VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[waysider]

Mike

That's called cherry picking.

You can certainly do that if you so choose.

It doesn't bolster the credibility of your argument, though.

[Mike]

I call it time management, and I hardly have a choice.

You didn't answer my question.

[waysider]

I call it time management, and I hardly have a choice.

You didn't answer my question.

Which question, Mike?

[WhiteDove]

QUOTE

No, I posted above what he taught. It's not "the Bible" but "The Word" that he took as his only rule. That was in 1967, when hardly any of PFAL was in written form. In those days all WE had was our KJV and the spoken class to fix some of it. We went with what we had, which was better than nothing.

Hey Mike

I am confused as to why you think that in 1967 hardly any of PFAL was in written form. There were pamphlets that accompanied the class they just were not combined into the one book format. but they were done by 1953 the monographs or Youth Caravan Pamphlets as they are referred to sometimes. By 1955 the second edition of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was out. From 62 - 66 Studies in abundant living series were printed covering a good portion of the class.

Just bumping this back up in line, I know your a little busy right now but when you get a moment.........

[JeffSjo]

WARNING- 2 CENTS ALERT

I've seemed to come up a better way [1] to respond to the original question on this thread.... sooo here goes.

I believe that whether or not the snowstorm happened Wierwille royally (Didn't he say "Royal household" anyway) screwed things up.

The only thing that the snowstorm truth (or not) would help me decide is WHAT KIND OF man he was at heart.

(added in editing)

[1] I mean a better way for ME to respond to the original question, that's all.

Edited January 16, 2009 by JeffSjo

[sirguessalot]

This wikipedia entry on Phenomenology may be of value to this thread. Some may even appreciate greek words used, like noema, nous and phainomenon

[Mod Kirk]

A focused discussion of the "Kingdom" issue would be a distraction from the essence of this thread.

While it is certainly a subject worthy of discussion, it might be better suited to the doctrinal forum.

So, my suggestion is to take the "Kingdom Of Heaven/Kingdom Of God" example off the table and consider the many other errors in PFAL in a more collective sense.

(Such as Throughly/Thoroughly--- With this/Without this--- Four Crucified---lama vs, lmana--- and so on.)

In doing so, it becomes apparent that Mark's question is still valid.

Restating the question

If PFAL was given, by God, to VPW, by way of revelation, why would God allow it to contain so many blatant errors?

This question has been posed before.

Maybe it deserves its own thread, as it is peripheral to the snowstorm theme.

I have split off two of the KOG/KOH posts and started a new thread down in Doctrinal

[GrouchoMarxJr]

...And let's not forget the poll...as of this post, 75% think that Wierwille made it up...I find that encouraging. 3/4 of the folks who responded to the poll have got it right...that's not bad. Let's face it, not every turtle makes it to the sea...some of them get run over by cars, some take the wrong direction and get lost and others stick their heads into their shells and live in a pretend world where everything is lovely...and then they die.

Personally, I think the pro- wierwille posters serve a purpose...first of all, it would get boring here if everybody thought the same way...and secondly, they provide a living example of how good a con man Wierwiile was....24 years after he kicked the bucket, there are still people who feed at table that he set....still eating the wow burgers.

...let's all sing:

Yes it is Wierwille, Yes it is Wierwille,

Yes it is Wierwille in my soul...

For I have touched the edge of the gaspumps

and the snow (job) has made me whole...

thank you Dorothy, thank you Rhoda...and goodnight Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.

Edited January 16, 2009 by GrouchoMarxJr

[RumRunner]

Personally, I think the pro- wierwille posters serve a purpose...first of all, it would get boring here if everybody thought the same way...and secondly, they provide a living example of how good a con man Wierwiile was....24 years after he kicked the bucket, there are still people who feed at table that he set....still eating the wow burgers.

That's two purposes Groucho - I would propose a third purpose they serve - they are more entertaining than any television comedy I've ever seen. It's kind of like watching a set of idiots try and put together a jigsaw puzzle only to find out later that the puzzle pieces were just flakes from a box of Wheaties.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

That's two purposes Groucho - I would propose a third purpose they serve - they are more entertaining than any television comedy I've ever seen. It's kind of like watching a set of idiots try and put together a jigsaw puzzle only to find out later that the puzzle pieces were just flakes from a box of Wheaties.

