VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[skyrider]

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.

Geez, louise............how long are you going to take with such dribble? Searching for a rule......searching for the word...... searching for the one thing that "Dr" wouldn't have to flip-flop on.

Reminds me of Cgeer in 1986..........when he alluded to this, and that, claiming "the ministry was OFF the word" and gave strong implications that ONLY HE could lead others to Dr's "last will and testament" truths. Sheeeeesh.

Here's what I've found in the last eight years. Yes, wierwille was searching in the mid-40's......looking for something to bolster his enthusiasm, his identity, his arrogance, and a self-serving drive to a higher pedestal. In attending retreats and seminars and such (perhaps, to just get away from ohio and the mundane church atmosphere)......wierwille found stiles and was led into speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues helped wierwille fan the flames of his enthusiasm for a while.......but he NEEDED more. When wierwille's oldest daughter, mary, got very sick, (according to Mrs. W's book).....wiewille phoned BG Leonard, and Leonard prayed with them and for mary's deliverance. Mary quickly recovered from this illness...........and wierwille's interests were pricked to learn more about BG Leonard and his ministry.

In February 1953, wierwille attended BG's class Gifts of the Spirit.....then, he and mrs. and don attended the next one with two carloads of wierwille-followers in June 1953.......THEN wierwille rushed back to ohio and ran HIS OWN CLASS in October 1953 using all of BG's materials. The grads of BG's class in Calgary......were considered GRADS of the "wierwille" October class and did not have to pay an attendance fee. Everything in Mrs. W's book account, points to the fact that wierwille's life CHANGED from that point forward.

Now.......wierwille had a class to peddle. Now......wierwille had the gifts/manifestations to "fit the word together." Now..... wierwille had a "class-based ministry" and direction. Now.......wierwille could pin-point all marketing and promotion to the ONE THING that had electrified him........B.G. LEONARD'S CLASS.

THIS............is the "sole rule of faith and practice" that wierwille found.

THIS............is why wierwille adamantly stated, "Every truth must fit in the framework of the manifestations."

THIS............is why wierwille heavily plagiarized from JE Stiles when writing Receiving the holy spirit Today

THIS............explains why wierwille's "research" was adolescent and contained few sources.

THIS............is the legacy that wierwille left to his devout followers.

THIS............is the truth behind the myth.

THIS.............STOLEN CLASS was wierwille's foundation for the rest of his life.

Edited January 17, 2009 by skyrider

[Ham]

The class seems to be a lot like a design for a perpetual motion machine.. one invests time, money, lots more time and money.. puts it under just the right conditions.. tinkers with it endlessly to match the "accuracy" of the diagram.. and it STILL does not work..

to date, not a one of these machines has produced as much as a micro watt in terms of net gain of energy..

not a single designer of one of these systems has EVER produced any physics that he (or she) didn't have to "back up on"..

the "results" have to be REPEATABLE, and tangible. In fact, it must work EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Imaginary or dreamed snow storms need not apply for the position..

[Ham]

if the standard is "golly, I saw SNOW.."

I must be the "greatest".. I saw snow once, in JUNE.. I live in Michigan..

[Mike]

[snip] ....

the ONE THING that had electrified him........B.G. LEONARD'S CLASS.

THIS............is the "sole rule of faith and practice" that wierwille found.

[snip] ....

THIS............is why wierwille heavily plagiarized from JE Stiles when writing Receiving the holy spirit Today

[snip] ....

skyrider,

If BG Leonard's class was Dr's SOLE rule of faith and practice, then how do you explain your declaration two lines later that he "heavily plagiarized from JE Stiles" ?

It's things like this that show me you have no idea what a "sole rule of faith and practice" is. What you describe is a multiple source, not a single source. You plainly here do not get the idea of "only" or "sole."

Even if you did not include this contradictory second line on Stiles, how do you explain the fact that Dr differed from BG Leonard and refused to go along with the terminology of "gifts of the spirit" but with "manifestations of the spirit?

Here you plainly here do not get the idea of "rule." Dr plainly did not "line up" with many things Leonard taught, but this gifts issue is a big obvious difference, one that Leonard maintained all the way up to his visit to ROA '86.

Like others, you use the phrase "only rule for faith and practice" like a buzz word that sounds good, but you obviously fail to understand what it means.

Try reading my class and book quotes of Dr in Post #388 where he explains what he (and I) mean by "only rule for faith and practice."

If after re-reading Dr's teaching there in that Post #388 you still don’t see where you completely missed the ideas of “sole” and “rule” as I just explained, then PM me and I’ll send you more of the class transcript and book on that subject than I posted. I felt I had to stay within the “fair use” guidelines and abbreviate in my posting of what we were taught on “only rule.”

