Wierwille's Actions vs. His Words: Starting Over

[Mike]

Grizzy,

If God gave Dr revelation, then id doesn't matter that Dr's dead 20 years. The real author is alive.

If dead men's revelations bother you, then I suggest you throw out your KJV. Every writer of that book has been dead for at least 2000 years.

[Grizzy]

No Mike, what bothers me is people basing their lifes on that.

Can your beliefs stand on their own without quoting him?

[JustThinking]

Oak's original question:

"But if Wierwille was the adulterous, plagiarizing, scam artist that he appears to have been, why would anyone take anything he said at face value? If his standard practice was to lie and cheat, if he his way of life was to use people, why would any of his teachings be kept and revered as truth?"

I think Mike has given us the answer. VP used the ultimate con man's tool: God and pseudo-logic. First, tell them it all came from God and define the debate if questioned.

Part one is simple. Claim, or better yet hint, that everything you do is inspired/guided/spoken by God but make it mysterious by giving veiled explanations. This prevents you from being pinned down. You can always give more of the story (which conveniently fits the facts) later to back yourself up. That will fool many genuinely honest people who are trusting. References to "lost teachings", "hidden messages in teachings" and sketchy details is a red flag.

Step two: Use something that sounds like logic but isn't. On one hand God taught VP Da Verd like it hasn't been known, etc. Yet we are told to work it for ourselves. Are we allowed to contradict the BASIC tenets of VP? Not on your life because God taught it to him like it hasn't been known... yada yada yada. Key thing to accomplish for the group is to send the conned person back to "work it" only after basic terms and approach have been modified by the group. Voila'! He or she doesn't even realize they're in the web yet. They are ensnared nonetheless.

The thing that makes me sad is the end result for some. Hopelessly trying to prop up a dying delusion, they see the the failings of the system as their own. "If I just had worked it harder." "It was my fault." "Oh, if we had only listened closer." This, to me, is one of the greatest wrongs of TWI inflicted on it's people.

I'm thankful for my fellow Greasespotters who help keep folks from falling any further into this.

[shazdancer]

Mike,

I realize that we haven't heard your whole story, not by a long shot, and so I hesitated to post as much as I did. But I truly hope that you will consider finding a qualified professional to get into this with. Suppressed hurt has a way of popping up annoyingly in all the wrong places.

Regards,

Shaz

[WordWolf]

Mike,

you said (8/26/04, 6:57pm)

"God is the ONLY one who knows how well Dr did in temptation, yet you and

many others act as if YOU know, too. You don't! You should ask God how many

times Dr DID say no to temptation, but as long as you are out of

fellowship with Him and focusing on other men's sins instead of Him and

His Word and Son I doubt you could hear Him answer."

First of all,

I'd like to remind everyone that when you say "His Word" you mean pfal.

Second of all,

Nathan, Jeremiah and all the prophets of old must have been terribly out of

fellowship, since they spent a lot of time confronting "other men's sins".

Paul must have been awful when he confronted Peter to his face, "since he

was to be blamed."

Third of all, the thrust of this quote....

We don't care how often vpw succeeded in overcoming temptation.

We care about the times he failed.

This is to be expected.

By your standard, Jeffrey Dahmer was pretty good. He overcame the

temptation to be a bad person over 99% of the time. Less than 1% of the

time, he killed and ate people.

Nobody CARES what a noble effort Dahmer put up 99% of the time. If he

WANTED to stop himself, there were ways.

He could have put himself in therapy. He could have made sure he was

always surrounded by witnesses. Heck, if he walked down the street and

had an urge to kill someone, he could have strolled right into the local

police station, explained the situation, and requested to be placed in

preventive detention. They would have made sure he couldn't kill anyone,

and prevent a crime from occurring. Then they would have made sure he had

counselling and followups, and see he was attended to. Jeffrey Dahmer

could have chosen to separate himself from his sins. He chose not to, and

lives were destroyed. The courts didn't care if he was kind to small

animals.

Likewise,

vpw KNEW rape was wrong.

This is the SAME man who taught in CF & S that it was wrong for a man to

"help himself" to a woman, then went out and "helped himself" to women.

Could he have resisted the temptation?

Ask Billy Graham, who had a bigger following and NEVER succumbed to

temptation.

There were things he could have done to insure he did not ask improperly.

The simplest was to make sure he always had 2 men with him at all times

unless he was alone with his wife, or in his office (and keep them outside

the office.)