...and we all know that Wheaties are the breakfast of champions. Snarf those flakes up, renew your minds and fill out those blue forms...

[Mike]

Which question, Mike?

Oops! Sorry, I confused you with Twinky.

That's two purposes Groucho - I would propose a third purpose they serve - they are more entertaining than any television comedy I've ever seen. It's kind of like watching a set of idiots try and put together a jigsaw puzzle only to find out later that the puzzle pieces were just flakes from a box of Wheaties.

I'll add a fourth purpose: we document how many, many times Wierwille complainers forgot or never got item after item that he taught, thus invalidating most of their objections that the teaching was not valuable to them.

[waysider]

I'll add a fourth purpose: we document how many, many times Wierwille complainers forgot or never got item after item that he taught, thus invalidating most of their objections that the teaching was not valuable to them.

Say huh? :blink:

[sirguessalot]

or how about Phenomenography

Phenomenography is a qualitative research methodology, within the interpretivist paradigm, that investigates the qualitatively different ways in which people experience something or think about something (Ference Marton, 1986). Phenomenography, an approach to educational research that appeared in publications in the early 1980s (Marton, 1981; 1986), initially emerged from an empirical rather than theoretical or philosophical basis (Åkerlind, 2005).

or Phenomenology of Religion

The phenomenology of religion concerns the experiential aspect of religion, describing religious phenomena in terms consistent with the orientation of the worshippers. It views religion as being made up of different components, and studies these components across religious traditions so that an understanding of them can be gained.

[Mark Clarke]

waysider wrote, before the Kingdom of Heaven stuff was split off to the doctrinal forum:

Restating the question

If PFAL was given, by God, to VPW, by way of revelation, why would God allow it to contain so many blatant errors?

I'm not just talking about points of doctrine that we might disagree on. I'm talking about obvious errors like the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven question, as well as other things like throughly vs. thoroughly, lambano vs. dechomai, and holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN (look it up - there are OT refs to spirit IN, and NT refs to spirit UPON).

We can have more detailed discussions in the doctrinal thread if you want, but the question is relevant to this thread topic because I still maintain that since nobody saw the snowstorm "phenomenon" it can't be proved or disproved, so it can't be viewed as proof that VP was specifically called of God to "fix" the problem of the Word being "hopelessly lost." The blatant errors in the teachings themselves are the proof they are not "God-breathed" - even aside from the lack of fruit in his life.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[Mike]

QUOTE

No, I posted above what he taught. It's not "the Bible" but "The Word" that he took as his only rule. That was in 1967, when hardly any of PFAL was in written form. In those days all WE had was our KJV and the spoken class to fix some of it. We went with what we had, which was better than nothing.

Hey Mike

I am confused as to why you think that in 1967 hardly any of PFAL was in written form. There were pamphlets that accompanied the class they just were not combined into the one book format. but they were done by 1953 the monographs or Youth Caravan Pamphlets as they are referred to sometimes. By 1955 the second edition of Receiving the Holy Spirit Today was out. From 62 - 66 Studies in abundant living series were printed covering a good portion of the class.

Just bumping this back up in line, I know your a little busy right now but when you get a moment.........

This is a good question. I don't have a good answer all prepared and at my fingertips right now.

I'll try to answer some of it, and as more comes to me I'll add it in.

The year 1967 was obviously a pivotal one with the filming of the class. In 1977 plans were made to re-film it and replace it, but they were canceled at the very last minute by a revelation Dr announced at lunch that the film class was a one time deal. He said we'd go ahead with video taping PFAL '77 but it would only be a grad supplement class, and then even that never happened.

The year 1971 was another pivotal year with the publication of a slew of books that ended up being in their final edition: PFAL, BTMS, TNDC, WWAY. It seemed to signify that certain publications that had been in the preliminary stages for decades were finally done. Around that same year we saw the publication of the 1st edition of ADAN, plus RHST 6th edition. The ministry had “arrived,” in a sense, at the threshold of book production.

