Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

The Wierwille Legacy: Who Will Write The Book?


Recommended Posts

Thanks Mike..........for participating in this thread, "The Wierwille Legacy."  You epitomize his legacy.

You've given me a crystal clear example of the end result of the cult's twisted approach to research by "re-researching the works of wierwille." 

I have never been so thankful.........to have jumped from this train when I did.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 593
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

After thinking about one poster’s recent attempt at revising history...or was it creative writing....I dunno - whatever the he11 you want to call his perspective on PFAL ‘77 - - I thought I’d give it

It's a good thing this site doesn't have "smell-o-vision". The stench of bull crap would be overwhelming.

In the grand scheme of things, wierwille was no "compiler"..........he was a deceiver and a fraud. Sure, he gave a passing "credit" once or twice.......but then, would discredit their work as mis

Posted Images

1 hour ago, skyrider said:

Thanks Mike..........for participating in this thread, "The Wierwille Legacy."  You epitomize his legacy.

You've given me a crystal clear example of the end result of the cult's twisted approach to research by "re-researching the works of wierwille." 

I have never been so thankful.........to have jumped from this train when I did.

 

It's too bad you didn't see this distinction in types of research earlier, like in 1979 and 1985, when VPW documented it in the Way Magazine. 

Maybe there are more KEY items you missed in the flurry. I know I did. When I came back to PFAL I saw firsthand that I had forgotten many things, and many things I did not fully absorb or understand back then.

One of my most often themes here is that we all forgot or missed entirely many KEY items in his teaching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, waysider said:

Time and time again, I, and many other posters, have openly stated there were good times and good people mixed in with the bad. The take-away point here is that the  good does not outweigh the bad. Same goes for the PFAL materials. There may be some good mixed in with the bad. But, there is just too much bad to make it a worthwhile pursuit.

My thesis is that the good and bad mix in the extraPFAL activities FOR THE CORPS (mostly) served as camouflage, and that your resulting assessment of that mix was blurred. The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

I agree the trappings of the ministry are not worth coming back to, but written PFAL is a lot different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Is that documented somewhere?

 

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

...and just so I’m clear on your response- when you said 

God told VPW, "Go use that revelation of mine that I gave to Kenyon."

and I asked if that is documented somewhere - from your response I gather that technically there is no documentation of wierwille actually saying those exact words or anything that is close to that - but rather your statement reflects something you have inferred from a perusal of select works as you developed your model. 

Do I have that right?

You don't get it. I'm not proving anything like in a math book, or in a court of law. What I do is constantly show you that there were things you missed in the teaching, and that there are many things you have not yet given a fair chance to think through. 

What I posted about revelation given to Kenyon is an EXPLANATION of know n events. It stands on it explanatory power, not on it's being an entry in God's Revelation Log Book that I'm supposed to supply you for proof.

I believe he said that in the long transcript I posted a few days ago from 1965. I see some back in my explanation in that VPW credited his sources as having received revelation AS OPPOSED to him coming up with it or having the revelation directly.  yes, THAT citation of VPW's I can document. He said there that they had "light" from God.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mike said:

It's too bad you didn't see this distinction in types of research earlier, like in 1979 and 1985, when VPW documented it in the Way Magazine. 

 

That looks awfully like an unreasonable supposition (aka assumption).

OTOH, it seems too bad you don't see anything outside of the box of dictor's supposed godly inspiration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mike said:

My thesis is that the good and bad mix in the extraPFAL activities FOR THE CORPS (mostly) served as camouflage, and that your resulting assessment of that mix was blurred. The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

I agree the trappings of the ministry are not worth coming back to, but written PFAL is a lot different.

:rolleyes:

Good grief... written PFLAP? really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

You don't get it. I'm not proving anything like in a math book, or in a court of law. What I do is constantly show you that there were things you missed in the teaching, and that there are many things you have not yet given a fair chance to think through

What I posted about revelation given to Kenyon is an EXPLANATION of know n events. It stands on it explanatory power, not on it's being an entry in God's Revelation Log Book that I'm supposed to supply you for proof.

