Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

God’s Budget and Double Doors .... On the Scarcity of Miracles


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Mike said:

Thanks.  I appreciate it when we can laugh a little at these things.

*/*/*

 

With the “Schoenheit Paper on Adultery” I have somehow received (against my will) a long-suit in tracking the history of that document.

But I have no stomach for tracking the sexual sins or bad character of any of my brothers and sisters in Christ.

The former tracking is an official policy matter, how leadership in TWI-2 tried to suppress that paper, AND how leadership did not see a need for that paper years before it appeared in 1986.  

The latter tracking is just real serious, un-funny, acting-out what the SNL Church Lady is a parody of. 

*/*/*

I was raised in a religious cult that was seriously anti-sex. It was a rural Roman Catholic parish with a large school for grades 1-8.  From the first grade on we were taught to confess our sins every Saturday. This was well before puberty.  We were introduced to Mary the anti-sex goddess right away. We had no idea what “purity” really meant, but it gradually became obvious as the years went by. This was in the mid 1950s, but because it was rural, it was more like the mid 1940s.

Dana Carvey got that Church Lady character just right to make her super funny, but in real life it was not funny at all.  It was a daily grind to be super aware of all my sins of commission, omission, and mental intent, PLUS all the other kids’ sins, some of which looked super fun.

Seeing posters here seriously caught in the Church Lady trap is a grind for me.  I deal with it the way parents of new babies learn to handle the stink of changing diapers. What you perceive as a “shell,” to me is perceived as a gas mask.

*/*/*

But the “Schoenheit Paper on Adultery” is different.  Here we are not incompetently trying to sort out the details in a person’s private hidden life, but sorting out the official actions of a corporate board that affects many others’ lives for years following. 

Properly handling and correcting the mistakes of TWI-2 on the Schoenheit Paper is in the Top Ten items I currently discuss with TWI-4 leaders.   I am insisting on TWI-4 issuing some kind of official written statement on this someday. Until they do, and make written apologies to all who were fired over it, the Schoenheit Paper will be a wedge between HQ and me.  I hope they mature to the point of see the need for this correction.

The other failing of TWI-2 in their behavior in 1986 was not seeing, in the years prior to 1986, a great need for someone to do research into “adultery” like Schoenheit did.  That paper was needed many years prior to that date.  This may possibly be related to VPW asking Vince and Ralph to research it in the early 1980s.

I saw the need for that paper in 1980, when I was a twig leader. It was a raging problem in my twig, so for 2 weeks we worked Young’s concordance, and eventually came to some conclusions very similar to what Schoenheit came to 6 years later when he wrote his research up.  We also wrote down all the rationalizations we could remember from the TVTs, and worked on about 10 of them.  In Schoenheit’s later paper he called these rationalizations “reasons” and he worked 14 of them.

So there was a need in the ministry to work that paper WAY before 1986, and even before 1980, and that has not changed.

*/*/*

Neglecting the need in the mid-1980s for clarifications on sex was one evil that came from TWI-2 (and probably TWI-1 also), and then suppressing the paper when it finally came out in 1986 was an additional evil on top of the first. Those are the two points I am GENTLY pressing TWI-4 leaders on.

They won’t respond.  From their view they have corrected the error with the latest believers family class where they define adultery as wrong and things in standard Christian fashion.

They will never admit past wrongs as that would open them up for litigation.

They will whitewash, ignore and move on.  The next generation know nothing of the sins of the past generation and pretty much don’t care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

They won’t respond.  From their view they have corrected the error with the latest believers family class where they define adultery as wrong and things in standard Christian fashion.

They will never admit past wrongs as that would open them up for litigation.

They will whitewash, ignore and move on.  The next generation know nothing of the sins of the past generation and pretty much don’t care.

 More's the pity. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to relive it.

Edited by So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Tautology = the saying of the same thing twice in different words...

Yeah.  It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice. 
One saying relates to the Word being issued,
and the other relates to the Word being absorbed.

The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message.

The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden.

*/*/*/*

It is a settled issue to me. 

In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it. 

IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident.

 

The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation. 

 

Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yeah.  It's ALMOST saying the same thing twice. 
One saying relates to the Word being issued,
and the other relates to the Word being absorbed.

The issuer is forbidden to attach a private nuance to the message.

The implication is clear that the absorber is similarly forbidden.

*/*/*/*

It is a settled issue to me. 

In order for a scripture to be valuable it has to be the clean and pure Word from God, and not contaminated by personal perspectives of humans who happen to write it or read it. 

IF it is the case that the scripture grammar does not allow this, then it should be recognized as self-evident.

 

The Bible is OF no private interpretation, and the Bible is FOR no private interpretation. 

 

Besides, in 1968 it was very stylish for people to "do your own thing," and for me to hear VPW teach back then that I should not absorb the Bible in a private, personal way was good advice.  

