Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

On 10/20/2018 at 8:57 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

BGL was never at the ROA in 1985. That’s the year dictor paul died. Leonard was an invited guest at Living Victoriously and Corpse week/ROA in 1982.

You saved me the time, DWBH, thanks. But as long as I'm here I have to say this casts some light towards understanding SMS, "selective memory syndrome". It can take different forms including as a legitimate form of therapy for some forms of depression. 

Not to say that's the case with Mike's Mystery Corps-Person and Mike's verson of what actually happened and when but it may explain how certain "facts" from the past can become real for some people. I've spoken to some ex-Wayfers and Corps who are sure they were at certain events and heard certain things or conversely did NOT hear or experience certain things, and it all wraps up into a kind of wash-of-memory. 

An individuals perspective and actual experience may be very different in an event shared with others of course but I've found that when people endlessly quote what "Doctor always said" about something over and over as if they heard it many times over a long period when in reality they only heard it once or twice if at all, but have then HEARD IT FROM OTHERS TOO that he said it.....this can create the kind of "absolutely true" statement of a "fact" that may not be tethered in reality. 

BGL considered VPW a "bad student", not a bad copyist. Whether that be true of not it's an understandable perspective if Leonard is seen as the instructor of a class curriculum that VPW then changed and re formatted into his own class. That's the territory of both plagiarism and ethics. (aka "thou shalt not steal", a very inclusive order from God meaning to not take something from someone that isn't yours....and whether that be the stealing of God's own Word and taking steps to protect your own ownership of it or just outright theft of another's work done heartily before their Lord....it's not a hard concept, unless you're guilty)

Both VPW and BGL functioned knowingly in a country with laws that they were obliged to recognize and obey. I myself never thought that VPW felt justified in collating BGL's and others existing material into a new form that he would then "own" because it was "God's Word" and governed by a higher standard.....because IF he had truly felt that way, he would have been able to openly make his case and take his stand on those grounds when he was challenged. It would not MATTER who wrote what first, if that were really his position. Instead he constructed his own version of it in his own timeline and constructed a very complex and detailed history to support it, of who he himself was, what he'd done and what experiences had influenced him and how.

Anyhoo - this is an interesting article - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8620360/Selective-memory-does-exist-say-scientists.html

 

Edited by socks
"You may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. This is not logical, but it is often true."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Socks

That's a fascinating topic. I couldn't get the link to open directly but here is one that is similar. Memories are what define us.

As usual, I'm inclined to take this off on a similar tangent.

HERE

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You saved me the time, DWBH, thanks. But as long as I'm here I have to say this casts some light towards understanding SMS, "selective memory syndrome". It can take different forms including as a legitimate form of therapy for some forms of depression. 

Not to say that's the case with Mike's Mystery Corps-Person and Mike's verson of what actually happened and when but it may explain how certain "facts" from the past can become real for some people. I've spoken to some ex-Wayfers and Corps who are sure they were at certain events and heard certain things or conversely did NOT hear or experience certain things, and it all wraps up into a kind of wash-of-memory. 

An individuals perspective and actual experience may be very different in an event shared with others of course but I've found that when people endlessly quote what "Doctor always said" about something over and over as if they heard it many times over a long period when in reality they only heard it once or twice if at all, but have then HEARD IT FROM OTHERS TOO that he said it.....this can create the kind of "absolutely true" statement of a "fact" that may not be tethered in reality. 

BGL considered VPW a "bad student", not a bad copyist. Whether that be true of not it's an understandable perspective if Leonard is seen as the instructor of a class curriculum that VPW then changed and re formatted into his own class. That's the territory of both plagiarism and ethics. (aka "thou shalt not steal", a very inclusive order from God meaning to not take something from someone that isn't yours....and whether that be the stealing of God's own Word and taking steps to protect your own ownership of it or just outright theft of another's work done heartily before their Lord....it's not a hard concept, unless you're guilty)

Both VPW and BGL functioned knowingly in a country with laws that they were obliged to recognize and obey. I myself never thought that VPW felt justified in collating BGL's and others existing material into a new form that he would then "own" because it was "God's Word" and governed by a higher standard.....because IF he had truly felt that way, he would have been able to openly make his case and take his stand on those grounds when he was challenged. It would not MATTER who wrote what first, if that were really his position. Instead he constructed his own version of it in his own timeline and constructed a very complex and detailed history to support it, of who he himself was, what he'd done and what experiences had influenced him and how.

