OK once and for all

[TheEvan]

David repented. Quite publicly. Then, and not until then, God restored him.

[WordWolf]

Just to make sure everyone can play along,

I recently said this, to make absolutely sure we all

were clear on EXACTLY was being discussed...

In the interests of making sure I am being absolutely clear

and leaving out wiggle-room,

when I posted this....

And said that Mike denied the plagiarism outright,

what I'm specifically saying is that we discussed

how vpw took the work of other Christians-

Leonard's class, Stiles' book, Bullinger's books-

and made the voluntary decision to take material

from them and "write"/plagiarize books with his

own name as the author.

Initially (2002), Mike arrived and claimed that

God gave vpw the substance of the books-

that they were a collaboration between vpw

and God, and no books/classes from the

others were involved. Any resemblance to

the contrary was due to God giving, say,

Bullinger revelation, then later giving the

SAME revelation to vpw, who never

touched the Bullinger book, and thus,

never committed the moral and legal CRIME

of plagiarism.

Is it starting to sound familiar, Mike?

Or are you going to categorically deny

you ever claimed exactly that?

Clear enough to everyone, right?

I said Mike's premise in 2002 was

that the pfal books were derived by

divine dictation,

and NOT by exposure to Bullinger,

Stiles, Kenyon, etc.

God dictated to them,

then God dictated to vpw.

Then I asked if Mike was

"going to categorically deny

you ever claimed exactly that?"

Mike's response was as follows:

I do deny now, and did then deny then, that what is perecived to be the sin and crime of plagiarism was committed by Dr in producing the PFAL books.

There's no change in my policy.

What you folks perceive as plagiarism I deny IS plagiarism.

This has been my stand all along. Maybe someday I'll take the time to locate all my posts to prove this to anyone who wants, but I doubt it. It's not that important a subject to me.

WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena with a denial of the phenomena.

There's no denial that many passages in PFAL are very close to passages in other writings.

I never denied this phenomenon years ago, and I do not deny it now.

What I deny now (as always) is that the phenomenon constitutes the sin or even the crime of plagiarism.

THIS denial I have posted on in spades, and I stand by it now.

I have covered this denial of guilt on Dr's part from many angles, and it is THESE angles that you refuse to deal with. Instead you focus on me. The record you are leaving is one of refusal to consider God's perspective.

Your perception of plagiarism being committed by Dr is wrong and your perception of my waffling is wrong.

Let me again state my consistent position: Dr did not commit plagiarism in producing the PFAL books. I don't care what any of you posters think about it, nor what any pointy headed lawyer nor any human court says on this, because I know Who the real owner is and what His court says about the matter.

Next subject.

Therefore, this is Mike saying

"yes, I deny ever saying that."

He claims his position never changed,

and thus

"your perception of my waffling is wrong."

My claim was that Mike STARTED with the

"divine dictation" claim,

then SWITCHED to ANOTHER claim.

The SWITCH, specifically, is what Mike refers

to as the "waffling".

Sure would be nice if I could retrieve 1000 pages

of Mike rambling in 2002.....

Edited December 12, 2005 by WordWolf

[oldiesman]

You second question, how to know when we're finished is odd. Why do you even want to know that?

Mike,

Because if it is available for me to master PFAL, I want to know exactly when I have attained that mastery.

Saying that we should master PFAL, but not being able to tell when we have actually attained that mastery, is like Chris Geer saying we need to "get back on the Word."

Too aloof.

Here's an athletic example:

If I were to study Karate, I become a "Master" when I attain the 4th degree Black Belt.

At that level, I am qualified to teach it. I am considered a Master at Karate.

When does one become a Master at PFAL?

[WordWolf]

Lacking the uncils of the time-period in question,

I'm forced to rely on cursives based on the uncils that were extant.

:)

That was a little pfal joke. (Very little.)

What I CAN'T do is retrieve the ORIGINAL discussions of same.

However,

this subject-the DIVINE DICTATION concept of Mike's-

that DID come up again in 2003......

WordWolf said this 1/1/03, 4:37am (Eastern):

"If you really think that we concluded that vpw

plagiarized pfal based on a "FEW FACTS," you

really are behind the curve. The authors were

found. The books were found. The lifted lines

were found. That would be enough to justify a

conviction in a court of law. What do you want-

a signed confession from vpw?"