In the May/June1979 issue of the Way Magazine the Our Times article by Dr titled “How the Word Works” talked about mastering the Word. In that same issue was the main article titled “Masters of the Word.” In that Our Times article we read:

"At these occasions, the years of Biblical research I have spent come back to my mind, and joy wells up inside me as I think of what is available to you today through The Way Ministry in book and magazine form, setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word. This research took me years to work out, and now you can see the depth of it in just a few short hours of reading. Any person who works this material will have a fantastic opportunity to see how the Word works."

This seemed to be an indication that the “book and magazine form” of setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word had come into being, and fairly recently relative to that 1979 publication date. By then JCNG and GMWD had come out and JCOP was in the works.

Around this time scripture indexes for the books (most of which were now published in their near final form) were produced in booklet form and made available. There were also made scripture indexes for the Way Magazine articles, two of them, one for 1976-80 and 1981-86. We have not seen a magazine index for earlier dates.

The hunch is that books from 1971 and up, and magazine articles from 1976 and up are the primary “setting forth” of what God taught/guided Dr for teaching to us. We have earlier books and earlier magazines, but for our study, whe had to draw lines SOMEWHERE and so far these seem to be the best.

It’s pretty obvious, when looking at books and magazines from earlier dates, that they are somewhat in a preliminary form. In 1963 there was a black and white film class made like this, and it was rather primitive compared to the ’67 version. I’ve seen this film class and it is obviously a preliminary version. The charts are hand drawn and Dr’s camera style is not good. Early magazine articles also show less polish. There’s a book Dr wrote in 1952 that I once heard him say that if he has his way, we’ll never see it. His 1956 “Delema of Foreigh Missions in India” while fascinating in certain respects, is doctrinally lacking and he seemed to try and keep this from us also.

That’s the best I have right now.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mike

[Mike]

As somebody wrote before the Kingdom of Heaven post was moved to the Doctrinal forum, the question is still valid:

If PFAL is the new God-breathed Word, Mike, how do you explain the glaring errors in it? I'm not just talking about points of doctrine that we might disagree on. I'm talking about obvious errors like the Kingdom of God / Kingdom of Heaven question, as well as other things like throughly vs. thoroughly, lambano vs. dechomai, and holy spirit UPON vs. holy spirit IN (look it up - there are OT refs to spirit IN, and NT refs to spirit UPON).

We can have more detailed discussions in the doctrinal thread if you want, but the question is relevant to the thread topic because I still maintain that since nobody saw the snowstorm "phenomenon" it can't be proved, so it can't be used as the basis for VP's credentials. The teachings themselves are the proof they are not "God-breathed" - even aside from the lack of fruit in his life.

Mark,

I still want to answer a long post you did the other day, but havn't gotten to it yet. It might be the moved post, and if so, I'll have to chase it down there.

But here you ask a question many ask, and I've tried to answer it before, but I will again.

You wrote: If PFAL is the new God-breathed Word, Mike, how do you explain the glaring errors in it?

Now, really, what do you expect my answer is? Do you want me to say: "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them."???

If I were to try to explain why there are errors in God-breathed PFAL I'd be an idiot or sorts.

Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!

Why do you think there are errors in there? It's because you apply a set of inquiry principles that I do not think valid. You, and many others here, seem to think that's a done deal, that PFAL errors are a proved thing. I don't. I see a lot of prejudice that goes into the "research" to find PFAL errors. I see a lot of assumptions that I don't make. But most of all, I see a profound lack of understand and awareness of what is actually in those writings. Most people shoot from the hip and don't even have the books from which to work their theories of PFAL errors, and even fewer have the magazine articles.

Does this answer your question?

As for an extended debate on something like "kingdom" I'm very disinclined to do so. Have you searched ALL of PFAL (book and magazine) to gather together ALL that is written on that subject, or are you satisfied with taking pot shots at one passage of text, or worse yet, at one fading memory of what is written?

I just don't have the time to "work the Word" in detail with antagonists who don't want to get to know the whole thing first. I prefer to work it in detail with meek and humble students of PFAL who recognize that there are a vast number of unturned stones to discover.

I do still want to get back to that other post of yours, but time is short right now. I got things to do this evening.

[waysider]

In the May/June1979 issue of the Way Magazine the Our Times article by Dr titled “How the Word Works” talked about mastering the Word. In that same issue was the main article titled “Masters of the Word.” In that Our Times article we read:

"At these occasions, the years of Biblical research I have spent come back to my mind, and joy wells up inside me as I think of what is available to you today through The Way Ministry in book and magazine form, setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word. This research took me years to work out, and now you can see the depth of it in just a few short hours of reading. Any person who works this material will have a fantastic opportunity to see how the Word works."