Anyhoo - this is an interesting article - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8620360/Selective-memory-does-exist-say-scientists.html

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8620360/Selective-memory-does-exist-say-scientists.html

This link should work where the link I quoted did not. It's to the same article socks MEANT to link.

And, if that link expires, you can try this for the same text....

http://web.archive.org/web/20181011053855/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8620360/Selective-memory-does-exist-say-scientists.html

Edited by WordWolf
formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously, VP did plagiarize.  I only had his foundational class, and there was no mention, that I recall, of his sources of information, indicating this was all his own work.  I know, it wasn't.

But, when I look at JCOPSeed, the bibliography has a plethora of references listed.  It leads me to wonder, why?  Why that book, and not others, including classes.

One of my favorite secular speakers, who is now deceased, is Jim Rohn.  His presentation of business and life principles is magnificent, and he's constantly telling us where he learned things - his mentor, the bible, other people, other books.  And once in a while he lets us know that he pieced something together based on things he learned from others, and was able to go a bit further on it himself. 

This method of lecturing NEVER demeaned his prominence as a speaker, not for me or any of the thousands that went to see him live.  If anything, I have a greater respect for him because of his honesty, and I'm sure those thousands would agree with me.

Plagiarism is so completely unnecessary, it points only to a deficiency, either in confidence or ability, or both.  Such a shame, because I learned more from TWI in one year than in my entire lifetime before that from all others combined.  And the pieces that were in error - so what.  Who's perfect?  We should all have been able to contribute our findings to more perfect understanding, instead of the corps defending what VP taught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Taxidev said:

Obviously, VP did plagiarize.  I only had his foundational class, and there was no mention, that I recall, of his sources of information, indicating this was all his own work.  I know, it wasn't.

But, when I look at JCOPSeed, the bibliography has a plethora of references listed.  It leads me to wonder, why?  Why that book, and not others, including classes.

One of my favorite secular speakers, who is now deceased, is Jim Rohn.  His presentation of business and life principles is magnificent, and he's constantly telling us where he learned things - his mentor, the bible, other people, other books.  And once in a while he lets us know that he pieced something together based on things he learned from others, and was able to go a bit further on it himself. 

This method of lecturing NEVER demeaned his prominence as a speaker, not for me or any of the thousands that went to see him live.  If anything, I have a greater respect for him because of his honesty, and I'm sure those thousands would agree with me.

Plagiarism is so completely unnecessary, it points only to a deficiency, either in confidence or ability, or both.  Such a shame, because I learned more from TWI in one year than in my entire lifetime before that from all others combined.  And the pieces that were in error - so what.  Who's perfect?  We should all have been able to contribute our findings to more perfect understanding, instead of the corps defending what VP taught.

In the taped/filmed class, he was specific about what he was willing to let everyone hear up front.  Some things, you had to be in twi for some time to hear. 

In the class, vpw said he'd "dedicated his life" to the holy spirit field, and so on.  He went so far as to say that God "called" him to it.  He never said THERE that God spoke to him audibly, and issued the alleged 1942 "promise."  (If vpw would teach it to others, God would teach him His word like it hadn't been known since the First Century, a promise that doesn't even work on paper, which wasn't even told to his wife until DECADES later, a poorly-manufactured "promise.")  

vpw said that he'd taken all his research books to the down dump ('"the gehenna, where the fires never go out") and started over with his Bible as his guidebook.  It was the Orange Book and the White Book that began with claims vpw did all the research himself... although the White Book initially at least REFERRED to Stiles (ANONYMOUSLY) IN PASSING as someone who explained this to vpw, but by the 3rd edition, he was gone and vpw had studied and worked it all out himself.

As Karl K and others have pointed out, the lack of citing the sources of the material in all the books that lack them is plagiarism, and illegal (and became felonies in each case once the dollar amount of profit raised them above the level of "misdemeanor"- since even a free plagiarism offering is a crime.)  The White Book and the Orange Book use material from Leonard, Stiles, and Bullinger, and there's no proper citation of any of them.  The "Studies in Abundant Living" likewise ripped off a number of writers (like Kenyon) and rarely cited them.  (IIRC, ONE citation of Kenyon, in the same book he was plagiarized in a different chapter.  Raf would remember.)