Mark Clarke, you too can PM me for more data on this. Your use of the phrase “the Bible” tells me you don’t know what Dr meant by “only rule” or “sole rule.” Within the phrase “the Bible” as it is most commonly used (not always, though) are hidden tens of critical Greek texts and hundreds (maybe thousands) of translations and versions, all differing in many significant places.

The reason I parenthetically added "as it is most commonly used (not always, though)" is because once in a while, for certain pinpoint passages, Dr used that phrase to mean the collective aggregate of translations, and some other times he used it to mean PFAL writings.

I'm getting ahead of myself, Mark, in answering your post that I had promised yesterday. I should go back to read it, but it seemed to overlap with this post to skyrider.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mike

[Ham]

as far as the class goes.. I think like the perpetual machine, it's a waste of time arguing with the designer (or adherent) that there are "errors" involved.. it's the whole CONCEPT that's fouled up..

[Mike]

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.

I already have, but they were ignored. I wish you had been eager to follow up on them when I first posted them. Let's see if you ignore them a second time.

One was page 14 of GMWD. Another was the change in revelation between book chapters and magazine articles. Another was the Return of Christ.

[waysider]

I already have, but they were ignored. I wish you had been eager to follow up on them when I first posted them. Let's see if you ignore them a second time.

One was page 14 of GMWD. Another was the change in revelation between book chapters and magazine articles. Another was the Return of Christ.

Refresh my memory.

What is GMWD?

Can you be more specific about what is on page 14? (I doubt I have a copy to reference)

Edited January 17, 2009 by waysider

[Mike]

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

Give me an example from (your life) of the results you get from your guidelines for living.

First give me some kind of idea what your sole rule (or multiple rules) for faith and practice is. What do YOU believe in?

Then give me one honest to God, tangible RESULT you get from applying your rule, or floppy procedure of the moment.

Refresh my memory.

What is GMWD?

Can you be more specific about what is on page 14? (I doubt I have a copy to reference)

Have you been reading this thread?

[Ham]

Sounds like typical way speak.. answer a difficult question with another question..

I'm not the one making the claims. The burden of proof lies within the responsibilities of the one making the claim.

[waysider]

Give me an example from (your life) of the results you get from your guidelines for living.

First give me some kind of idea what your sole rule (or multiple rules) for faith and practice is. What do YOU believe in?

Then give me one honest to God, tangible RESULT you get from applying your rule, or floppy procedure of the moment.

Have you been reading this thread?

I thought my request was quite reasonable.

What is GMWD?

What is on page 14 that you wish to call attention to?

[Ham]

If I don't see the guaranteed RESULTS.. I am FORCED to come to the conclusion that either your claims are:

1. Knowingly false, dishonest, and a scam..

2. Delusional.

I don't think this is your "day job".. so I would eliminate choice number one..

[Ham]

now the vicster.. the "ministry" WAS his "day job". It could be choice 2, but I lean more towards the opinion that it in reality was choice number one..

sheesh.. snowstorms nobody else who could be "spiritual" enough to see.. sheesh.

[Twinky]

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.

Never mind, Waysider, I didn't expect a response from the person asked.

Nor to my post immediately above that one (# 423 on page 22).

Edited cos I found the post number

Edited January 17, 2009 by Twinky

[Twinky]

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!

* * spluttering with laughter into my cup of tea! * *

[Mike]

There was a time when I might have believed this, or something like. Just like all of you, I subscribed to The Way Magazine, and read it eagerly. It was letters and articles. The NT is all letters, not bound together in a book. Letters. People still write letters. Christian leaders still write letters. Christian leaders still write articles.

I believed in The Way Ministry, that it was a good and wholesome place to be, teaching me The Word in a practical way; how to apply it. So why wouldn't I see the letters and articles in The Way Mag as God's word to his people today? The Ephesians, Corinthians and all the others in the Pauline epistles had the choice to make: the words of Paul - or the words of God as given to Paul?

But after some years of reading the same old same old stuff in The Way Mag, hearing the same stuff on SNS, it was just boring. I realized it wasn't freeing but constricting.

Truth to tell, I liked GMIR best.

Now I see the wide disparity between the way these articles were seeking me to behave; and the behavior as practised by TWI leadership. I felt the difference between the words preaching love, and the practice of "love" as espoused by TWI - keeping people in the dark, excluding people from their own lives, compulsion, bullying and intimidation.

And I can see if I tucked those letters into my Bible after John 1, 2 and 3 as Vic 1, 2 and 3 (or whatever) (LOL) there certainly wouldn't be a fit like a hand in a glove. More like a wolf's paw in a glove.