Mike replied this 1/1/03, 5:09am (Eastern):

WordWolf

You may have some facts in this area of what you label plagiarism

(I'm too tired to come up with my own label now).

However, I believe the interpretation of those facts will magically flip

around 100% when the facts are viewed from a

different perspective. So far no one wants to do that.

If you feel up to it here's a hint of what I'm currently writing.

Try to imagine the perspective I have been describing,

try to adopt my view for a few minutes.

Can you see, from MY perspective, how, if God is really the author of

what you label Dr's plagiarism, then God would also be the author of

the SAME

similar

material as it appeared in the other writers' books

you have collected? Does that fit? Can you try that out.

Think it through without fighting it so that you can see the implications.

God gives revelation to Kenyon, but Kenyon is steeped in some

tradition and is surrounded by loved ones who are EXTREMELY steeped

in tradition. Kenyon is a traditional nice guy Christian, not a rough,

tough, in-your-face type of guy like Dr,

so Kenyon waters the revelation down,

JUST A LITTLE to make it more acceptable to

his family and friends. It's not God's Word any more,

because he changed it.

Peter was a little like this, steeped in tradition. He gets revelation on

accepting Gentiles, acts on it with Cornelius, and then backs off

later when he goes back to Jerusalem. God later gives

the same revelation

to a rough, tough, in-your-face type of guy like Paul.

There's more to it than that, and I'm slowly writing it out,

but does that give you a new angle to see if your

facts fit better?

How many seconds or minutes or days will you try to look at

it this way. Did you dismiss it already? I hope not.

According to Mike's CURRENT dash,

he NEVER claimed the "DIVINE DICTATION" method-

that is, that vpw got the books by revelation.

"WW, you're confusing my denial of the perceived phenomena

with a denial of the phenomena."

In other words, I never claimed vpw got them strictly by

Divine Dictation-I always claimed he got them thru God

telling vpw to rip off the other writers.

(That's the CURRENT position, which I can elaborate on

in further detail if anyone requires it.)

HOWEVER,

as we can see from this trip down Amnesia Lane,

even AFTER threads where he claimed this were deleted,

there's STILL proof he claimed the Divine Dictation.

He drew a specific analogy to claim this:

-Peter gets revelation from God, then blows it

-Paul gets revelation from God-which is the SAME revelation;

which he gets DIRECTLY from God, not Peter and corrected

by God. He underscores this analogy between Paul-

who gets DIRECT revelation-and vpw-who gets DIRECT

revelation-by calling Paul "rough-and-tumble" and

not Peter (who was a DOCUMENTED fighter),

and saying Kenyon was NOT "rough-and-tumble"-

leaving the unspoken comment that vpw is

"rough-and-tumble"-which IS how Mike has referred

to vpw, as an individualistic, bombastic man.

Further,

when speaking of the exact material in the OTHER books

and vpw's books,

Mike calls it

"the SAME similar material as it appeared in the other writers'

books".

Not "the material as it was in the other writers' books",

but the SAME similar material,

making the claim it wasn't the exact same material from

which vpw derived his books.

That was what Mike HAD been saying BEFORE this,

and he had not YET abandoned this position.

As Mike has recently pointed out,

sometimes surrounding verses can clarify a matter.

So, I shall quote one to reinforce what was already in

his post.

Raf replied to Mike's post. (1/2/03, 12:54pm Eastern)

He replied to Mike's initial comment

(Up to "no one wants to do that") by saying

Because the evidence for plagiarism is so overwhelming.

Raf responded to the next section

"Can you see..." to "Think it through without fighting it so

that you can see the implications."

by saying

Ummm, let's see:

God told Kenyon.

Then God told the same thing to Wierwille.

Wierwille got it right, but Kenyon got it a little wrong

because he was too traditional.

The problem with that is, we KNOW that Wierwille adopted Kenyon's works.

We KNOW that Wierwille studies Kenyon.

Wierwille freely admitted this.

So your analysis is nothing more than a wildly speculative denial of

the available facts, not an interpretation of them.

Raf responded to the rest, the 'how long will you think this way' stuff,

with:

What's offensive about your extremely arrogant approach is the

assumption that you are the only one who has given this subject thought.

The only way anyone can disagree with you is if they are not thinking.