I believe he said that in the long transcript I posted a few days ago from 1965. I see some back in my explanation in that VPW credited his sources as having received revelation AS OPPOSED to him coming up with it or having the revelation directly.  yes, THAT citation of VPW's I can document. He said there that they had "light" from God.

1) Constantly show you... gimme a break. Do you think you're still addressing twentysomethings?

2) You posted an explanation of known events? No you didn't. You made claims about the sources and connections of things. You didn't even make arguments, let alone valid, sound arguments demonstrating the alleged items are "known events." You may have tried to explain what you understand those items to mean but you fell far short of an explanation of known events. You may not be required to "show proof" but you ought to at least make an argument that makes sense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike said:

 

You don't get it. I'm not proving anything like in a math book, or in a court of law. What I do is constantly show you that there were things you missed in the teaching, and that there are many things you have not yet given a fair chance to think through. 

What I posted about revelation given to Kenyon is an EXPLANATION of know n events. It stands on it explanatory power, not on it's being an entry in God's Revelation Log Book that I'm supposed to supply you for proof.

I believe he said that in the long transcript I posted a few days ago from 1965. I see some back in my explanation in that VPW credited his sources as having received revelation AS OPPOSED to him coming up with it or having the revelation directly.  yes, THAT citation of VPW's I can document. He said there that they had "light" from God.

Can you list the specific things that I have not given a fair chance to think through?

What are these known events that you refer to?

I’m sorry but the power of your explanation eludes me - could you clarify what details should have enough force to convince me?

I fail to understand how it’s NOT plagiarism if wierwille credited his sources as receiving revelation directly rather than wierwille coming up with it himself. How does that give one license to violate copyright laws?

Edited by T-Bone
Formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I fail to understand how it’s NOT plagiarism if wierwille credited his sources as receiving revelation directly rather than wierwille coming up with it himself. How does that give one license to violate copyright laws?

Following Mike's argument, if Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, and all the others received God's special revelation and VPW was just a compiler, even so, VPW should have credited the other people as having also received revelation and not pretending that he was the one who received the special revelation to "put it all together" in the special PFAL way. 

Lemme think: in the OT there were lots of prophets who received partial revelation.  Later, other prophets quoted the earlier ones, and gave credit for it.  Sometimes, it was "as it says in the law of Moses," which was so well known that chapter and verse (or the equivalent) simply didn't need to be cited.  Even Jesus quotes the OT and gives credit.  If Jesus feels the need to give credit... what does that say for VPW and his refusal to give credit?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Twinky said:

Following Mike's argument, if Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, and all the others received God's special revelation and VPW was just a compiler, even so, VPW should have credited the other people as having also received revelation and not pretending that he was the one who received the special revelation to "put it all together" in the special PFAL way. 

Lemme think: in the OT there were lots of prophets who received partial revelation.  Later, other prophets quoted the earlier ones, and gave credit for it.  Sometimes, it was "as it says in the law of Moses," which was so well known that chapter and verse (or the equivalent) simply didn't need to be cited.  Even Jesus quotes the OT and gives credit.  If Jesus feels the need to give credit... what does that say for VPW and his refusal to give credit?

In the grand scheme of things, wierwille was no "compiler"..........he was a deceiver and a fraud.

Sure, he gave a passing "credit" once or twice.......but then, would discredit their work as missing the mark.  In fact, I will go a step further and say.........imo, wierwille reworked this material from good, honest and godly men and re-tweaked it to serve his own agenda.  In other words, wierwille's work was conniving and detrimental to the individual and the church body.  Everything from wierwille's classes, programs and structure ensnared the students/followers into a pyramid of dependency. 

That whole "study to show thyself approved unto God"........became the cult's cornerstone of manipulation, intimidation and exploitation.  Oh sure, it says "approved unto God".......but how many ways were we instructed to obey leadership, no matter what.  Going down the road of re-researching wierwille's work is a fool's errand.

And, the irony of this whole discussion which has been turbocharged by Mike's hypotheses is......Mike is one of wierwille's truest disciples and not in twi.  His beady-eyed, laser focus on the jots and tittles of the writings is NOT cult-friendly to twi.......it only serves as a wedge to start another cult.