Instead, he planned and orchestrated rapes.

It was wrong for him to WANT to rape Maggie Muggins.

That was bad enough...but he didn't stop there...

It was wrong for him to PLAN to rape Maggie Muggins.

It was wrong for him to build a PLACE to rape Maggie Muggins.

It was wrong for him to TAKE Maggie Muggins to the place to rape her.

It was wrong for him to TRY to rape Maggie Muggins.

It was wrong for him to rape Maggie Muggins.

That took planning and carpentry.

It was not a momentary impulse.

===

Mike,

you have chosen an idol who was a more persuasive speaker and salesman.

You have chosen an idol who was of WEAKER moral fibre than YOURSELF.

He was a man who chose to surrender to his weaknesses.

An expression of regret at the end of his life- regret that he'd ruined

lives because he wanted to- does NOT excuse him for his actions.

I hear Dahmer regretted what he did after the fact also, but he still

had to serve his time in prison.

[waterbuffalo]

Oakspear said:

quote:

---

What many people do is keep the basic structure of Wierwille doctrine and compare them to the bible, or their opinion of what the bible says.

I believe that tearing down the whole edifice and building anew is a better way to go. Start from scratch and learn what truth is independent of anything Wierwille said.

---

Agreed, Oakspear. This is what I have done and wholeheartedly recommend it to others. It's amazing how good life gets after starting over and letting the Holy Spirit teach you what He wants to teach you independent of your preconceived ideas or previous teachings from anywhere. I can learn from a TV evangelist, a musician, any Christian teacher or preacher, and yes, even an atheist who describes group consciousness which perfectly parallels wayworld.

My God doesn't fit into a wierwillized box. He is everywhere and He is so big He can even work in someone who doesn't think they believed in Him to teach us what twi really was 60 years later.

There is no formula for knowing or finding God or His son Jesus Christ and He does not limit Himself to speaking through only one vessel. As a matter of fact, He tells us in Acts that the young men and the handmaidens (young women) will prophesy and will dream dreams and He says it is a good thing--something to be joyful about. He says in one translation that He will pour out His spirit upon all humanity (KJV says "all flesh"). That's a far cry from speaking through only one man who will then tell the masses what to do.

Thanks for the topic, Oakspear. You are a very wise man and I appreciate your posts.

WB

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

... He is everywhere and He is so big He can even work in someone who doesn't think they believed in Him to teach us what twi really was 60 years later.

---

I don't need someone to teach me what twi really was. I was there, and witnessed what it was.

:)-->

[rascal]

ooops wrong thread...sigh.........was intended to go with the pet store analogy on the witnessing thread...

Edited August 27, 2004 by rascal

[Raf]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldiesman:

I don't need someone to teach me what twi really was. I was there, and witnessed what it was.

:)-->

---

If being on gscafe has taught you nothing else, it should have taught you this:

Although you were there, there was plenty that you did not witness.

Same goes for me.

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

Although you were there, there was plenty that you did not witness.

---

Assuming you're speaking of the Sins of Wierwille and Others, true. But I don't always unrelentingly relate the Sins of Wierwille and Others, to "what TWI really was", as some seem to do.

I guess that's some of the difference between myself and some others. But I'm willing to say there was both godliness and evil going on simultaneously. If some folks will admit that, then I think we have a basis for learned communication amongst ourselves.

:)-->

[Mike]

Oldiesman, I can agree that lots of evil got mixed in. If PFAL was given by revelation, then it’s only logical that it would be a high priority target of the devil.

WordWolf,

Nathan and Jeremiah and the other prophets were told by revelation to confront those sins. And look at how long it took for God to issue that confrontive revelation to David. If Nathan had been operating by his 5-senses he might have confronted David well before Uriah’s murder. Focus on sin, like it’s focused on here, should never be a high priority. Light dispels darkness, and it looks like God tolerates a lot of darkness before He starts putting handwriting on walls.

[Raf]

quote:

---

If PFAL was given by revelation, then it’s only logical that it would be a high priority target of the devil.

---

Since, however, PFAL was not given by revelation, but is the flawed work of a flawed man, it's only logical that honest people would be able to weed out the good from the bad in it and come out the better.

[Mike]

Dang! :(-->

If only I had used "since" instead of "if" !!!

I'm going to have to learn from this defeat.

[What The Hay]

quote:

---

To much of our time and energy seems to go to defending a deadman or debunking him! We won’t stand before VPW to give an account, we won’t be judged by PFAL, it will be each of us according to God’s standard!