But the FACT is that Wierwille read what Kenyon wrote, copied it,

slapped his name on it and called it "By V.P. Wierwille."

UNWILLING to accept this blatant dishonesty, you attribute the

authorship of the material to God. It's a terrific claim because it cannot

be disproven, except by THOUGHT. But you specifically ask us to discard

critical thinking in order to accept your premise.

I humbly submit that the ONLY way to accept your premise is by discarding

critical thinking, and that is not something I am willing to do.

Wierwille plagiarized. Period. The only question is the relevance of the

plagiarism when it comes to the content of Wierwille's teaching.

The substance of the teaching does not change: it is either valid or

invalid. But if you're going to call Wierwille's work God-breathed,

then you have to resort to the sort of ridiculous logical leaps that you

have expressed, leaps in logic that neither Wierwille nor Kenyon claimed

for themselves.

So, seems the people posting at the time were ALSO rather clear

that Mike was claiming "Divine Dictation" for vpw's books.

What was Mike's denial of that like?

It was non-existent.

Mike just let those comments pass without remark.

Since it was consistent with the meaning of his post-

that Mike claimed Divine Dictation-

and not INconsistent with the meaning of his post-

then the lack of response is understandable.

If it had been otherwise, Mike would have responded

by claiming others were misunderstanding what he

was saying.

So,

based on what can be recovered,

we can see that Mike ONCE held the

"PFAL's origin was Divine Dictation"

model,

and then later changed positions to his current

one,

AND denies he ever held the OLD one.

I wouldn't insist on documenting Mike when he

"moves the goalposts" and demonstrates a

lack of understanding of his own posts,

but hey, he INSISTED and called me a liar.

So, the evidence that CAN be recovered,

as all CAN see, is sufficient to prove the

point. Mike couldn't rely on

"destroyed evidence" as much as he was

hoping to rely on it......

[dmiller]

Ok Mike, I'll stop talking about you (although I've said less here about you, than the subject at hand). You said:

I do deny now, and did then deny then, that what is perecived to be the sin and crime of plagiarism was committed by Dr in producing the PFAL books.

There's no change in my policy.

What you folks perceive as plagiarism I deny IS plagiarism.

and -----

There's no denial that many passages in PFAL are very close to passages in other writings.

I never denied this phenomenon years ago, and I do not deny it now.

What I deny now (as always) is that the phenomenon constitutes the sin or even the crime of plagiarism.

THIS denial I have posted on in spades, and I stand by it now.

The *phenomenon* of the many passages in pfal being "very close to" passages in other writings is no phenomenon at all.

It's theft.

I'm not a stocks and bonds kinda guy, but if you had a bunch of stock in a certain company, and then got insider info about that company going down the tubes, and you dumped your shares on the market for your own personal profit before they did and got caught -- you'd be looking at jail time.

Using info from others for personal profit. Stealing. Theft. Illegal use of info. Etc., Etc., Etc.

Which leads me to this definition courtesy of Mr. Webster ---

(just citing my sources here!) ;)

Main Entry: pla·gia·rize

Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing

Etymology: plagiary

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

- pla·gia·riz·er noun

Docvic found a group of biblical ideas (already in class and book form), re-packaged them,

put his name on it, and

CHARGED MONEY FOR IT!!

Couldn't be plainer than nose on anyone's face, despite your definition (or lack thereof) of what plagiarism is.

As always Mike -- I have no animosity for you, but I sure wish you would see things in proper perspective.

Oh --- and you also said:

Can you point to a single book, version, or manuscript in your library that's inerrant? I mean a book that you dare not change one word from and that you can bet your life on every passage as it is printed?

Well -- don't know about the inerrant part, but I don't dare change a word in:

My Funk and Wagnalls!!!

:D

Edited December 12, 2005 by dmiller

[Raf]

Raf meets God...

Raf: "Oh, Almighty One, I have a confession. I did not consider PFAL to be your Holy Word."

God: "What's PFAL?"

Can you point to a single book, version, or manuscript in your library that's inerrant? I mean a book that you dare not change one word from and that you can bet your life on every passage as it is printed?

Nope. And PFAL is in my library.

[doojable]

Oh but Mike - Chris Geer did re-work the whole believing and faith thing - while Dr was still alive. I was there when it was presented and taught. DR. LOVED IT!