 

 

Even though Saint Vic had his own private interpretation of the bible? Witness what happened to the adultery paper. Witness Penworks book illuminating how Saint Vic used the bible to back up whatever principle he wanted to use to control the masses.

No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."

Edited by So_crates
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, OldSkool said:

How about just reading scripture with faith that God is perfectly capable of communicating himself in written form and just read whats written.

... 

Just read the Bible with confidence and trust in whats written without letting wierwille's fake theology throw you off base dude. I mean do you not believe the following? Hers' the correct choice Mike:

1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
 

I agree that reading what is written, and even in an easier version like NIV, is a good thing to do.

After I finished my 20 year review of the collaterals (1998-2018) I turned to my KJV and started reading for pleasure again.  I also started, for clean smooth reading sessions, my own private digital version of the Bible that is largely KJV with corrections.

It is only in a few knotty verses here and there that I fall back on VPW’s teachings these days. Most of my Bible reading is with most of the collaterals way in the background.

I noticed in the 1970s that many of my contemporaries were not doing a lot of reading in the Gospels.  I had lots of questions as I was an avid reader back then, and I was very concerned about the trinity and things like that. I was always checking up on PFAL as I read Jesus’ words.  It took some time for me to shift to what Jesus taught Paul in the next administration. 

*/*/*

 

As for the 1 John verse you quoted, I remember what we were taught about that, and it is easy to see in the context.

We don’t need any teaching to hold on to our new birth is the clear context of that one verse.  Why? Because it is seed; a done deal.

*/*/*

Meanwhile, that one verse appears in a larger text that is teaching us on a VERY NEEDED topic: staying in fellowship and guarding against idols. 

This major teaching of the whole Epistle has nothing to do with teaching us how to hold onto pneuma hagion, but it does teach us how to hold on to our renewed mind and fellowship.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, So_crates said:

No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."

I have posted several times on 3 different SNT tapes I heard VPW say things like that.   It took me years to understand them.  I posted on this fairly recently also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only victor is allowed whimsical, arbitrary, nonsensical interpretations, but that’s it! No one else!

Rely not on your own understanding. Rely only on victor’s.

Are you a doctor? Didn't think so. Shut up and absorb. Let the intellectual and spiritual anesthesia wash over you like a warm bath.

(Pay no attention to the floating dead baby.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have posted several times on 3 different SNT tapes I heard VPW say things like that.   It took me years to understand them.  I posted on this fairly recently also.

You mean you rationalized. I'm always suspicious when someone has to do mental gymnastics to explain a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

We don’t need any teaching to hold on to our new birth is the clear context of that one verse.  Why? Because it is seed; a done deal.

It plainly does not say that. Viewing scripture through the collaterals isn't what I'm talking about. But who cares at this point...do what u do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, So_crates said:

No private interpretation. Yah, sure. That's why Saint Vic said,"I know there's a manuscript out there somewhere supporting this, we just haven't found it."

Easily one of the most intellectually and spiritually dishonest phrases ever uttered by a human being. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike said:

I noticed in the 1970s that many of my contemporaries were not doing a lot of reading in the Gospels.

Could that be because we were actively discouraged from doing so?

Were you paying attention?

Maybe you've just forgotten that part. It's alright. Lots of old grads have, too.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Right off the bat in session 1 of PFAL, wierwille asks what's the greatest sin a person can commit, from which he launches into  HIS  OWN  INTERPRETATION  of Matthew 22 on the greatest commandment - wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

 

I am a little confused by this.

It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.

Could you please cite your source for:
wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.

If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.

*/*/*/*

This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please"  quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.

*/*/*/*

As far as VPW interpreting the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment I absolutely LOVED that interpretation the instant I heard it.

As a child Catholic, I spent a young lifetime trying desperately to keep track of the many grades of sin, to my endless confusion.  That one line in the class gave me my money's worth.

I have seen other Catholics react similarly to this one line in the class.  It really is SHEER logic.    Count VPW's interpretation correct.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, waysider said:

Could that be because we were actively discouraged from doing so?

Were you paying attention?

Maybe you've just forgotten that part. It's alright. Lots of old grads have, too.

I never felt discouraged from reading the Gospels.  I felt a liberation in knowing they were for my learning, and that the direct applications for me were in the Epistles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

I am a little confused by this.

It looks like you fused two things together that don't belong together.

Could you please cite your source for:
wierwille says something along the lines "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please".

I don't think that is in Session One at all, or anywhere in the class.

If you have the exact wording, I can check the transcript.

*/*/*/*

This "as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please"  quote is floating around a lot lately, and I would like to get a hold of the context in which it appeared.

*/*/*/*

As far as VPW interpreting the greatest sin being breaking the greatest commandment I absolutely LOVED that interpretation the instant I heard it.