Hi Twinky,

I'd say, from what you say here, that we disagree on a number of issues. I don't focus on behavior as much as you do, and I focus EVEN LESS on reports of behavior, and even STILL more on 20 and 30 year old reports, and STILL EVEN LESS on one sided reports. This is why I did not comment on this section. It reminded me of a person who is gossip oriented and not gospel oriented. I didn't want to criticize you for this, but you asked for my comment in a very demanding way. I tried to emphasize your positive points, but you want to wallow in muddy points. I feel sad for you. I will more steadfastly ignore any more junk you want to throw my way, ok?

***

One rule for faith and practice: well, here's mine.

God is love and in him is no darkness at all. Because he loves us, God will never leave us nor forsake us.

Scripture references can be found if desired. I will leave that to established sleuths, those that like to mine treasures in written words. Not sure if they actually appear in PFAL so another Book may be required.

If it's not a good rule, no doubt there will be those ready to "correct" me.

I don't seek signs, miracles, wonders or snowstorms to be able to follow this rule. It's quite simple to operate, really.

[waysider]

Ok---I think I figured out what GMWD is.

Is it God's Magnified Word?

I'm looking at page 14 right now.

It's the first page of chapter 2 and is titled "The Benefits Of God".

"Psalm 103 is a tremendous example of knowledge and praise. Just the reading of it thrills the heart of anyone who loves God. The beauty with which this is set just from a human point of view, without even thinking of its spiritual impact, should set at peace the soul of any man or woman. For us as born-again believers there are tremendous spiritual truths hidden in this psalm that will elevate and enrich our lives as we learn them."

Then it goes on to cite Psalm 103:1-4.

So what is the great mystery/truth/treasure you propose is being revealed here?

Edited January 17, 2009 by waysider

[Twinky]

Please, don't be so insulting, Mike. You do your "cause" no good. You have diverted this thread and people have posted in response to your diversions. I ask you to answer them.

I am not gossip oriented at all. But I will not magnify the behavior of a wolf above the Lord Jesus Christ. Your hero goes against much that the Lord Jesus Christ said and did. It is not gossip to say that someone's repeated pattern of behavior goes against the gospel.

Come to think of it - you mention VPW ("Doctor") so many times. Yet you never mention the Head of the Church. Why is that?

[Mike]

Please excuse the repetition. I was writing the following before you just posted.

I thought my request was quite reasonable.

What is GMWD?

What is on page 14 that you wish to call attention to?

GMWD, which for those familiar with the collaterals we were told to master, stands for "God's Magnified Word" Volume IV published in 1977. In this chapter 2 titled "The Benefits of God" every verse of Psalm 103 is covered.

Here is the opening paragraph to that chapter:

Psalms 103 is a tremendous example of knowledge and praise. Just the reading of it thrills the heart of anyone who loves God. The beauty with which this is set just from a human point of view, without even thinking of its spiritual impact, should set at peace the soul of any man or woman. For us as born-again believers there are tremendous spiritual truths hidden in this psalm that will elevate and enrich our lives as we learn them.

I brought this up in regards to fine points in PFAL as opposed to mere KJV corrections. In this paragraph are not KJV verses, yet one strong fine point is there for those who are familiar with the class material, the collateral writings.

In the earlier teaching, the bulk of what was published in 1971, we were taught to not look for hidden spiritual meanings. Here in this 1977 paragraph the hint is dropped that there ARE hidden spiritual meanings to be seen. Why the change? For those who track with these kinds of things, as opposed to tracking with gossip of misbehavior, there are many other changes to the revelation God was giving Dr and he was giving to us. In the AC we were taught in the 16 Keys that revelation, given once (not twice) can change when the circumstances change. There are many other fine points such as this that can be seen in the publications after 1971, which was the point I was making when you asked your questions.

[Mike]

Please, don't be so insulting, Mike. You do your "cause" no good. You have diverted this thread and people have posted in response to your diversions. I ask you to answer them.

I am not gossip oriented at all. But I will not magnify the behavior of a wolf above the Lord Jesus Christ. Your hero goes against much that the Lord Jesus Christ said and did. It is not gossip to say that someone's repeated pattern of behavior goes against the gospel.

Come to think of it - you mention VPW ("Doctor") so many times. Yet you never mention the Head of the Church. Why is that?

First you insult me, then demand I not insult you, then you insult me again.

I mention Jesus Christ in many more ways than you are familiar. The biggest is when I mention written PFAL. If you absorb and master the material in there you will have put on the mind of Christ.

In JCNG Dr mentions that Jesus Christ made him his spokesman. I think Jesus Christ is not focused on sin but on where people are trying to walk with him.

Now let's get back to the topic. OK?