It really doesn't matter what Dr said over and over. It only matters what GOD wants. I can't quite make that jump that Dr was always speaking for God. It is quite possible tht given Dr's slips in morality that his final exhortations were designed to get us off of him and back to the Word the Word and only the Word - which he also said countless times.

my brain hurts...... Monty Python

I think this is one of those times that Ecclesiastes refers to.....

[oldiesman]

More plagiarism comments:

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

My response: VP did credit the sources for his information, verbally.

If he was trying to hide his sources, why say anything about them, at all?

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

BUT, here's a quote from The Way Living in Love, 1972, long before his alleged plagiarism was ever exposed:

Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit--that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.

Here VP, in 1972, says directly that lots of the stuff is NOT ORIGINAL!

Golly, I'm trying to believe that VP plagiarized some, but when I see the dictionary definitions and compare them with the facts of VP's alleged plagiarism, I get all confused.

Using info from others for personal profit.

The profit went way way beyond only personal, for him only.

Even financially, the financial "profit" went to twi, not his own personal bank account.

[WordWolf]

doojable,

Thank you (and oldiesman) for steering your thread back on topic and away from me.

I often think of the quandary the relatives of Uriah were in, and for many generations afterward. The revelations God gave to David were untainted by his sin, yet the reception of David's Psalms were certainly a challenge to Uriah's family. Some of them rose to the level of seeing through David's still stinging sin and embrace the authority God gave to David in spite of that sin.

It's sad, really.

I've corrected Mike on this SPECIFIC error BEFORE.

Mike's error-ridden techniques have been used to reinforce

his flawed theology here.

See, doojable,

Mike is adamant in claiming that the rapes, thefts,

and other sins committed by vpw do NOT disqualify

vpw from being a leader.

(The Epistles say they DO, the Old Testament

says they DO, Mike says they DON'T.)

So, to attempt to justify calling a lying rapist

"The Man of God" or "THE Teacher",

Mike smokescreens by trying to claim that

King David of Israel lived an entire life of sin

and debauchery, and wasn't dismissed as king.

This is his intention, and he has to mangle Scripture

to make this claim.

=========

Here's a recap.

(II Samuel 11)

King David sees this hot babe Bath-Sheba.

(And she was taking a bath.)

He does the horizontal hula with her, and

ends up making her pregnant.

She's married, and her husband is in the

Israeli Army. David attempts to hide his

sin by calling Uriah the Hittite (her husband)

home from the field.

He sends a catered meal and Barry White album

to Uriah's home. His thinking's pretty clear:

a married guy's been away from his wife,

so obviously he'd like to have a nice meal with

her and then do the horizontal mambo with her.

Then, when she turns up pregnant, Uriah will

think it's HIS kid. The end.

The problem is, Uriah refuses to go home and

chill, since he's too moral and the rest of the

army is in the field.

So, David can't hide his sin this way, so he

has Uriah killed. He seals an order and has Uriah

give it to his own commander. The order says

"Make sure Uriah is killed by the enemy in the

next engagement."

He does, and that's the end of Uriah.

David thinks he's clear-and marries Bathsheba.

But God sends Nathan the prophet to confront

Nathan, who repents of his sin, and faces the

consequences of them.

(II Samuel 12.)

Please read the chapters on your own time.

====

Mike's twisted interpretation of the chapters

say that all sorts of people are aware of the

carefully-concealed plots of David.

That is false.

David concealed ALL his steps, including

sealing the order to kill Uriah.

(If it was unsealed, Uriah might have found

out he was carrying his own death sentence.)

David hid the adultery, then he attempted to make

it look like Uriah's kid.

When that failed, he sent confidential orders to have

Uriah killed and make it look like an accident.

SPECULATION and GUESSWORK by Mike claims that

David's servants all knew.

Perhaps a few SUSPECTED. However, servants know

to keep their mouths SHUT or they get killed, wounded

or fired. So, a few MIGHT have suspected.

Saying they definitely knew is

"private interpretation".

(According to PFAL, that's the FIRST thing to avoid.)

Mike has also claimed that Bathsheba got pregnant

and told other people.

This might have gotten her killed, AND whoever she

told killed. Uriah was being killed and he didn't even

tell anyone anything (because he didn't know what

was going on.)

If she admitted her sin, the penalty for adultery

is STONING. So, how does she want to die-

stoning, poison, the knife?