 

One of the problems with ERRORS in twi/vpw was vpw's claims that "his" work came from God Almighty.  This means that some people (not you)  have gone around claiming it was INERRANT, and even OBVIOUS errors are UNABLE to actually BE errors.  In at least one case, someone has hallucinated out secret messages hidden in them that only he has been able to find- so far-  and that it's superior to the Bibles we know because this is modern Divine Revelation and the Bible is older Divine Revelation that no longer reflects the originals (according to him.)  The Bibles we have are of varying levels of error and interpolation, depending on whether vpw quoted a particular verse or not. (I kid you not.)

With vpw using plagiarism to make himself look like himself was some great one, there's still a few people saying "This man was the great power of God". Simon Magus would have been envious of how long his con has continued to last.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WordWolf said:

The Bibles we have are of varying levels of error and interpolation, depending on whether vpw quoted a particular verse or not. (I kid you not.)

I'm so glad I wasn't directly exposed to this lunacy.  It was enough to deal with the corps on the field backing up everything VP said and taught.  I'm pretty sure it says in the bible not to make to yourself idols - it was plain that VP and Craig both became idols for many.  And that's why they so willingly, and emphatically, defended both of them - well, until Craig screwed up, then they dropped him like a hot coal.

Share this post


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

I'm so glad I wasn't directly exposed to this lunacy.  It was enough to deal with the corps on the field backing up everything VP said and taught.  I'm pretty sure it says in the bible not to make to yourself idols - it was plain that VP and Craig both became idols for many.  And that's why they so willingly, and emphatically, defended both of them - well, until Craig screwed up, then they dropped him like a hot coal.

vpw was excellent at that. He completely fooled lcm as well as many others.  So, lcm believed vpw got all sorts of revelations every minute of every day, and made all his decisions by revelation.  So, when lcm ran the show, he thought that would apply to him as well.  lcm was successfully conned, and was totally sincere.  So, when he messed up, he did not cover up his tracks.   That's why he was caught.  vpw knew all along he was running a con, and made a point of covering his tracks. (He had a whole cadre of people to clean up after his attempts to molest or rape young females, for example.)  So, vpw was a LOT harder to catch.

Share this post


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

Obviously, VP did plagiarize.  I only had his foundational class, and there was no mention, that I recall, of his sources of information, indicating this was all his own work.  I know, it wasn't.

But, when I look at JCOPSeed, the bibliography has a plethora of references listed.  It leads me to wonder, why?  Why that book, and not others, including classes.

One of my favorite secular speakers, who is now deceased, is Jim Rohn.  His presentation of business and life principles is magnificent, and he's constantly telling us where he learned things - his mentor, the bible, other people, other books.  And once in a while he lets us know that he pieced something together based on things he learned from others, and was able to go a bit further on it himself. 

This method of lecturing NEVER demeaned his prominence as a speaker, not for me or any of the thousands that went to see him live.  If anything, I have a greater respect for him because of his honesty, and I'm sure those thousands would agree with me.

Plagiarism is so completely unnecessary, it points only to a deficiency, either in confidence or ability, or both.  Such a shame, because I learned more from TWI in one year than in my entire lifetime before that from all others combined.  And the pieces that were in error - so what.  Who's perfect?  We should all have been able to contribute our findings to more perfect understanding, instead of the corps defending what VP taught.

As well as deficiency in emotional maturity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 3:59 AM, waysider said:

Thanks, Socks

That's a fascinating topic. I couldn't get the link to open directly but here is one that is similar. Memories are what define us.

As usual, I'm inclined to take this off on a similar tangent.

HERE

It works now. 

That's a great link there, thanks. 

I'm glad I took the time after leaving active participation in the Way to slowly and surely re examine my experience. What'd I'd been taught, learned, done, seen, etc. Not all at once, it took several years and in fact I took awhile after leaving to basically decompress. I was fortunate that my relationship with my wife wasn't a product of or embedded into the Way, we'd come into PFAL and our education and work with the Way together and I always understood that our foundation together was the foundation to whatever else we did, singly or together. We've spent probably 100's of hours going over many many things and in that way I've been able to compare two different perspectives - hers and mine. It's amazing what the human mind can do and how it works, and I say that with the appreciation of my own limitations. 