As a child Catholic, I spent a young lifetime trying desperately to keep track of the many grades of sin, to my endless confusion.  That one line in the class gave me my money's worth.

I have seen other Catholics react similarly to this one line in the class.  It really is SHEER logic.    Count VPW's interpretation correct.

 

 

Actually, I heard it as: "Love God. Love your neighbor. Do as you damn please."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

I never felt discouraged from reading the Gospels.

So, you weren't taught about dispensationalism like the rest of us? How the epistle were exalted above the gospels because of the administration difference?

You don't remember being shamed for seeking the milk of the word instead of the meat? Who wanted their spiritual prowess to be questioned for seeking something less spiritually enlightening?

 

Yeah, sure. Nobody outright said "Don't read the gospels!" The discouragement was undeniable there and it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chockfull said:

This is actually very telling.  The class that teaches 6 out of the 9 “manifestations” brought up in PLAF is “conspicuously missing”.

So by your belief 2/3 of the “holy spirit” field is not necessary to master?

Written materials by VP include the work covered in penworks book as well as the “By the Way” articles which are a whole other category of material.

Or do you specifically limit that to “Studies in Abundant Living” hard cover books volume one thru five?

 

Do you REALLY think I am believing that we should not master 2/3 of the manifestations?  That would be kinda crazy, wouldn’t it?  Were you more HOPING that I believed that,  so you’d have an easy target to pounce on?

*/*/*

My belief is the AC is missing from VPW’s final instructions for a couple of much better reasons.

One it that since we had failed to adequately master the foundational and intermediate classes, we ought to focus FIRST on the first 3 manifestations.  But really, we were told to not only master those manifestations but the entire classes and the written collaterals also.  

I don’t know why you zeroed your question down to just the manifestations.

*/*/*

Another reason I see for the AC being missing from the master list is because VPW’s understanding and teaching were not refined to that point.  In hindsight, I see the 1942 promise ending up in the collaterals, and not so much as the classes.  The classes were introductions to the collaterals.

*/*/*/*

As for the “By the Way” articles in the local newspapers, and the “Our Times” articles in the magazine, I am not sure how to handle all of them.  Some are obvious gems, and others seem less so.

There are things I am still working on, and the exact boundaries on what should be regarded as worth special attention are still a bit of an unknown to me.

*/*/*

Worth mentioning again is the process may college professors use to write their books, with most of the dog work going to grad students.  This process is not well known, but I think it is justifiable.  I know that within this framework, some authors are unfair to their workers in not crediting them, but that is the university system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"as long as you love God and neighbor you can do as you full well please" - VPW

At this time, I have no reason to doubt that victor said this. Partly because several very trustworthy, honest, sane posters confirm it, and partly because it just fits like a... well, you know.

But I would be curious to know when victor put forth this ethic. It seems like it might be a later, enriched, crawfished version of the 1973 ethic of "Do as you full well please - it's only a problem if you beleeeve it is."


 

 

"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A:

LCM:  How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?

VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will.

LCM: You understand what I just asked?

VPW:  I sure did and I gave you the proper answer.

LCM:  I asked, How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them?

VPW: Alright, Kurt?

Kurt:  In verse 15.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, chockfull said:

They won’t respond.  From their view they have corrected the error with the latest believers family class where they define adultery as wrong and things in standard Christian fashion.

They will never admit past wrongs as that would open them up for litigation.

Yes, they have told me about their new CF&S class, but I am repeatedly letting them know that both the old policies and the new policies need to be written in one document like an ECN to properly change a corporate policy.

I understand the tort fears.  They will subside in coming decades.  In the meantime roundabout methods are being explored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:

But I would be curious to know when victor put forth this ethic.

I don't recall a time when he DIDN'T push this idea, starting very early in PFAL. He rephrased it many different ways and used it as a way to say the 10 commandments didn't apply to the Grace Administration. (They're for spiritual sissies.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, So_crates said:

 More's the pity. Those who don't remember the past are doomed to relive it.

I hope to see an unvarnished history of TWI written outside TWI-4, but well read within TWI-4.   For it to be well read will mean cleansing it from exaggerations.   I think some GSC people can help with such a document, if they are able to change their writing styles to more civil and loving ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, waysider said:

I don't recall a time when he DIDN'T push this idea, starting very early in PFAL. He rephrased it many different ways and used it as a way to say the 10 commandments didn't apply to the Grace Administration. (They're for spiritual sissies.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I hope to see an unvarnished history of TWI written outside TWI-4, but well read within TWI-4.   For it to be well read will mean cleansing it from exaggerations.   I think some GSC people can help with such a document, if they are able to change their writing styles to more civil and loving ways.

Ok...gonna do some whitewashing eh?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike said:

  I think some GSC people can help with such a document, if they are able to change their writing styles to more civil and loving ways.

Good advice. If I ever write a history of Jack The Ripper, I'll be sure to paint him as a real swell guy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...