Her best chance to survive is to say NOTHING.

(She was better off never sinning, but once she

DID sin, she wanted to stay alive.)

Mike also claimed

"Uriah made a public spectacle of NOT sleeping with her

when he was home on leave."

However, there is no notice at the gates of the city,

and no town crier announcing

"Uriah the Hittite is in town and not sleeping with his wife!"

So, once again, this is "private interpretation".

IF anyone other than David, Bathsheba,

God, and Nathan (who found out from God)

knew, the Word of God remains SILENT on that

issue.

"Where the Word of God remains silent,

he who speaks is a fool."-vpw.

Mike also claimed that

"after Nathan's confrontation EVERYONE KNEW.

ALL of Uriah's relatives knew EXACTLY what happened

by then."

This was unsupported by Scripture,

and thus, "private interpretation."

Mike has claimed that other people knowing is

"obvious" and "clearly implied."

(Was it clear or was it implied?)

As we see, it is none of the kind.

It was speculation on Mike's part.

It was "private interpretation."

Mike has also claimed, AFTER this, that

"I know David sinned again, even though it's not recorded.

I'd bet my life on it, and not lose a wink of sleep."

In this, Mike was proven wrong AGAIN.

As CM pointed out,

I Kings 15:5

"Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD,

and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the

days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite."

So, David did NOT sin again-and that IS recorded.

If Mike had bet his life on it, he'd be dead now.

Mike's insistence that Uriah's family forgave David for knocking up

his wife and killing him is wild speculation unsupported by any Scripture.

However, Mike keeps on relying on this as actually happening.

That's because Mike is adamant on saying there were no real

consequences for this, and using that as an analogy and saying there

were no real consequences for the rapes and molestations committed

by vpw.

That's not unique to Mike, either.

The seeds of this idolatry is in the pfal class itself,

when vpw declares that "techically, all the women in the kingdom in the

kingdom belonged to the King,",

in clear and blatant violation of the Old Testament Law-which applied

to beggar and king.

This helped vpw pave the way for his later rapes and molestations.

A separate question is: Are they the same?

Is one-time adultery and scramble to conspire to conceal it,

even unto death, by David, followed by his repentance,

functionally equivalent to serial premeditated rape and

molestation by a "man of God", with possible repentance

as he approached the end of his days?

That's answered here:

http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/perfect.htm

Mike has forgotten-or never paid attention-to when all this

was said before.

Here is the funny part:

June 19, 2005, 12:59am,

I said, on this subject,

"How many months before Mike makes this claim again?

I'm guessing 6 months."

It's almost 6 months to the DAY I posted that.

Is he predictable, or what?

And Mike claims I misunderstand or misrepresent

his posts!

Mike,

Because if it is available for me to master PFAL, I want to know exactly when I have attained that mastery.

Saying that we should master PFAL, but not being able to tell when we have actually attained that mastery, is like Chris Geer saying we need to "get back on the Word."

Too aloof.

Here's an athletic example:

If I were to study Karate, I become a "Master" when I attain the 4th degree Black Belt.

At that level, I am qualified to teach it. I am considered a Master at Karate.

When does one become a Master at PFAL?

Mike will NEVER give a clear, unambiguous answer to this.

If he DID, he would be unable to quietly

"move the goalposts" again.

It worked for CG, and Mike keeps thinking it will work

for him.

However, I met CG, and studied under CG,

and Mike is no CG.

[oldiesman]

So, to attempt to justify calling a lying rapist "The Man of God" or "THE Teacher",

Mike smokescreens by trying to claim that

King David of Israel lived an entire life of sin

and debauchery, and wasn't dismissed as king. ...

And don't forget King Solomon...

[Belle]

[doojable]

It is totally possible that Uriah's family NEVER accepted King David's psalms. He was, after all, the king - what were they to do? They had to at least listen. They didn't have to like them - or accept them as the word of God. Then again - when confronted by Nathan, David asked for forgiveness. perhaps Nathan told that to the family - but there is no proof of that - only speculation.

Edited December 12, 2005 by doojable

[Raf]

WW raises a good point. There's nothing in the Word of God to indicate that Uriah's family ever knew David's role in what happened.

[johniam]

Oakspear:

quote:...and of course it's not arrogant to think you have the nature of God and his (or her) dealings with man all figured out

Not at all. Well, not ALL figured out, but what is revealed is revealed. Is it arrogant to think you have your father's genetic contribution? His nature?

