is sometimes called "the Billy Graham of India".
FACT
Jones is credited as being the author of the now famous quote:
"Fear is sand in the machinery of life."
Here is a Wiki link on E. Stanley Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Stanley_Jones
Jones was a very prolific writer.
Pay special attention to the titles of some of his writings.
His writings included works titled:
The Way
Living Victoriously
Abundant Living
How To Pray
Christ and Human Suffering
And so on-----
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Getting back to the mother and son story, in my branch there was a family involved with TWI - daughter gone WOW, father in twig, mother not. Turns out that the mother had lost her son at an early age. She had taken the class was deeply hurt by VP's implication that her believing might have killed her child.
What can you say to something like that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Holy Sheet! Â He stole from EVERYONE!!!!!
Even the chapters of "his" collaterals and I'm sure the content too.
It's like the perpetual liar or thief, once he got away with the main batch of lies, he just couldn't stop, talk about debil spurts!!! Â LOL! Â He was the king of a conscience seared with a hot iron...incredible.
And we all swallowed his sheet when he fed it to us, liked it, and asked for more, he must have beenÂ
laughing all the way to the bank.
Good one Skyrider, priceless comeback!! Â Slam dunk!! Â Â
Link to comment
Share on other sites
polar bear
All said and done, it was not a good example at all.
Now anyone who has a child would live in a world of guilt if something ever happened to them.
I think VP just rehashed stuff that he heard without even thinking about it.
Just part of the VP the great show.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I disagree.
I think vpw very carefully selected that example BECAUSE it would scare the lcm out of
anyone who was accepting what he said.
Don't take this class seriously? Well, then people you love could DIE!
How's that for a motivation to complete a class?
In 20/20 hindsight, most or all of us say that it "obviously" was meant as some sort of story.
One thing we're NOW confident of, was that vpw put forth this actually happened,
and we were to believe
a) this mother existed and feared, and this caused her child to be killed
b) her child existed-and was killed by his mother's fear
c) this was an example of an operation of a principle that was effectively a Law of Physics
(because for it to not work, "God would have to change the laws of the universe")
We're also confident now that this didn't happen, and the entire thing is made-up.
(Anyone ever wonder what town the woman lived in-the woman with the red drapes?)
Lots of parents have lost children. Sad, but true.
Some of the parents took pfal.
More than one felt VERY bad-and blamed THEMSELVES for the deaths of their children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
YES!
Those who didn`t lose children...family members...have car accidents....money troubles....etc were the GOOD believers.
Have any problems, sickness etc....and it was because you personally were blowing it some where.
This was one of the most personally destructive teachings in pfal.
It caused the most heart ache because folks were blamed and many times abandoned when they needed support the most.
There was so much shame when things didn`t work out as anticipated....we always blamed ourselves instead of questioning whether it was a valid teaching :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Maybe it's just me... but I never took it as anything more than 'another one of his stories'... but it certainly made me realize the power of FEAR!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I think what we need to remember is VPW's tremendous ego. Everything was a result of him, in his world.
While our 20/20 hindsight may want to believe that these were parables or for demonstration purposes at the time-- I will wager that most of us , including myself, believed what he said was first person knowledge. Just like snow covered gas pumps, hook shots etc.
Face it, we were convinced this man was the greatest thing since the first century church -- we bought this story hook, line, and sinker as a real event that VPW knew about personally. That was the power base that he had, he knew so much and he was willing to impart it to us know-nothings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Perhaps because the word "murder" can mean intent to kill. Here there was no intent, therefore no need to use the word murder, let alone alleged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
manslaughter can be alleged... so vpw made a manslaughter allegation against the mother because her son got hit by a car and it was her fault.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
It was the same woman who believed for the red drapes who killed her son. There's just not many women like that around you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
-------It's a moot point, Oldies.-------
It's not about whether he used the actual word "murder".
It's about the fact that he told us the boy died as a direct result of the "fear" in the mother's heart.
He did not say it was alleged.
He said it happened.
He was implying that fear in our lives would yield similar results.
That's the conclusion that he intended for us to draw.
Then he offered the solution for the "problem".
Everyone has fears of one sort or another.
That(having fears) doesn't cause actual events to take place in ones life.
It's nothing more than a control tactic that utilizes fear of consequences as the motivator.
It's used frequently in advertising.
You probably never realized that "ring around the collar" was such a social dilemma until some advertiser told you so.
Not to worry, though, they had a product that could solve the problem you never knew you had.
The difference is that they never implied you could die from "ring around the collar".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Yeah.....in hindsight, it was probably "another one of his stories."
Wierwille definitely planted this one in the student's mind for maximum impact on his doctrine of *the law of believing.* This woman had FEAR.......and her son died. In contrast, wierwille cites how HE operated this *law of believing* with his family. HE prayed with his family at the breakfast table (implication ---- without fear)......and his family flourished. (another story??)
What about wierwille hauling some 3,000 volumes of commentaries to the trash dumpster??
What about his story of black heart/ white heart revelation? Just another made-up story??
Is it real.....or is it memorex??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You tell her that every parent fears something awful will happen to their children, and for some parents, that fear becomes a reality. It is not the fear that causes it, for if that were the case, humanity would have not gone more than three generations.
JOB WAS INNOCENT!
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.