The "needs and wants parallel" clause was Wierwille's "out" for when his "Law" of believing failed to produce. The terms are never defined adequately, especially "parallel". If you're going to draw a mathematical analogy, that's probably the worst possible term. Two parallel lines never intersect at any point. He should have said "equal", or perhaps even "congruent" if he wanted to keep up the pseudo-scientific jargon, but "parallel" is meaningless in the context.
So, whenever your prayers weren't exactly answered according to Wierwille's "Law", why, your needs and wants must not have been "parallel"! Of course, there's no concrete instruction on HOW to parallelize those needs and wants, it's just required by fiat.
Cute!
While I do believe God answers prayer, I do not believe He is the cold, impersonal genie-in-a-bottle that Wierwille's "Law" compels Him to be to "saint and sinner alike". I think there are certain higher truths to which we are not privy that determine the efficacy of any given prayer.
And, no, I can't prove it any more than Wierwille could, but it's no dumber than Wierwille's "Law".
Also, Ref, you need to keep in mind that many huge portions of the piffle book were lifted from other authors. docvic's(praise be his name) books are VERY heavily plagiarized from the works of others, some of which were plagiarized themselves.
Another point - although many here call him "doctor", his doctorate is somewhat questionable, having come from a known diploma mill. So don't feel compelled to use any kind of honorific when speaking of him - veepee, VP, VPW, or docvic(praise be his name) would all be adequate substitutions.
quote:Actually this particular subject, which the good doctor calls RIGHTLY DIVIDING appears to be one that he is very personally partial to, believing that every letter of every word in the Bible was placed specifically in just that position it occupies by God Himself, so that Wierwille, 3000 years later, could correctly interpret the profound significance of its being there.
This belongs on the Gems thread!
Very insightful observations, Refiner. I only wish I had noticed those same things when I first took the class.
The thing I STILL have not figured out, lo these many years later, is how the Vicster managed to convince me of the rightness of his doctrine, even though I couldn't follow his logic.
I remember many times going to another running of "The Class", tormented by doubts about VPW's teaching on "pistis" ("believing or faith") or the teaching about I Cor. 12, or a dozen or so other basic tenets of Wierwilleism and having no idea how he could make the distinctions that he did regarding certain words or passages. I'd sit there listening to the tapes CONSCIOUSLY FORCING MYSELF to try to understand what he was saying. And, in spite of the fact that I couldn't follow his logic, I'd still stick to my a-priori assumption that Wierwille was telling the God's honest truth and I just needed to "work" it more so that - one magical day - I too would understand.
Cheezus, how did he get me (us?) to that point to begin with? That was the real hook that got us all involved, and I still don't know what it was...
Why George... a lot of it was because we were surrounded by folks who constantly reaffirmed the hype... it was the comfort of company... ah... the undershepherding!
something Refiner has the benefit of NOT having around to "wash away his doubt"...
Thank you! I am in the stage of my recovery where I really needed to hear that. So true, yet sooo funny. I am beginning to find laughter in places where I never have looked. Keep up the good work.
You asked the vital question- why does a man sit there wrestling with doctrine he cant understand, and still convince himself it must be true doctrine.
I think that if you just researched her Doctors utterances on one subject, say "Faith", if you went thru the book and just culled out everything he wrote on the subject of "faith", well you would find that his doctrine of faith doesnt add up and is in contradiction with itself.
His writings on faith are mixed in with a whole load of mumbo jumbo on other subjects and so are lost in the general swill.
Of course, a book like this is not for the brand new recruit, by the time you read PFAL you are already half absorbed in the group.
Vpw got us to believe it through mind control and brainwashing. By getting only to read his stuff, listen to his tapes and hang out with other followers, our brains get warped into thinking only one way.
Politicians and media types do this all the time.
Beat the drum on an issue long enough and people believe it whether it is right or wrong.
VPW was a "doctor" with a ThD. He knew the keys becasue God spoke to him. This was part of the hook in PFAL.
VPW convinced us that he was smarter and more spiritual than we were. How could we question a a great researcher with a ThD, that was taught by God himself?
If what VPW said didn't make sense it was becuause we were not smart enough or not spiritual enough to see it. - Or so we were lead to believe.
I know where you're "coming from" but I think there was still something else going on.
To begin with I didn't have any respect for Mr. Wierwille. I grudgingly went along with taking "The Class" because I was smitten with the girl who "witnessed" to me (yeah, there's a unique story, eh?).
Slowly through the tedious sessions (most of which I slept through), I began to side with Wierwille. I thought the "Four Crucified" was the coolest. By the time I "spoke in tongues" I was hooked.