Her????? God's a her????? Man, you need some serious remedial bible teaching.

Edited December 12, 2005 by johniam

[johniam]

Raf: Ahithophel was Bathsheba's grandfather. He made sure everybody knew. Why do you think Absalom's rebellion was so successful?

[TheEvan]

Oldies, there was a DIRE consequence to Solomon's sin. Read what happened in the WAKE OF HIS DEATH.

Hmmmmmmm.

I pin the disintegration of DerWeg post-Wierwille squarely on his shoulders. If he'd built of work based on Jesus instead of a cult of personality based on himself, it could have survived quite nicely.

[Mike]

TheEvan,

There were also dire consequences in the wake of David's sin. He was severely limited in several areas. Moses' sin carried dire consequences too.

But the consequences that did NOT occur to neither David nor Solomon nor Moses was the negation of the valid revelations they did put into written form.

***

And this talk about David repenting and Dr not... who here has any handle on the repenting or non-repenting of any other human being in the world besides themselves? I'd like to know how they can peer into the heart of another human, ESPECIALLY 20 years after the death of the subject. There's a lot of money in it for applications in the polygraph/security field, not to mention show business and a lot of other fields.

***

God knew of David's sin before he committed it, yet He entrusted His Word to him anyway. Anyone want to tell God He made a mistake there?

***

That's all I have time for. I see WW can't let go of his diatribe on me. I think I will let it go.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Mike

[Mike]

WW,

Yikes, man! Is there no end to your lying about me?!!!

Again you lie. You wrote: "I said Mike's premise in 2002 was that the pfal books were derived by divine dictation..."

It has ALWAYS been my position here and for many years that it was NOT generally by divine dictation that the scriptures and PFAL were given. I have posted how Dr says this in the Thess Univ of Life tapes when he hits the first verses of each of the two epistles.

You ARE confused. Shall I find the posts to prove you are dead wrong? What kind of repentance do you promise when I do produce such evidence? Hmmmmmmm? What are you going to do when I produce an abundance of posts that prove you wrong? Probably nothing.

***

Here I did a quick search of this board and my prune surviving posts. I looked up "dictation" and filtered it with "Mike."

Look what I found right off the bat on page 11 of the thread here named "Dr's Last Teaching - LOST for 17 Years!" on page 11

*******

Mike Jan 1 2003, 11:53 PM Post #201

"Written revelation doesn't have to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE.

"It's easy to see that God could have utilized Bullinger's work to get Dr to the point of hearing a revelation of “Vic, Bullinger got it right here.” Additionally, these selected passages of Bullinger may have ALSO been given by revelation, or maybe only portions of them. There's lots of permutations that can be involved."

*******

Sorry for the screwed up punctuation. That happened long ago when threads were moved to different forums. It would be nice to get them corrected someday.

*******

Here's another onefrom "The Ubiquitously Hidden Teaching of VPW" page 65

Mike Posted on: Jun 19 2003, 06:54 PM

"Goey,

"Just to fluff things up a bit: it appears like you hold to the 'divine dictation' model of Scriptural revelation and inspiration.

"Written revelation doesn't HAVE to be all divine dictation. In fact, in the Thessalonians University of Life, Dr TWICE mentions in covering verse 1:1 for both of these epistles, that there is a reason why there are three names mentioned as authors: Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. At these two points Dr teaches that written revelation is usually NOT divine dictation, but first the revelation to Paul was discussed between the three, and then later put into written form. In I Peter 1:20-21 we see the WRITTEN scripture mentioned in verse 20 as coming from a process where (next verse) holy men of God SPAKE."

*******

WW, are you pulling my chain, deliberately trying to waste my time, or are you just unusually sloppy? I have posted much on NOT accepting the divine dictation model. You are massively confused.

I started posting on Christmas day 2002.

**************

oldiesman,

You wrote: "Because if it is available for me to master PFAL, I want to know exactly when I have attained that mastery. ___ Saying that we should master PFAL, but not being able to tell when we have actually attained that mastery, is like Chris Geer saying we need to "get back on the Word." ___Too aloof."

So you don't accept the lifetime model, yet I'll bet you do feel that an open ended mastering program of your KJV (or other versions) for a lifetime is ok. Am I right?