**********************************

Call Now!! Operators are standing by!!

HELLO?? It's a stinkin' commercial plug, for gosh sakes!

Edited January 17, 2009 by waysider

[Mark Clarke]

Mark,

Now, really, what do you expect my answer is? Do you want me to say: "Sure there are errors, but I close my eyes to them."???

I didn't expect any particular answer. I was really curious how you would respond.

If I were to try to explain why there are errors in God-breathed PFAL I'd be an idiot or sorts.

Why? It seems like a valid question.

Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!

That's why I posted a specific example. We can continue that line of thinking in the Doctrinal Forum if you want. Threads have been started.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[WhiteDove]

This is a good question. I don't have a good answer all prepared and at my fingertips right now.

I'll try to answer some of it, and as more comes to me I'll add it in.

The year 1967 was obviously a pivotal one with the filming of the class. In 1977 plans were made to re-film it and replace it, but they were canceled at the very last minute by a revelation Dr announced at lunch that the film class was a one time deal. He said we'd go ahead with video taping PFAL '77 but it would only be a grad supplement class, and then even that never happened.

The year 1971 was another pivotal year with the publication of a slew of books that ended up being in their final edition: PFAL, BTMS, TNDC, WWAY. It seemed to signify that certain publications that had been in the preliminary stages for decades were finally done. Around that same year we saw the publication of the 1st edition of ADAN, plus RHST 6th edition. The ministry had “arrived,” in a sense, at the threshold of book production.

In the May/June1979 issue of the Way Magazine the Our Times article by Dr titled “How the Word Works” talked about mastering the Word. In that same issue was the main article titled “Masters of the Word.” In that Our Times article we read:

"At these occasions, the years of Biblical research I have spent come back to my mind, and joy wells up inside me as I think of what is available to you today through The Way Ministry in book and magazine form, setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word. This research took me years to work out, and now you can see the depth of it in just a few short hours of reading. Any person who works this material will have a fantastic opportunity to see how the Word works."

This seemed to be an indication that the “book and magazine form” of setting forth the accuracy of God’s Word had come into being, and fairly recently relative to that 1979 publication date. By then JCNG and GMWD had come out and JCOP was in the works.

Around this time scripture indexes for the books (most of which were now published in their near final form) were produced in booklet form and made available. There were also made scripture indexes for the Way Magazine articles, two of them, one for 1976-80 and 1981-86. We have not seen a magazine index for earlier dates.

The hunch is that books from 1971 and up, and magazine articles from 1976 and up are the primary “setting forth” of what God taught/guided Dr for teaching to us. We have earlier books and earlier magazines, but for our study, whe had to draw lines SOMEWHERE and so far these seem to be the best.

It’s pretty obvious, when looking at books and magazines from earlier dates, that they are somewhat in a preliminary form. In 1963 there was a black and white film class made like this, and it was rather primitive compared to the ’67 version. I’ve seen this film class and it is obviously a preliminary version. The charts are hand drawn and Dr’s camera style is not good. Early magazine articles also show less polish. There’s a book Dr wrote in 1952 that I once heard him say that if he has his way, we’ll never see it. His 1956 “Delema of Foreigh Missions in India” while fascinating in certain respects, is doctrinally lacking and he seemed to try and keep this from us also.

That’s the best I have right now.

Thanks for taking time to answer, while this makes a case for the books being a prefered method to study .It does not address the question I had which was

I am confused as to why you think that in 1967 hardly any of PFAL was in written form.

Maybe here is a better explaination

Just today a pulled at random one of the booklets from the classs, you know the ones VP held up in sevral sessions. I think there are around 60 or so of them that came with the class. The one I happened to pick was Your Power of Attorney. In comparing it to the book form there was very little difference and none in content ,mostly the verbage was cleaned up to read better. I'd say that is true of most of the booklets. They were done prior to 1967. Many of them are just reprints of the monographs that were before them In any case they in print contain I'd guess about 99% of the same material that is in the books . That is a long way from hardly any of PFAL in written form and only having the KJV Bible and the spoken class. I'd say the bulk of it was in written form.