After that I had an investment of time, emotion, and self-interest in TWI dogma, and it was more difficult to see it for what it really was.
But how did Wierwille make the transition? That's the real key. I think def is on the right track, but then that brings up another question, HOW does one go about "brainwashing"? How is one's innate skepticism broken down?
How do you get one to abandon logic and accept bizarre doctrines without ANY proof?
I think there are techniques utilized in PFAL that we haven't really caught onto yet.
Or, maybe I'd just like to think it was more sophisticated than it really was?
What impressed me most was the basic fundamentalist principle, which I first heard in PFAL: If the Bible IS the Word of God, given by revelation, then in its original form, it must be inerrant. There can be no internal inconsistencies. I still choose to believe this. If it's not true, then anybody's opinion about anything is as good as anybody else's, and the Bible is just literature.
Of course, there are apparent inconsistencies, and so these must be explained. (To whom was a scripture addressed? What were the circumstances? Do different texts have variant readings? All these things must be considered.)
Though not a Hebrew scholar, I learned to read Greek in high school (something of value from my Roman Catholic upbringing); and in almost every case, I found VPW's analyses of New Testament Greek to be correct. (There are a couple of verses in 1 Cor. that seem wrong, but nothing that invalidates the premise of the manifestations of holy spirit being available to every Christian.)
So, unlike the other George, I don't feel that I blindly accepted dogma. I agree that VPW, shall we say, insufficiently footnoted his work; but if he plagiarized correct biblical interpretation principles, that doesn't invalidate the principles.
Refiner, draw your own conclusions about the work. Being "undersheperded" by gainsayers is no less intimidating than by believers.
quote: I think there are techniques utilized in PFAL that we haven't really caught onto yet.
Geo -- yep, and yep. Don't remember the exact year you were here in Duluth, but I think it was before I was selling insurance ----
(Gawd -- what a strange long trip that was!
What you just said, reminded me of our "policy" we were pushing, and how we got folks to "buy" it. We were taught to emphasize certain words, place the pen on certain phrases of the policy (which was facing the customer - we had to look at it upside down), speak with inflection in our voice at certain times, tell a "mindless" joke at an exact time, use eye contact, not use eye contact, name names of their neighbors, and to just basically prove to them (the customer), that we were "from the hood", and had their best interest at heart, so "buy what I am selling."
The whole scam (not legally, but in reality it was) was set up by W. Clement Stone, who was one of those "think and grow rich" folks. He had the entire "spiel" set up by psychiatric type folks who knew key words, key mannerism's, key reactions , optimal success "realizations" for the product, etc.
He (W. Clement Stone) and docvic had a hell-of-a-lot in common (imho) since they were both selling the public a "bill of goods" that needed better perusal, other than the spiel offered by whatever "salesman" happened by. -->
Docvic may have never had an accredited Phychiatrist "work over" his "spiel" to get it to sell better, but I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that he plagarized the works of these guys to gain the same end that the pros were doing in the insurance field.
Oh -- wait a minute. docvic WAS selling insurance, wasn't he?
quote: What impressed me most was the basic fundamentalist principle, which I first heard in PFAL: If the Bible IS the Word of God, given by revelation, then in its original form, it must be inerrant. There can be no internal inconsistencies. I still choose to believe this. If it's not true, then anybody's opinion about anything is as good as anybody else's, and the Bible is just literature.
GS George -- You just nailed it!! Good job!
(plus) -- I think you just "invalidated" half of this site!! :D-->
oh yeah... definitely brainwashing techniques involved... definitely (said in my best "Rain Man" voice)... the pattern in which it was introduced, coupled with the "undershepherding", coupled with the "motive for taking the class" (you're right George, your's was not unique), came together to make saps out of us all...
but we're smarter now... right? (can you hear The Who playing "Won't Get Fooled Again" in the background?)
Yeah, a long strange trip indeed. Life picks up so much speed as you get older. I can hardly believe it was 25 YEARS ago I first went W.O.W.!
I don't think you were doing the insurance bit when I was there. In fact, I don't remember what you were doing then, except playing at Sir Bens (or "Sir-Something-or-other's"). But that wasn't a paying gig, was it?
Gawd, I'd love to see the North Shore again. Maybe spend a few days flyfishing on the French or the Sucker? Or, better yet, portage into one of the BWCA lakes for a weekend! Ooo, all I'd haveta do is pack up a few gallons of DEET and my flyrod. I wonder if wifey would wanna go?
Sorry for the derail.