I remember hearing some mook in the Way say once "It's good to think things through but it's better to believe", which was Way talk for stop acting like you know more than me and do what you're told. After that guy got terminated from his position later I had to wonder if he regretted not having thought things through more. Y'know? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

penworks - howdy! I've got a question for you on this topic and I'm kind of spring boarding from some things in your book "Undertow".

Did you think or do you think now that Walter Cummins had any real moral or ethical platform from which he dealt with the lack of footnoting and crediting in the books? Since he'd done the time in Germany and been the bedrock of the current work we heard and saw in the Way Corps I have to wonder - in reading through what you wrote in Undertow, and what I've heard from others that were in the Research department, I don't think i've ever heard if there was an actual set of standards & guidelines for how to deal with footnoting and crediting that covered this topic of copyright and ownership. Or was it just ignored? My sense is that it was ignored but perhaps I'm just looking for a clear statement, was it ever really recognized by the teams over the years, to your knowledge? 

T'anks!

Also -  I remember you DWBH one day early in the 4th Corps when you came from VPW's study with some photo copies of pages from one of his copies of a Bullinger book - some stuff on Ephesians? Anyway it was a big deal as I recall, like there was real mojo in that paper! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Socks!

That was the chapter on Ephesians from Bullinger’s book, “The Church Epistles”. He said it was what he was gonna teach in our (4th corpse) “graduating year”, which we now know was changed into the first “interim year” of the developing corpse program. I sure was glad to have it on my Interim year away from HQ, having “escaped” my initial Interim year assignment of “Way Productions”. Knowing what I do now, about what happened in and around New Knoxville during August 1974-July 1975, with: the 1st corpse returning to HQ for the first “sabbatical year” of the developing corpse program; the presence of the first Interim corpse on staff and living in the surrounding communities “running twigs”; the first and last time an Interim year could be taken AFTER 2 consecutive in-Rez years at HQ, and come back to graduate with their original group. So, there were in-rez 4th corpse at HQ as “elder corpse” to the 5th who were in their first year in-Rez at HQ. BTW, at that time, there were NO other “root locales”. All there was, was the New Knoxville Farm!

You can imagine how housing became scarce on grounds, and staff all began moving off-grounds into places like NK, St. Mary’s, New Bremen, Minster, Celina, Sidney, and Wapakoneta.

PLUS....you had the very first “Family Corpse” which, at the time, was given the moniker “Special Corpse 1”. It was for older clergy who were ordained previously to there being any way corpse grads (like Ross and Memory Tracy and their kids, Jim and Judy Doop and their kids, single people “older” than the typical corpse entrant, single parents, and married couples with children.) They were also in-rez for what was supposed to be 1 year, but then, within 2 years, there was Emporia and Rome City! Sooo.....all those programs got extended by an in-rez or Interim year to ensure abundant free labor to refurbish the 2 dumps the twustees bought to expand the base and enhance the income. 

Ephesians was the topic of that year’s Corpse Night Teachings. The “text” of which I was given by dictor paul that day Socks referred to. What a wild, eventful, and, in many ways, fateful year those of us in the bowels of the beast shared that year. Lots of things changed that year. Cult trappings became slowly, but increasingly obvious to those of us who were in-rez at HQ that summer & fall of 1973!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2018 at 10:10 PM, socks said:

penworks - howdy! I've got a question for you on this topic and I'm kind of spring boarding from some things in your book "Undertow".

Did you think or do you think now that Walter Cummins had any real moral or ethical platform from which he dealt with the lack of footnoting and crediting in the books? Since he'd done the time in Germany and been the bedrock of the current work we heard and saw in the Way Corps I have to wonder - in reading through what you wrote in Undertow, and what I've heard from others that were in the Research department, I don't think i've ever heard if there was an actual set of standards & guidelines for how to deal with footnoting and crediting that covered this topic of copyright and ownership. Or was it just ignored? My sense is that it was ignored but perhaps I'm just looking for a clear statement, was it ever really recognized by the teams over the years, to your knowledge? 

T'anks!

