Right on, Oak! AND if they changed something, like they did after LCM left, they didn't always tell you.
They reprinted the collaterals and made some changes to the wording, but wouldn't tell you what it was.
They changed the agape teachings, but never told you they were changing them, they just quit saying "in the household" and taught it differently. It was a drastic change to the way LCM taught (doctrinal change, really) but they never admitted to it, just hoped no one would notice that it was a change, I guess. -->
Rascal: That sounds like a good situation. My family went to a Presbyterian church from '99-'00 and that minister was cool. He knew we were ex way but he did not go out of his way to "put us in our place" or anything like that. The trinity would have been a problem with him, but he's the only church minister I've really been exposed to since leaving TWI. Sadly, that same minister was run out of that church last year by the "old school" faction in the church.
Oak: I was asking a question more than trying to make a point. Rascal's right; you can't just put all ministers and church members in a box just because they're not PFAL grads, yet the trinity does seem to be a sensitive issue with many of them. The only point I was implying with the post is that it's possibly human nature to question leadership, not just in church, but anywhere.
This thread reminds me of elementary school. Back then (60s) a lot of teachers were control freaks. If you did anything at all they could possibly perceive as questioning their authority they'd abuse you verbally, physically, and emotionally. This wasn't a perochial school, either.
Yes, in a perfect world it's much easier for teachers if students just shut up and take everything in, but realistically, this can't happen consistently. Our minds are supposed to develop by comparing what we're taught and weeding out whatever doesn't make sense. Isn't it ironic that VP got so much heat for questioning the trinity?
I had my nose placed on a chaulk board in elementary school, the one next to me pueked,
but i stood my ground and ....ed in my pantsI]
so how elementary is it?
Gawd am it I could not watch PoPeye or Captain Kangoroo that day!!! But what really got to me I was also deprived to watch Happy Dan and Superman~~~
should i now go through my college years and an English Professor named Pendextor?
I wouldn't really consider it a revision in doctrine, but there were some clarifications.
I heard the all without distinction was changed to all with distinction versus all without exception.
I am sure there were other clarifications, but that's the only one I can recall at the time.
There were times in the Advanced Class where VPW or others would teach a few verses from the Bible, then indicate that they were working on a topic, and to hold that subject in abeyance until further research was done on the subject.
In otherwords, they would bring up a potential future topic for teaching that was still being researched.
But, no, honesty, I don't recall any times where the top leaders of TWI actually said they were wrong. John Lynn and the others did show why some of the doctrines were wrong, but top leadership never had the honesty and integrity to correct those errors.
I don't think the all with or without distinction was exactly a doctrinal change. Most people generally understood what VPW meant, even with the verbage was a little confusing. It was more of a clarification or cleaning up of language syntax.
There most certainly IS a difference between "all without distinction" and "all with distinction."
However, there was no doctrinal change on this matter.
The PFAL book uses the phrase "all without distinction" on pages 65 and 66 for the context it discusses. There WERE some changes made in the PFAL book over the years, but this phrase was NOT changed.
Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" twice. Once is in "How to Enjoy the Bible" on pages 109 and 110 regarding John 12:32 and a few others. The other is in "The Companion Bible" page 1531 in the marginal note regarding John 6:44.
Then the situation (not the doctrine) changed.
The situation change regarded time and context, and the differing phrase "all with distinction" occured in JCNG p.94 and GMWD p.241.
The time change I refer to is the passage of several years between the 1971 publication or PFAL and the 1975, 1977 publications of JCNG and GMWD respectively. More became available in those years.
The context change I'm still working. It seems to regard people or individuals.
I'm working all the places Dr used the word "distinction" and those references are available by e-mail.
I remember a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.. maybe not back that far. In the early 70's I found the leadership approachable. Exceptions were during classes, they seemed a lot less tolerant of questions then. As time went on, they were less approachable or tolerant of questions anytime.
Not liking to engage in vague generalities, I would have to say that some of TWI's leadership were full of crap, up until mid-1987. There were some very consientious TWI leaders who did not like the way the BOT were handling things. Those leaders who voices their concerns were summarily fired from any positions of autnority and told that they would never run anything higher than a "twig" for the rest of their lives. Some TWI leaders did take a stand against the rest of them.
I do think VPW in PFAL said that it was all without distinction within a certain type or category. If someone was at an NRA meeting, all would refer to gun enthusiasts, only. All with distinction meant that there would be a distinction between people who are gun enthusiastics and those who would be distinctly not.
Hey, I know, in and of itself its really simple. But people can get lost in prepositional hell.
Yes, WordWolf, "all with distinction" and "all without distinction" should mean different things. Unfortunately, the latter phrase was stolen from Bullinger and confused people, because it carried the idea of "all without distinction in a certain class." (As BiblefanDave points out.) Since a distinction is made between classes, however, it was easier to understand if re-phrased as "all with distinction." There really wasn't a change in doctrine; the "with distinction" terminology just more clearly represents the concept.
Recommended Posts
Belle
Right on, Oak! AND if they changed something, like they did after LCM left, they didn't always tell you.
They reprinted the collaterals and made some changes to the wording, but wouldn't tell you what it was.
They changed the agape teachings, but never told you they were changing them, they just quit saying "in the household" and taught it differently. It was a drastic change to the way LCM taught (doctrinal change, really) but they never admitted to it, just hoped no one would notice that it was a change, I guess.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Rascal: That sounds like a good situation. My family went to a Presbyterian church from '99-'00 and that minister was cool. He knew we were ex way but he did not go out of his way to "put us in our place" or anything like that. The trinity would have been a problem with him, but he's the only church minister I've really been exposed to since leaving TWI. Sadly, that same minister was run out of that church last year by the "old school" faction in the church.