And yes Oddone, we're MUCH smarter now. I'm sure of it. Much, much smarter. I mean, REALLY. Yes, smarter...
quote:What impressed me most was the basic fundamentalist principle, which I first heard in PFAL: If the Bible IS the Word of God, given by revelation, then in its original form, it must be inerrant. There can be no internal inconsistencies. I still choose to believe this. If it's not true, then anybody's opinion about anything is as good as anybody else's, and the Bible is just literature.
First, this would really only apply to the dictation theory of "theopneustos", which basically says that God gave the writers each word that they wrote or even each letter in each word. It presumes that a writer could not have misspelled a word or made a grmamatical error.
Second, it also blindly presumes that the canon of scripture given us is also inerrant - that is that people that decided what books are included or excluded in the canon of scripture from which our bible are translated were inerrant/infallible in their decision.
I think both positions are untenable. The Word of God is not the paper and ink. It is the ideas and precepts that are contained within and transmitted by the words on the pages.
Oh, and about the salemanship thingy (what I really meant to post about before I got all nostalgic about Duluth),
I remember very early in my TWI-daze hearing DocVic talking about how important it was to have professionally trained salespeople to promote PFAL. That always struck me as odd. I mean, if it was truly GOD'S WORD, why should it need a salespitch to sell it?
Just one more of those things that I "held in obeyance" waiting for the day when it would all become clear.
Well, that day has finally arrived. Not quite the way I'd envisioned it, somehow...
The canon of what we know as scripture was decided by an early catholic council so how inerrant their decisions were would require a lot of research.
The concept of theopneustos referred to accepted scripture at time of writing, not what would be accepted as scripture three centuries hence. It is difficult to imagine that the first century writers actually had the concept that their writings would be collected in one volume at some stage in the future - that Paul imagined himself writing to a larger audience than those to whom his letters were individually addressed. There is also dispute that all things were actually authored by the same person, even when it is claimed from the name that they were. Many other writings did not survive so we have no idea what they contained.
When compared with other scriptures which some accept such as the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon which claimed to be directly dictated and inerrantly transmitted, the Bible is much more of a mish mash and mixture and so the perfection that VPW claimed was possible is much more of a myth than a reality.
Recommended Posts
Zixar
The "needs and wants parallel" clause was Wierwille's "out" for when his "Law" of believing failed to produce. The terms are never defined adequately, especially "parallel". If you're going to draw a mathematical analogy, that's probably the worst possible term. Two parallel lines never intersect at any point. He should have said "equal", or perhaps even "congruent" if he wanted to keep up the pseudo-scientific jargon, but "parallel" is meaningless in the context.
So, whenever your prayers weren't exactly answered according to Wierwille's "Law", why, your needs and wants must not have been "parallel"! Of course, there's no concrete instruction on HOW to parallelize those needs and wants, it's just required by fiat.
Cute!
While I do believe God answers prayer, I do not believe He is the cold, impersonal genie-in-a-bottle that Wierwille's "Law" compels Him to be to "saint and sinner alike". I think there are certain higher truths to which we are not privy that determine the efficacy of any given prayer.
And, no, I can't prove it any more than Wierwille could, but it's no dumber than Wierwille's "Law".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Also, Ref, you need to keep in mind that many huge portions of the piffle book were lifted from other authors. docvic's(praise be his name) books are VERY heavily plagiarized from the works of others, some of which were plagiarized themselves.
Another point - although many here call him "doctor", his doctorate is somewhat questionable, having come from a known diploma mill. So don't feel compelled to use any kind of honorific when speaking of him - veepee, VP, VPW, or docvic(praise be his name) would all be adequate substitutions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Girl From Oz
How could anyone take seriously anything written by a bloke called Wee Willie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WaywardWayfer
This belongs on the Gems thread!
Very insightful observations, Refiner. I only wish I had noticed those same things when I first took the class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Refiner... come on over to the "Mastering PFAL" thread... you've waded in deep enough to be a part of the "discourse"...!!!
(just keep those boots on)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
The thing I STILL have not figured out, lo these many years later, is how the Vicster managed to convince me of the rightness of his doctrine, even though I couldn't follow his logic.
I remember many times going to another running of "The Class", tormented by doubts about VPW's teaching on "pistis" ("believing or faith") or the teaching about I Cor. 12, or a dozen or so other basic tenets of Wierwilleism and having no idea how he could make the distinctions that he did regarding certain words or passages. I'd sit there listening to the tapes CONSCIOUSLY FORCING MYSELF to try to understand what he was saying. And, in spite of the fact that I couldn't follow his logic, I'd still stick to my a-priori assumption that Wierwille was telling the God's honest truth and I just needed to "work" it more so that - one magical day - I too would understand.