I'll spin this off to another thread and you can get to it when you can.

Edited January 17, 2009 by WhiteDove

[RumRunner]

If I were to try to explain why there are errors in God-breathed PFAL I'd be an idiot or sorts.

Of course, my real answer (you expect this, right?) is that I disagree with the notion that there are errors!

Mike! Mike! the God-breathed PFAL? and you disagree with the notion that there are errors? Dude - unless you are truly in need of professional help I am going to just hope you are playing the stand up comedian here. That choice of words sounds wacky enough to end up with the black helicopters over your apartment

[GarthP2000]

(Smikeol's expected response ...)

... you mean there aren't black helicopter's hovering over my apartment?? :blink:

[Mike]

I am confused as to why you think that in 1967 hardly any of PFAL was in written form.

How's this: prior to the 1967-71 period, hardly any of the PFAL material was in final, worth mastering form.

That's not to say that the KJV corrections found within post '67 books couldn't be found in pre '67 booklets. It's the finer details I'm thinking of that were not in the old materials.

I think there's far more in the final forms of written PFAL than the KJV corrections. I didn't always think this, but nowadays I see that there are many proPFAL grads who see ONLY this benefit. For KJV correction fans, my statement can't make much sense. It's when the fine points are brought to the table that I think it does make sense.

[Mike]

That's why I posted a specific example. We can continue that line of thinking in the Doctrinal Forum if you want. Threads have been started.

Thanks for the invitation, but I must decline for reasons more than just the constraints of time. I’ve decline from getting involved in Raf’s old thread where similar lines of thinking took place. I tried then to explain why, and am still trying to get those kinds of words out here.

Let me try to get more detailed.

I made my big decision a little over ten years ago, and the kind of discusion you seem to want to have I engaged in for many of the years prior to 1998. I went back and forth on the validity of many points in PFAL during those earlier years, but it was all finally settled for me by ’98.

Now I want to put the bulk of my time absorbing the material, workig WITHIN it, which means using a completely different set of tools than working OUTSIDE it like you want to do. One of the tools I use is I assume it’s valid (my only rule for faith and practice) and proceed from there. You generally assume it’s invalid (or at least one point is) and work on it with set(s) of material you do think is valid, what I would call your somewhat unsettled, unspecified rule(s) for faith and practice.

Even if you were to adopt a neutral stance toward PFAL’s validity (unlikely considering your posting against it), and even it you were to adopt and disclose one sole rule for faith and practice, I’d have to decline the opportunity to spend beaucoup hours debating PFAL. Our rules would still clash and we’d never convince each other of anything.

Does this make any sense?

I am willing to spend time in areas that we have commonality: our past ministry experience and teaching. I find that many are unclear on the details of the teaching, so I think discussing that is useful.

These details as to what drove Dr to want to quit the ministry in 1942, but to get back on it after the snow seem to be far from known to most grads. Dr’s wanting to find a sole rule for faith and practice seems to be at the heart of the matter. He wanted a rule that was settled.

Most grads, including you IMO, are not so unhappy to be in a state where you are trying to develop a rule. In one particular area you may try this idea one year (or decade) and that another.

Dr wanted something he would never have to back up on in the days before the snow. That’s what a rule means, it’s rigid, like a ruler or yardstick. It’s length doesn’t change and it doesn’t flop around. I think most grads are content with rules that do change. I happened to hunger for something I don’t have to change and I finally found it.

Mike! Mike! the God-breathed PFAL? and you disagree with the notion that there are errors? Dude - unless you are truly in need of professional help I am going to just hope you are playing the stand up comedian here. That choice of words sounds wacky enough to end up with the black helicopters over your apartment

Can you name anything written in English that you think IS God-breathed?

[waysider]

It's the finer details I'm thinking of that were not in the old materials.

SNIP

It's when the fine points are brought to the table that I think it does make sense.

Perhaps you could bring one of those fine points (or one of the finer details) "to the table", as you say.

If it helps it make more sense, I would think you would be eager to do so.

Edited January 17, 2009 by waysider

[Ham]

I'd like to see one honest to God, tangible (opposite of abstract) RESULT "brought to the table" as well..

The "results" seem just a fleeting and as abstract as herr vicster's snow storm..