How about this: You know when you've mastered PFAL enough when you can operate the revelations manifestations well enough to get correct phone numbers from God.... or when you can hear Him tell you that's enough.... or when ..... Oh I give up. I think you are the aloof one here.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Mike

[Mike]

doojable,

I brought up the Uriah family to illustrate a case similar to your statements about leaving a man of God who screws up.

Regardless of their feelings against David the RIGHT thing for them to do was to accept the authority and revelations God gave to David in spite of their feelings. God still worked with David in spite of his sin and He expected all Israel to do the same. John Scheonheit wrote a Way Magazine article on this situation in the early 80's.

I'm quite sure everyone knew about David's sin, especially after he was confronted on it. Bathsheba knew who knocked her up, and we are asked by a sloppy researcher here that after getting pregnant AND after hearing of Uriah's death AND after hearing of David's confrontation that she kept her mouth shut? OOOOOOOOkay? sure...

And it's hard to imagine there were no witnesses to Nathan's confrontation. David wrote about his sin later. Everyone knew.

I'm not as sure on this, but wasn't the reason Uriah slept in his doorway was to let the whole city (and later on his soldiers) that even though he obeyed David's orders to sleep at his home, he didn't have sex with her just like what he expected of his men on the battlefield. So, in effect, there WAS an announcement placed at the gate.

***

If speculation is what you want to avoid, it's very clearly the case that Dr urged us from 1975 to 1985 to master what was written. It's clearly the case that no one really did this, not all the way, not even close. The only way to find out if there is substance to these urgings is to DARE to be the RARE grad to do it.

***

As for that exchange between Dr and Chris I'd like to see the transcript of the tape. Please don't be offended in this, but I've learned that it's pretty easy for us to inject our mind pictures into memories and distort them. I do this; we all do this. I'd like to examine every detail of what was said. Can you pinpoint the date at all, just to help me in this pursuit? If you can't date it, then how well can you rely on the details you seem to remember? Again, no offense intended, just rigor sought.

*******

And johniam, thank you for that additional data. Yes, everyone knew of the Uriah matter.

*******

oldiesman,

Although I'm disappointed with you on the open ended mastery objection/excuse, I do thank you for your later two posts. Nice.

Couldn't you, yourself, come up with a suitable endpoint for mastery? Come on, I know you can do it. ;)

*******

If anyone sees any item in WW's posts that they think I should respond to, please let me know. I skim his posts and skip some too finding myself getting too angry at the many things wrong and how much time it would waste in trying to answer it all. I want to be thorough but not at his bidding. Just paste in any parts you would really like to see me deal with and tell me why, ok? Thanks

Edited December 13, 2005 by Mike

[doojable]

Mike - To my knowledge Dr did not publicly ask CG to do anything. But VPW WAS there and introduced Chris's presentation. He was SO pleased and thanked CG for all his hard work. Just because there is no tape of Dr asking doesn't mean it wasn't so.

It doesn't offend me that you don't take my word for it. Why should it offend me? I'm too old and have been around to long. Just be reminded that just because not every word VPW spoke is not recorded doesn't mean that it wans't said. Many a time I remember Dr asking the tapes to be turned off during Corps gatherings. i'm sure his conversations in the motorcoach weren't recorded. i'm sure that his converstions with the missus weren't recorded. I'm sure that in some cases he didn't have things recorded so that he couldn't be called on the carpet.

Now back to the subject at hand - sorry for the digression.

Edited December 13, 2005 by doojable

[Mike]

doojable,

No, no. It's not that I don't take your word for it. I believe that SOMETHING took place roughly as you stated. I've heard it from others too. It's the accurate details I am interested in. So far no one has much when it comes to ALL the important details and accurately, starting with the date.

I don't doubt your character, it's just human memory that I know is flimsy at times, especially after 20 years. So far everything I've heard for years on "re-working" PFAL" is very flimsy when it comes to that word meaning "junk PFAL and start all over with new materials."

Re-work fits very well if it means revamp our mental pictures by returning to the original print version and mastering it. It MAY be that Geer did just that and that's why Dr praised him. LATER, one and two years after Dr's death, I know Geer junked the written record on faith by contradicting it and leading others to abandon PFAL instead of mastering it. But before Dr's death he may have obeyed and lined up what Dr is abundantly on record saying about mastering the collaterals.