Similarly, Chris Geer did this same thing in the mid-70s.  He and his wife, Barb, studied every aspect of wierwille's life........listening and detailing every sunday teaching tape, corps teaching, wierwille's habits, mannerisms, reading genre, mood swings, dog training, etc. to become his valet/bus driver/aide.   In his mind, Geer became the sole authority on wierwille.......what he preferred, when he wanted privacy, ad infinitum.  Geer's rabid obsession with all-things-wierwille became a cult within a cult.

Man's theology and study, no matter how well dressed or "intended"......leads you away from God..

And, studying wierwille's works will not bring one any closer to "the Word in the flesh".....the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

 

.

Edited by skyrider
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, skyrider said:

And, studying wierwille's works will not bring one any closer to "the Word in the flesh".....the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is the crux of the whole matter skyrider. And your comment can be applied to anyone who writes anything about Jesus Christ. If what’s written brings me closer to him it’s worth my time and effort. If it doesn’t, it gets trashed.

VeePee’s works were stolen, poorly rewritten, without any scholarship.  Mike’s dedicated allegiance to the memory and works of the cult master would be commendable if he wasn’t  so terribly misguided. 

I pray he’s not teaching what he spews here at GSC to some desperate seeker of the Lord. Yeah, that’s my concern. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mike said:

 

You don't get it. I'm not proving anything like in a math book, or in a court of law. What I do is constantly show you that there were things you missed in the teaching, and that there are many things you have not yet given a fair chance to think through. 

Oh, I get it all too well. Your telling us I don't want to prove anything because I can't. Your telling us to think it through, yet you haven't thought it through. If you thought it through, please answer the question, why is it acceptable to steal in one realm, but not in the other.

We've all seen the purity of PLAF, the purity of how it was stolen from BG Leonard.

Quote

What I posted about revelation given to Kenyon is an EXPLANATION of know n events. It stands on it explanatory power, not on it's being an entry in God's Revelation Log Book that I'm supposed to supply you for proof.

And you expect us to take your word, right?

Remember, you claimed Saint Vic didn't steal anyones work because God owns all intellectual property. When I claimed that God also owned everything on earth, you denied it. I showed you a verse in Psalms that said that very thing and asked does that make it okay to rob someone or steal a car? You said that's silly. So I asked you why is it okay to steal in one realm and not the other?

Then you produce this obscure Kenyon quote. When I presented another quote from Psalms saaying God has given us everything on earth and asked that you answer the same question you got all huffy and started demanding I drop out of the debate. 

So you can see why I'm hesitant about accepting your word...

 

Quote

I believe he said that in the long transcript I posted a few days ago from 1965. I see some back in my explanation in that VPW credited his sources as having received revelation AS OPPOSED to him coming up with it or having the revelation directly.  yes, THAT citation of VPW's I can document. He said there that they had "light" from God.

Yah, we should believe Saint Vic. The guy who saw snow on gas pumps on a sunny day. Snow that was never reported in the newspapers. 

The guy who claimed he gat a call about a non-existant blizzard, so he would lay over to meet someone. When someone caught him in his deception, he shifted to well it must have been an angel that called me.

The guy who claimed he invented the hook shot and fast food

The guy who would have accused his victims of being possessed by devil spirits if the told their stories.

The guy who word-for-word stole others works.

Very credible source you have there /sarc

Edited by So_crates
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Rocky said:

That looks awfully like an unreasonable supposition (aka assumption).

OTOH, it seems too bad you don't see anything outside of the box of dictor's supposed godly inspiration.

Don’t forget you only see my beliefs in a tiny window in time. AND, you only can comprehend my views to the extent that you set down your Pure Evil glasses and take a fresh look at the heart behind my words. You are often distracted by your search for targets to shoot at in my words. My points get missed. I can see it often.

You only see my beliefs in a tiny window in time. There are years and seasons when I was greatly disappointed in VPW.

I was NEVER into any hero worship over him, though I have acknowledged his being well equipped mentally. Personally I have often thought of him as bit of a jerk at times, and a remark to that effect last week caused a stir here because of the one dimensional inaccuracies many have in mind here regarding what I post.