Cheezus, how did he get me (us?) to that point to begin with? That was the real hook that got us all involved, and I still don't know what it was...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Why George... a lot of it was because we were surrounded by folks who constantly reaffirmed the hype... it was the comfort of company... ah... the undershepherding!
something Refiner has the benefit of NOT having around to "wash away his doubt"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
George Aar!
That very question is the reason I keep coming back to these groups.
Why do people do it??How does it precisely occur??
Before I die i hope to completely figure out the pure mechanisms involved in the conversion process.
Its a divine mystery.
Oh, I know that the church 'love bombs' recruits.But its more than that. As well, often, a mystical experience is involved for the individual.
TomS makes a striking point, all that positive reinforcement reassuring that the process works makes a powerful influence.
I hadnt considered that as vital, but I think the man is correct.
If a) everyone is glowing enthusiastic around you about the "process"- b) you cant fathom the process and are confused = c) You must be a dummy.
(Youre not a dummy George, I speak metaphorically)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Hey Tom Strange.
I think you have given me a vital KEY
and unlocked a door.
Many thanks.
undershepherding huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluesunday
Thank you! I am in the stage of my recovery where I really needed to hear that. So true, yet sooo funny. I am beginning to find laughter in places where I never have looked. Keep up the good work.
bluedaze
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
Hey George.
You asked the vital question- why does a man sit there wrestling with doctrine he cant understand, and still convince himself it must be true doctrine.
TomS gave the answer.
So you were part of the solution as well.
Good work!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
I think that if you just researched her Doctors utterances on one subject, say "Faith", if you went thru the book and just culled out everything he wrote on the subject of "faith", well you would find that his doctrine of faith doesnt add up and is in contradiction with itself.
His writings on faith are mixed in with a whole load of mumbo jumbo on other subjects and so are lost in the general swill.
Of course, a book like this is not for the brand new recruit, by the time you read PFAL you are already half absorbed in the group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
George
Vpw got us to believe it through mind control and brainwashing. By getting only to read his stuff, listen to his tapes and hang out with other followers, our brains get warped into thinking only one way.
Politicians and media types do this all the time.
Beat the drum on an issue long enough and people believe it whether it is right or wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
George,
VPW was a "doctor" with a ThD. He knew the keys becasue God spoke to him. This was part of the hook in PFAL.
VPW convinced us that he was smarter and more spiritual than we were. How could we question a a great researcher with a ThD, that was taught by God himself?
If what VPW said didn't make sense it was becuause we were not smart enough or not spiritual enough to see it. - Or so we were lead to believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Refiner, Mr.Odd, Goey, et al,
I know where you're "coming from" but I think there was still something else going on.
To begin with I didn't have any respect for Mr. Wierwille. I grudgingly went along with taking "The Class" because I was smitten with the girl who "witnessed" to me (yeah, there's a unique story, eh?).
Slowly through the tedious sessions (most of which I slept through), I began to side with Wierwille. I thought the "Four Crucified" was the coolest. By the time I "spoke in tongues" I was hooked.
After that I had an investment of time, emotion, and self-interest in TWI dogma, and it was more difficult to see it for what it really was.
But how did Wierwille make the transition? That's the real key. I think def is on the right track, but then that brings up another question, HOW does one go about "brainwashing"? How is one's innate skepticism broken down?
How do you get one to abandon logic and accept bizarre doctrines without ANY proof?
I think there are techniques utilized in PFAL that we haven't really caught onto yet.
Or, maybe I'd just like to think it was more sophisticated than it really was?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Refiner
You got ME thinking now George.
Im at work and being a naughty boy lurking here,
:D--> but I'll sure think on what youve said and get back atcha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
What impressed me most was the basic fundamentalist principle, which I first heard in PFAL: If the Bible IS the Word of God, given by revelation, then in its original form, it must be inerrant. There can be no internal inconsistencies. I still choose to believe this. If it's not true, then anybody's opinion about anything is as good as anybody else's, and the Bible is just literature.
Of course, there are apparent inconsistencies, and so these must be explained. (To whom was a scripture addressed? What were the circumstances? Do different texts have variant readings? All these things must be considered.)
Though not a Hebrew scholar, I learned to read Greek in high school (something of value from my Roman Catholic upbringing); and in almost every case, I found VPW's analyses of New Testament Greek to be correct. (There are a couple of verses in 1 Cor. that seem wrong, but nothing that invalidates the premise of the manifestations of holy spirit being available to every Christian.)