[Mike]

Two days before the snow VPW was ready to quit his ministry because he noticed in his research that he had to "go back" on many issues. He'd be led one way by one author, and then the opposite way by another author. He prayed that God would give him something he'd never have to go back on, something fixed and unchanging, a rule.

The next day God audibly promised to give him such a rule if he would pass it on.

The next day God confirmed His promise with a snow storm in response to VPW's request.

By getting down the idea of what a rule is in VPW's vocabulary, we can then see most of us have not yet settled on such a rule for our lives (I have) and that that the written PFAL teaching is what Dr claimed is the rule GO taught him.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mike

[waysider]

I brought this up in regards to fine points in PFAL as opposed to mere KJV corrections. In this paragraph are not KJV verses, yet one strong fine point is there for those who are familiar with the class material, the collateral writings.

In the earlier teaching, the bulk of what was published in 1971, we were taught to not look for hidden spiritual meanings. Here in this 1977 paragraph the hint is dropped that there ARE hidden spiritual meanings to be seen. Why the change? For those who track with these kinds of things, as opposed to tracking with gossip of misbehavior, there are many other changes to the revelation God was giving Dr and he was giving to us. In the AC we were taught in the 16 Keys that revelation, given once (not twice) can change when the circumstances change. There are many other fine points such as this that can be seen in the publications after 1971, which was the point I was making when you asked your questions.

Mike

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the two admonitions only seem to conflict because revelation was given to change the original (admonition). You are further bolstering your argument by citing two of the "Keys To Walking By The Spirit" from page 10 of the AC syllabus. Those two keys are:

13. Revelation once given may change (God changes the revelation after the circumstances change)

14. Revelation given twice is established.

First and foremost, even though scripture references were given to confirm these keys, they are never presented as such anywhere in the Bible/Word/Scriptures or whatever verbiage you choose to use.

Secondly, wierwille says these "tremendous spiritual truths" are hidden in THIS psalm, Psalm 103, not the PFAL texts or writings of wierwille.

But what would I know? I never really looked at this stuff before. <_<

[Twinky]

No, Mike, I will put on the mind of Christ if I absorb and master the material in the appropriate location... which is not in PFAL unless PFAL lines up with the scriptures (NOT the other way around).

We are all spokesmen - we are all Ambassadors for Christ. It's not limited to VPW (btw it's okay to use CHRISTIAN names not manmade titles to refer to someone). Even if "Jesus Christ made him (VPW) his spokesman," does that mean VPW is the only spokesman? Does JC not walk and talk with us all as often as we are willing? Does that mean JC does not walk and talk with people in other churches - especially the leaders of those churches?

A visiting minister at the church I go to presented a whole lot of stuff that was very similar to PFAL material, but presented so lovingly and with a different emphasis. It was much better presented, and very exhortational. You could see the whole congregation "growing" as they took the material in. It magnified God, not the minister, who was very self-effacing. There's no way this man could have read any PFAL material. Was he wrong? Or was he a spokesman for God, too? Or would you say he is a cunning counterfeit? (He comes from a place where there are lots of snowstorms.)

I can only say that I have a better walk with Christ since I ceased to be hobbled by TWI.

[Mike]

But what would I know? I never really looked at this stuff before. <_<

waysider,

I apologize if I'm getting crabby. Can you put yourself in my shoes, though? Can you see how I'm trying to discuss one thing and people come in with distractions and insults to me?

Edited January 17, 2009 by Mike

[waysider]

waysider,

I apologize if I'm getting crabby. Can you put yourself in my shoes, though? Can you see how I'm trying to discuss one thing and people come in with distractions and insults to me?

I don't feel like I have tried to distract you or insult you.

If I have, I apologize.

Now that page 14 of GMWD (still don't understand why it's not just GMW) is "on the table" perhaps you could elaborate a bit more specifically.

[potato]

<snip>

In the earlier teaching, the bulk of what was published in 1971, we were taught to not look for hidden spiritual meanings. Here in this 1977 paragraph the hint is dropped that there ARE hidden spiritual meanings to be seen. Why the change? For those who track with these kinds of things, as opposed to tracking with gossip of misbehavior, there are many other changes to the revelation God was giving Dr and he was giving to us. In the AC we were taught in the 16 Keys that revelation, given once (not twice) can change when the circumstances change. There are many other fine points such as this that can be seen in the publications after 1971, which was the point I was making when you asked your questions.

</snip>

the answer to why all the new revelation is pretty simple to me: the corps... a huge infusion of enthusiastic young people who already had a lot of experience studying the bible. don't you think vpw got to read their papers, listen to them talk about what they were learning, and then teach as much of it as he wanted without crediting the student?