There were also years and seasons when my affinity to the film class dimmed. I was NEVER into the idea that anything was perfected in the writings until 1998, long after TWI was over for me.

So when you say “it seems too bad you don't see anything outside of the box of dictor's supposed godly inspiration” you  are COMPLETELY unaware of the many, many times I have spent outside of this well constructed WayBox I am now so well protected in.

It is not me who has been stuck in boxes. I see many here who were stuck in pretty pure Wierwille worship for some years, and wham!, now it’s stuck some years in a Pure Evil box to describe VPW.

I think I am a very rare poster here who has had a rich sense of balance to weigh my decisions on loyalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 How does that give one license to violate copyright laws?

It doesn't. Not in earthly courts. They are limited in that they cannot see when and where God owns something and where God gives a revelation.

Those courts have no ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it.

It seems no one here has the ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it.

In man's courts - guilty

In God's Higher Court - NOT guilty

Until you rise up and see it from a greater height you will always be stuck.

I could care less about plagiarism guilt in man's court. If I were find myself in such a court I would be wise to change my tune as much as possible. This forum is not such a court so go ahead and proclaim guilt in all its triviality.  God's attitude will prevail.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mike said:

It doesn't. Not in earthly courts. They are limited in that they cannot see when and where God owns something and where God gives a revelation.

Those courts have no ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it.

It seems no one here has the ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it.

In man's courts - guilty

In God's Higher Court - NOT guilty

Until you rise up and see it from a greater height you will always be stuck.

I could care less about plagiarism guilt in man's court. If I were find myself in such a court I would be wise to change my tune as much as possible. This forum is not such a court so go ahead and proclaim guilt in all its triviality.  God's attitude will prevail.

what passages of scripture support the idea that in God’s court wierwille is not guilty of plagiarism?

You said - “In God's Higher Court - NOT guilty

Until you rise up and see it from a greater height you will always be stuck.”

Now I do recall a number of passages in OT and NT that prohibit telling lies and stealing - so I’m curious as to what reference or references you are thinking of that are higher in authority (as far as Christians are concerned) than that of the Bible?

Edited by T-Bone
Formatting
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mike said:

The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

Little convenient, don't you think? The only way, in your mind, to prove something is to come back to it.

Why don't we do this with everything?

The only way to prove fire burns is to come back to it and get burned again.

-------

Purity. What purity does a stolen class have? It's tainted from the moment Saint Vic stole it.

--------

Oh, and here's an oldie but a goody. Ignore the errors (which would point to the fact that its not God-breathe)

--------

Bless me? The only reason it blessed me was because I lied to myself, buying into that pantload. 

Believing equals recieving. Sure. Unlike you I've used scientific method and found this to be a lie.

We are of the body. Sure. As long as we're putting cash in the horn of plenty. 

 

Mike said:

It seems no one here has the ability to "think through" thoroughly what it means for God to give a revelation to men and expect them to share it.

In man's courts - guilty

In God's Higher Court - NOT guilty

Until you rise up and see it from a greater height you will always be stuck.

I could care less about plagiarism guilt in man's court. If I were find myself in such a court I would be wise to change my tune as much as possible. This forum is not such a court so go ahead and proclaim guilt in all its triviality.  God's attitude will prevail.

So essentially your saying God is giving us a license to steal.

All we have to do is claim God gave us the revelation to do it

So what of Roman 13:2:

So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

Couple that with I Peter 2:13:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

Is plagerism a law of the land? You just admitted it was.

Edited by So_crates
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Twinky said:

Following Mike's argument, if Kenyon, Bullinger, Stiles, and all the others received God's special revelation and VPW was just a compiler, even so, VPW should have credited the other people as having also received revelation and not pretending that he was the one who received the special revelation to "put it all together" in the special PFAL way. 

Lemme think: in the OT there were lots of prophets who received partial revelation.  Later, other prophets quoted the earlier ones, and gave credit for it.  Sometimes, it was "as it says in the law of Moses," which was so well known that chapter and verse (or the equivalent) simply didn't need to be cited.  Even Jesus quotes the OT and gives credit.  If Jesus feels the need to give credit... what does that say for VPW and his refusal to give credit?