Also -  I remember you DWBH one day early in the 4th Corps when you came from VPW's study with some photo copies of pages from one of his copies of a Bullinger book - some stuff on Ephesians? Anyway it was a big deal as I recall, like there was real mojo in that paper! 

 

 

Hi Socks. I neither saw or was told any guidelines for citing sources.

Btw, in the reference books for the Aramaic project that I helped produce, included in the front matter were acknowledgements of related works done by others that were consulted.

Edited by penworks
Adding info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they did know what citing sources was about.

When I prepared my research paper, it was rejected at first submission because I didn't cite my sources, or rather did not quote enough TWI material.

I'd quoted Bible verses that I used in support of what I was saying. But what they wanted me to cite, very specifically, was the TWI publications from which I'd got my material. This was a bit difficult, because I didn't use many (if any) Way publications.  I worked a section of the Bible, that took me to another section and bunch of OT stuff, and so on.  It simply wasn't anything that had been taught in TWI, nor had there been, to my knowledge, any publications covering any part of it; if there were, nobody pointed out that xxxxx had covered this in his book/paper/article yyyyy.

I had to go back and "retrofit" a few citations from basic PFAL material though they didn't exactly support what I was saying.  No interest in my citing any external sources, of course.

(Heh heh, and they couldn't tell me I was "off piste" with my research paper because it very directly responded to the project title that had been given to me by LCM himself.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Twinky said:

But they did know what citing sources was about.

When I prepared my research paper, it was rejected at first submission because I didn't cite my sources, or rather did not quote enough TWI material.

I'd quoted Bible verses that I used in support of what I was saying. But what they wanted me to cite, very specifically, was the TWI publications from which I'd got my material. This was a bit difficult, because I didn't use many (if any) Way publications.  I worked a section of the Bible, that took me to another section and bunch of OT stuff, and so on.  It simply wasn't anything that had been taught in TWI, nor had there been, to my knowledge, any publications covering any part of it; if there were, nobody pointed out that xxxxx had covered this in his book/paper/article yyyyy.

I had to go back and "retrofit" a few citations from basic PFAL material though they didn't exactly support what I was saying.  No interest in my citing any external sources, of course.

(Heh heh, and they couldn't tell me I was "off piste" with my research paper because it very directly responded to the project title that had been given to me by LCM himself.)

 

Now that I'm trying to look at the complete picture.....

In pfal, we were told that there were keys to "have the Word interpret itself."  The idea was to enable us to read the Bible and understand it.  It SOUNDED like the goal was to produce autonomous Bible students and Bible teachers.

In practice, on the field, NOBODY at any level higher than "twig coordinator" wanted that of anyone lower than that.  What they wanted was us to reread twi materials, and teach from that. It's blatant and now they all but say it outright.  Back then, it wasn't said outright under normal circumstances. 

But I DO remember a certain Territory Coordinator who was scared of the idea of people getting together to read the Bible, and getting together to actually do their own work and present it.  His counter-suggestion was to have them all get together and read twi publications instead.  And this was someone who was either preparing to jump ship or was already canned and working entirely outside of twi Inc.

So, it was all set up to make twi'ers entirely dependent upon twi- for understanding the Bible, for making major decisions, etc.  That was the goal for EVERYONE, and EVERY level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, WordWolf said:

In practice, on the field, NOBODY at any level higher than "twig coordinator" wanted that of anyone lower than that.  What they wanted was us to reread twi materials, and teach from that.

Out in the field for the past 10 years or so that I know of, those in positions wanted us to "be likeminded on the Word", which meant regurgitate what TWI propounded.  So, it seems nothing has changed.

Edited by Taxidev
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taxidev said:

Out in the field for the past 10 years or so that I know of, those in positions wanted us to "be likeminded on the Word", which meant regurgitate with TWI propounded.  So, it seems nothing has changed.

Actually, I've gotten the impression that it's a lot more blatant and up-front for the last decade or so.   That's part of Rosilla's legacy with twi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2018 at 12:03 AM, WordWolf said:

Actually, I've gotten the impression that it's a lot more blatant and up-front for the last decade or so.   That's part of Rosilla's legacy with twi.

Yes. Research haz come to mean reworking what twi sets forth as proven ministry research. Not to form a different conclusion or challenge proven work, but to have the same conclusion that twi ptesents. All the work has been done for twi followers, so no need to work materials any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Yes. Research haz come to mean reworking what twi sets forth as proven ministry research. Not to form a different conclusion or challenge proven work, but to have the same conclusion that twi ptesents. All the work has been done for twi followers, so no need to work materials any further.