So, unlike the other George, I don't feel that I blindly accepted dogma. I agree that VPW, shall we say, insufficiently footnoted his work; but if he plagiarized correct biblical interpretation principles, that doesn't invalidate the principles.
Refiner, draw your own conclusions about the work. Being "undersheperded" by gainsayers is no less intimidating than by believers.
George St. George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Geo -- yep, and yep. Don't remember the exact year you were here in Duluth, but I think it was before I was selling insurance ----
(Gawd -- what a strange long trip that was!
What you just said, reminded me of our "policy" we were pushing, and how we got folks to "buy" it. We were taught to emphasize certain words, place the pen on certain phrases of the policy (which was facing the customer - we had to look at it upside down), speak with inflection in our voice at certain times, tell a "mindless" joke at an exact time, use eye contact, not use eye contact, name names of their neighbors, and to just basically prove to them (the customer), that we were "from the hood", and had their best interest at heart, so "buy what I am selling."
The whole scam (not legally, but in reality it was) was set up by W. Clement Stone, who was one of those "think and grow rich" folks. He had the entire "spiel" set up by psychiatric type folks who knew key words, key mannerism's, key reactions , optimal success "realizations" for the product, etc.
He (W. Clement Stone) and docvic had a hell-of-a-lot in common (imho) since they were both selling the public a "bill of goods" that needed better perusal, other than the spiel offered by whatever "salesman" happened by.
-->
Docvic may have never had an accredited Phychiatrist "work over" his "spiel" to get it to sell better, but I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that he plagarized the works of these guys to gain the same end that the pros were doing in the insurance field.
Oh -- wait a minute. docvic WAS selling insurance, wasn't he?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
GS George -- You just nailed it!! Good job!
(plus) -- I think you just "invalidated" half of this site!!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh yeah... definitely brainwashing techniques involved... definitely (said in my best "Rain Man" voice)... the pattern in which it was introduced, coupled with the "undershepherding", coupled with the "motive for taking the class" (you're right George, your's was not unique), came together to make saps out of us all...
but we're smarter now... right? (can you hear The Who playing "Won't Get Fooled Again" in the background?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Dave,
Yeah, a long strange trip indeed. Life picks up so much speed as you get older. I can hardly believe it was 25 YEARS ago I first went W.O.W.!
I don't think you were doing the insurance bit when I was there. In fact, I don't remember what you were doing then, except playing at Sir Bens (or "Sir-Something-or-other's"). But that wasn't a paying gig, was it?
Gawd, I'd love to see the North Shore again. Maybe spend a few days flyfishing on the French or the Sucker? Or, better yet, portage into one of the BWCA lakes for a weekend! Ooo, all I'd haveta do is pack up a few gallons of DEET and my flyrod. I wonder if wifey would wanna go?
Sorry for the derail.
And yes Oddone, we're MUCH smarter now. I'm sure of it. Much, much smarter. I mean, REALLY. Yes, smarter...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
First, this would really only apply to the dictation theory of "theopneustos", which basically says that God gave the writers each word that they wrote or even each letter in each word. It presumes that a writer could not have misspelled a word or made a grmamatical error.
Second, it also blindly presumes that the canon of scripture given us is also inerrant - that is that people that decided what books are included or excluded in the canon of scripture from which our bible are translated were inerrant/infallible in their decision.
I think both positions are untenable. The Word of God is not the paper and ink. It is the ideas and precepts that are contained within and transmitted by the words on the pages.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Oh, and about the salemanship thingy (what I really meant to post about before I got all nostalgic about Duluth),
I remember very early in my TWI-daze hearing DocVic talking about how important it was to have professionally trained salespeople to promote PFAL. That always struck me as odd. I mean, if it was truly GOD'S WORD, why should it need a salespitch to sell it?
Just one more of those things that I "held in obeyance" waiting for the day when it would all become clear.
Well, that day has finally arrived. Not quite the way I'd envisioned it, somehow...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The canon of what we know as scripture was decided by an early catholic council so how inerrant their decisions were would require a lot of research.
The concept of theopneustos referred to accepted scripture at time of writing, not what would be accepted as scripture three centuries hence. It is difficult to imagine that the first century writers actually had the concept that their writings would be collected in one volume at some stage in the future - that Paul imagined himself writing to a larger audience than those to whom his letters were individually addressed. There is also dispute that all things were actually authored by the same person, even when it is claimed from the name that they were. Many other writings did not survive so we have no idea what they contained.
When compared with other scriptures which some accept such as the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon which claimed to be directly dictated and inerrantly transmitted, the Bible is much more of a mish mash and mixture and so the perfection that VPW claimed was possible is much more of a myth than a reality.
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.