Oak: I was asking a question more than trying to make a point. Rascal's right; you can't just put all ministers and church members in a box just because they're not PFAL grads, yet the trinity does seem to be a sensitive issue with many of them. The only point I was implying with the post is that it's possibly human nature to question leadership, not just in church, but anywhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Okay!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
posted November 07, 2004 21:10
This thread reminds me of elementary school. Back then (60s) a lot of teachers were control freaks. If you did anything at all they could possibly perceive as questioning their authority they'd abuse you verbally, physically, and emotionally. This wasn't a perochial school, either.
Yes, in a perfect world it's much easier for teachers if students just shut up and take everything in, but realistically, this can't happen consistently. Our minds are supposed to develop by comparing what we're taught and weeding out whatever doesn't make sense. Isn't it ironic that VP got so much heat for questioning the trinity?
I had my nose placed on a chaulk board in elementary school, the one next to me pueked,
but i stood my ground and ....ed in my pantsI]
so how elementary is it?
Gawd am it I could not watch PoPeye or Captain Kangoroo that day!!! But what really got to me I was also deprived to watch Happy Dan and Superman~~~
should i now go through my college years and an English Professor named Pendextor?
I suppose we should all grow up eh johniam!!!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
I wouldn't really consider it a revision in doctrine, but there were some clarifications.
I heard the all without distinction was changed to all with distinction versus all without exception.
I am sure there were other clarifications, but that's the only one I can recall at the time.
There were times in the Advanced Class where VPW or others would teach a few verses from the Bible, then indicate that they were working on a topic, and to hold that subject in abeyance until further research was done on the subject.
In otherwords, they would bring up a potential future topic for teaching that was still being researched.
But, no, honesty, I don't recall any times where the top leaders of TWI actually said they were wrong. John Lynn and the others did show why some of the doctrines were wrong, but top leadership never had the honesty and integrity to correct those errors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Changing
"all without distinction"
to
"all with distinction"
may not be a MAJOR doctrinal change,
but it IS a doctrinal change.
It was also done extremely quietly.
In pfal, it's one way, in some books, it's the other way.
You weren't supposed to notice that doctrine had changed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
I don't think the all with or without distinction was exactly a doctrinal change. Most people generally understood what VPW meant, even with the verbage was a little confusing. It was more of a clarification or cleaning up of language syntax.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Changing the word
"WITHOUT"
to
"WITH"
reverses the meaning of a sentence,
since
"WITH"
and
"WITHOUT"
are antonyms, and thus mean the OPPOSITE
of each other.
This requires illustration????
I'm typing WITH a computer.
If I was typing WITHOUT a computer,
this message would never make it to the
messageboard.
"Cleaning up language syntax" was more the
excuse used when trying to make the tortured
logic of Session One work.
That was used when trying to make
"your needs and wants must be parallel"
work and make sense.
Which, it does, if you completely rewrite what vpw wrote
and add lots of stuff.
"WITH distinction"
and
"WITHOUT distinction"
are opposites.
Ask anyone who ever served in an armed forces.
If someone's record says they served
"with distinction",
that means they did a GREAT job, and EXCEEDED expectations,
they were ABOVE-average.
If their record says they served
"without distinction",
that means they performed their job ADEQUATELY, and MET
expectations, they were AVERAGE.
Is there something confusing about their syntax?
Does that need clarification?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There most certainly IS a difference between "all without distinction" and "all with distinction."
However, there was no doctrinal change on this matter.
The PFAL book uses the phrase "all without distinction" on pages 65 and 66 for the context it discusses. There WERE some changes made in the PFAL book over the years, but this phrase was NOT changed.
Bullinger uses the phrase "all without distinction" twice. Once is in "How to Enjoy the Bible" on pages 109 and 110 regarding John 12:32 and a few others. The other is in "The Companion Bible" page 1531 in the marginal note regarding John 6:44.
Then the situation (not the doctrine) changed.
The situation change regarded time and context, and the differing phrase "all with distinction" occured in JCNG p.94 and GMWD p.241.
The time change I refer to is the passage of several years between the 1971 publication or PFAL and the 1975, 1977 publications of JCNG and GMWD respectively. More became available in those years.
The context change I'm still working. It seems to regard people or individuals.
I'm working all the places Dr used the word "distinction" and those references are available by e-mail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I remember a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away.. maybe not back that far. In the early 70's I found the leadership approachable. Exceptions were during classes, they seemed a lot less tolerant of questions then. As time went on, they were less approachable or tolerant of questions anytime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
herbiejuan
Oh lets quit dancing around the topic, twi's leadership was full of crap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
But it is so much more fun to say it with style!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Not liking to engage in vague generalities, I would have to say that some of TWI's leadership were full of crap, up until mid-1987. There were some very consientious TWI leaders who did not like the way the BOT were handling things. Those leaders who voices their concerns were summarily fired from any positions of autnority and told that they would never run anything higher than a "twig" for the rest of their lives. Some TWI leaders did take a stand against the rest of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
I do think VPW in PFAL said that it was all without distinction within a certain type or category. If someone was at an NRA meeting, all would refer to gun enthusiasts, only. All with distinction meant that there would be a distinction between people who are gun enthusiastics and those who would be distinctly not.
Hey, I know, in and of itself its really simple. But people can get lost in prepositional hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Yes, WordWolf, "all with distinction" and "all without distinction" should mean different things. Unfortunately, the latter phrase was stolen from Bullinger and confused people, because it carried the idea of "all without distinction in a certain class." (As BiblefanDave points out.) Since a distinction is made between classes, however, it was easier to understand if re-phrased as "all with distinction." There really wasn't a change in doctrine; the "with distinction" terminology just more clearly represents the concept.
George
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.