Back in the early lcm era, lcm redefined "research" as "re-search", or "search again," as in "to search twi materials again to memorize their contents."

The Oxford English Dictionary says "research" means:

"The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions."

Dictionary.com says it means:

"diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: "

American Heritage: "1. Careful study of a given subject, field, or problem, undertaken to discover facts or principles."

Merriam-Webster: "studious inquiry or examination especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws "

 

Nothing about "searching again."  Except for those people who think twi or vpw and lcm are more authoritative concerning word definitions than dictionaries,  that's pretty clear.  lcm sounded foolish when he said it- because it was foolish and obviously incorrect.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This refers to the two Bible quotes from Luke shown above.

 

I am sure that Jesus "re-searched" the scriptures.  Worked through the Hebrew scrolls, listened to his teachers, looked at what the practice was among leaders of the synagogues and the temple.  He might have been able to read tracts (targums) by older and maybe current rabbis.

I am sure that he did as the OED suggests: "systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions."  Because that's what enabled him to say, many times and in many ways, "Do what they say, but don't do as they do."  Note that he "asked questions," not argumentatively, but to ascertain truths.

 

The word "research" is undoubtedly from "re-search" but the aim would not be to validate previous works straight-out; but to ascertain whether those works were in fact (still) valid at all; if not, why not; what had been missed or corrupted, whether the hypothesis upon which the conclusion was founded was appropriate in light of later knowledge.  Were it not so, we might still be dealing with Greek ideas of medicine and how to treat illnesses.  Perhaps tying dead mice against our cheeks to ward off toothache, and such like.  

In Biblical terms, it may be that the OT prophets were such men (and women) who studied such scrolls as were available to them, and worked out new conclusions, not following ancient practices.  They understood the heart behind the mere words, and were able to apply that in new ways.  Perhaps not as superstitious as many of the general populace around them. Perhaps these OT prophets were more logical or rational men and women (except for Ezekiel, who was an amazing visionary).

 

It was something that impressed me about the "research" aspect of TWI: that it studied current thinking and new discoveries (like the Dead Sea scrolls) and worked that new information into what they taught.  Oh, what a fool I was.  Mea culpa.  I should have taken such information as was available, and good (ie, that which had been provided by genuine workers of the word, those such as Stiles, Bullinger, and others) and run!  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Nothing about "searching again."

Maybe Craig didn't know how to use a dictionary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of something else today.  VPW was keen on saying that every generation needed to work the word and make it that generation's own.  He had these special revelations from God to enable him to make it his generation's own; that's why he was the (cough) Man of God For Our Day and Time (yeah, right).

Well.  The man has been dead for 30 years.  It's a different generation now.  And by VPW's own criteria, what he taught is out of date.  So we need a different MOGFODAT or WOGFODAT to freshly work the word.  To make it relevant for the next (current) generation. 

The issues that have to be faced now are doubtless basically still the same; but the approach to dealing with those issues needs to be very different.  Younger people's values are somewhat different from older people's, parental age; and definitely different from their grandparents.  Hey, plagiarise VPW all you like, Rozilla, others "leading" TWI; you still just plain don't - get - it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2018 at 8:56 PM, Taxidev said:

I'm so glad I wasn't directly exposed to this lunacy.  It was enough to deal with the corps on the field backing up everything VP said and taught.  I'm pretty sure it says in the bible not to make to yourself idols - it was plain that VP and Craig both became idols for many.  And that's why they so willingly, and emphatically, defended both of them - well, until Craig screwed up, then they dropped him like a hot coal.

Taxi, I heard VPW teach live many, many times.  I throught he was boring as S--t, but many of the audience members throught he was a MOG.  However, I used to hear some guy named Ralph D teach live, and his teachings were funny, passionate, and articulate.  God, what a teacher he was!  He was one of the very few people I loved to hear teach in TWI; he really rocked!! Taxi, in MHO you didn't miss a lot by not hearing VPW teach live.  OTOH, if you didn't hear Ralph D teach live, you really did miss out!  But again, that is just my opinion; others may feel differently.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×