And here, with Twinky's post, we find common sense logic so missing in supposed Biblical research.

This kind of logic is beyond Mike's capabilities.  In fact, the unhealthy worship of VP and his plagiarized life works robs Mike of this exact kind of common sense logic.  This is the kind of logic purported to be emphasized and taught by the BOT of the past - Uncle Harry - VPW's millionaire furniture business owner brother who funded all his schemes, and Howard Allen, his best friend and fellow swinger's club participant, who is now married to VPW's son's widow.

What Twinky is doing here is using the SAME LOGIC and research principles that VPW showed in his class about "How the Bible interprets itself" to evaluate VPW's own works.  

So no, VPW's plagiarism and lack of scholastic effort was not divinely inspired, it was simple laziness at best.   This is the man who as you can read about in Charlene's book Undertow who published Jesus Christ Our Promised Seed while not attributing any of the writing work to the two men who did all of the research.  And no, it's not excusable because he was the "overarching authority" of the research department.  He did the same thing to those 2 guys and to John Schoenheit that Rosie is doing to people nowadays.    Kicking them out, slandering their name, stealing their work, and consolidating his power.

That's not a real prophet.

That's a 2 bit hustler.

Edited by chockfull
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mike said:

My thesis is that the good and bad mix in the extraPFAL activities FOR THE CORPS (mostly) served as camouflage, and that your resulting assessment of that mix was blurred. The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

I agree the trappings of the ministry are not worth coming back to, but written PFAL is a lot different.

Calling that a "thesis" is a stretch.  This gives the false promise that there will be logic somewhere in the discussion.  That's not the case.  All there exists is an unhealthy VPW worship and an inability to come to grips with what life has shown us about PFAL.

For instance, a big part of the PFAL written work is the work that is in written form in Receiving the Holy Spirit Today.  In fact, that book VP considered among his "greatest work".  He shared about writing it how he checked into a motel away from his family for a week and ate a diet of grapes only while immersing himself into the 350 plus verses on holy spirit usage in the Bible. 

The result of that book is one that John Juedes does side by side comparisons on and has what I estimate as 70% directly copied material from JE Stiles book on the holy spirit field.  This book was published 3-5 years earlier than any of VP's published works.  So the fruit of what was produced contradicts VPW's account of what was produced.

The explanation is simple.  What VPW accounted about writing RHST in Elena Whiteide's book is partially true.  The part left out was the fact that he checked into a motel where nobody could observe him scribe copying JE Stiles book.   Then he lied about that part by omission.  

Edited by chockfull
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mike said:

It's too bad you didn't see this distinction in types of research earlier, like in 1979 and 1985, when VPW documented it in the Way Magazine. 

Maybe there are more KEY items you missed in the flurry. I know I did. When I came back to PFAL I saw firsthand that I had forgotten many things, and many things I did not fully absorb or understand back then.

One of my most often themes here is that we all forgot or missed entirely many KEY items in his teaching.

It's too bad you systematically reject and ignore the KEY details to understanding VPW's life and "ministry".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mike said:

My thesis is that the good and bad mix in the extraPFAL activities FOR THE CORPS (mostly) served as camouflage, and that your resulting assessment of that mix was blurred. The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

I agree the trappings of the ministry are not worth coming back to, but written PFAL is a lot different.

This is not a thesis, it's a personal opinion. There is a vast and very important difference,.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mike said:

My thesis is that the good and bad mix in the extraPFAL activities FOR THE CORPS (mostly) served as camouflage, and that your resulting assessment of that mix was blurred. The only way to know if my thesis is true is to come back to PFAL and see its purity. Don't come back to see apparent errors. Let it bless you again, like it did long ago.

I agree the trappings of the ministry are not worth coming back to, but written PFAL is a lot different.

So you’re saying wierwille's own corps program concealed the “purity” of wierwille’s own PFAL Class. Did wierwille do that intentionally?

What would you say if I told you the PFAL class never blessed me - not even long ago when I first took it?

i am curious - I was in the ministry for 12 years - and I don’t believe we’ve ever met - so how do you know what impact the PFAL class had on my life?

Edited by T-Bone
Formatting
Link to post
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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...