---

Finally somebody said something here I whole heartily agree with! The VPW I came to know would have been horribly appalled to realize his PFAL bible students were wasting all their time and energy doing nothing but frittering away their precious lives discussing him nearly 20 years after he died on some silly chat board on the Internet. He would have seen all these idiotic threads and discussions about him and his credentials (his doctorate) and whether or not his actions lived up to his words as nothing but pure B.S. And that's putting it mildly. I can't use the words I'ld like to use without this chat board xxxx'ing them out!

Despite what others may have said about him, I know what the man stood for and what he gave his life for. That certainly doesn't mean I idolize him or believe he was 100% perfect in everthing he ever said or did. But I am convinced the only thing GS Cafe is to some people with an anti-TWI/anti-VPW agenda is to convince other people he was a bigger sinner after he died then when he was alive! They have done a fairly good job accomplising that with people who are pretty much like them - people with idle minds and way too much time on their hands.

Speaking God's Word and the truth in love isn't possible when someone allows their mind to spiritually atrophy. But then we all got to fill our minds with sumpthin', don't we? ....

[Mike]

Hi WTH,

I agree. Let's quit the debate on Dr and concentrate on the Word that God taught him and that he put into writing for us.

[rascal]

Lol wth, and just WHAT does that say about those foolish enough to waste their time not only reading about what we write but writing about what a waste of time our writing is ...lol

As for stopping the debate about vpw...lol I assume THAT will happen when you folks stop misrepresenting who and what wierwille really was...untill then...count on us continuing to refute your ideology with our experiences endured.

[Mike]

rascal,

You just wrote about: "writing about what a waste of time our writing is..."

I'd be scolding you for crossing the line right now,

until I realized I wrote about you writing about writing about...

I'm getting dizzy!

[Raf]

Too true, Rascal.

People can praise Wierwille to the skies, but let someone point out that the emperor had no clothes (pun intended) and all of a sudden it's "waaaaah, stop talking about a man after he's dead..."

You know what? Everytime anyone denies what Wierwille did, they call his accusers LIARS while they live.

I agree and will say again that the value (and/or lack thereof) of what he taught stands independently of his character.

[Mike]

Raf,

You excluded anther possibility.

I do not call the accusers liars (although everyone lies somewhere sometime),

but I do deny focus and public discussion on “what he did (wrong)” to be

my highest priority in life or anywhere near it.

I will say that all his accusers have their priorities wrong,

and are ignoring the tremendous good that he helped God bring forth,

in favor of some much smaller (BY COMPARISON) set of hurts.

Remember too, that I have some of those hurts,

but I’ve learned to de-prioritize them.

[Raf]

Mike,

Here's what I wrote:

quote:

---

Everytime anyone denies what Wierwille did, they call his accusers liars while they live.

---

I'm not aware of you ever denying what Wierwille did. Minimizing it, yes. Downplaying it, yes. Misrepresenting it, yes. Mischaracterizing it, yes. Excusing it to your idolatrous ends, yes. But never denying it. So your rebuttal is unnecessary.

[excathedra]

quote:

---

I guess that's some of the difference between myself and some others. But I'm willing to say there was both godliness and evil going on simultaneously. If some folks will admit that, then I think we have a basis for learned communication amongst ourselves.

---

if there was godliness going on, it should be god who gets the credit

[Lifted Up]

Some (such as I) have neither accepted nor denied some things that have ben posted. What I see under Raf's name on his posts (Two Words: Internet Anonymous) may have a lot to do with that.

Raf's comment tells well the basis for my comments and questions which have been directed at Mike. He seems to have accepted, but downplayed. I put myself mentally best as I can in the place of someone this has happened to and I cant accept the downplaying.

I guess that is what triggers all the discussion. I get the impression that as far as believing it happened or not, those who have said they were victims don't care that much whether the rest of us believe it or not.

[excathedra]

quote:

---

I guess that is what triggers all the discussion. I get the impression that as far as believing it happened or not, those who have said they were victims don't care that much whether the rest of us believe it or not.

---

you're probably right, lifted. i used to care a lot, a helluvalot. after a while.... i don't know....

[Lifted Up]

Yea, well that's the impression I have from various recent feeback. Now, if a good friend or close family member didn't believe it, I can see where that would be different.

[excathedra]

sometimes you just need to tell

and other times you feel like you owe no one anything