Do you remember Geer's teaching, at that time before Dr's death, well enough to say if it contradicted the collaterals? Then again, you'd have had to have KNOWN the collaterals' position on that to have spotted any contradiction.

I know you have stated that you did a lot of study, like many of us did, but I know that the mood of the times was NOT to look at all the fine details in the collaterals as we studied them, but to focus on what they altered and fixed and augmented in the KJV. We never even DREAMED of doing any word studies on the PFAL texts then because none of us suspected that was important, even though Dr hinted that we should twice.

This "re-work" thing has bugged me for 20 years, because no one can pinpoint the pertinent details, starting with the date.

How about an approximate date?

Edited December 13, 2005 by Mike

[Mike]

P.S. If it wasn't recorded that would drop it a notch in credibility. I place Dr's privately spoken, non-recorded words at the bottom of the credibility spectrum and his printed words at the top. It's my understanding he felt the same way. Many people I've talked to rate his words the opposite way, rejecting his printed words as not worth mastering, and cherishing his private words to them as a status symbol. This is not an accusation at you, just a general observation.

[Mike]

WW,

Would you like to see more early posts of mine that discredit what you said about me and divine dictation? There's an abundance of them out there. I have often reported that the human sources Dr drew from were sometimes credited by him as having received some revelation in the deal. That's pretty much the opposite of divine dictation, more where those human sources did the dictation of what they got from Father.

***

The reason I challenged you to produce context is to prove to all that you didn't save that context, thinking it unimportant, even though you did save the quirky lines. What's important to you is not what I intend to say and do say, it's what it sounds like I say. Discrediting me is your only goal in this matter, not understanding my heart and the content of my posting. If you care about the facts, start saving the context. If you care to get my position correct why not do a little research of what is still available before you shot from the hip with a falsehood? Do you care about truth or only influence?

***

When I write a quirky line it could be a figure of speech, which is not limited to but does includes humor, OR it could be literal. I have an admittedly extreme position, which means that some things I literally hold will sound quirky to the uninitiated. My extreme position was selected only because of the extreme evidence I had seen.

***

When I fail to respond to you please assume that it's because I don't want to waste the time. If I were expected to respond to all your objections then that would be a good way to shut me up, wouldn't it. All you'd have to do to slow me down considerably is throw a lot of garbage at me and see how long it takes for me to clean it all up. No thanks. You will have to account for every idle word.

[doojable]

I graduated in "83. The work was done sometime before that. Work was not completely scrapped but by the same token Dr did NOT want CG to kiss his a**. He wanted the work to be as accurate as possible. it was not just a 'Dr's been right all along" type of teaching.

Dr said on more than one occasion - "Don't just take my word for it. Go to the Word and see for yourselves."

Dr did teach something to the effect that God would not speak to a Man of God who was consistently out of fellowship. Saul comes to mind. I simply cannot trust anything he said regarding PFAL given that he was a man given to some very earhtly lusts and abuses. And he never said anything that I heard that gave instruction to work the class as if it were the Word itself. I think even he would have said that that is just idolotry. IMHO this is a leap in logic that I cannot take.

Oh and regarding "getting phone numbers" for revelation. My radar has been pinging on an acceptable level up until THAT statement! Now if I were in a sub I'd be real worried. The last person who talked about getting phone numbers for revelation seemed to be the real deal. He had been in the Corps with me and I liked him and even respected him even tho I didn't necessarily agree with all that he said. He then blew it all by stealing his best friend's wife and going to California. As I recall revelation is not a parlor trick.

Now God gave me specific directions regarding what he wanted me to focus on with my life. PFAL was not it. UMMMM - the Father trumps a son. (Not THE Son - One of the adopted ones that is)

You seem very invested in this concept. Just by observation and the relatively few posts I have read I'd have to say that you are involved in a TWI-A. A part 2 of TWI I if you will. I can't say that I support the idea.

[Mike]

I am trying to do TWI-1 correctly and completely. From the record I see that we never quite finished the class.

Dr did teach that nothing works when out of fellowship, but he also taught that getting back into fellowship is not NEARLY as difficult as the RCs taught us. The "act of perfect contrition" was taught by the RC as very difficult, but that is wrong. Jesus taught that forgiveness was easy and abundant, using a figure of speech like 70 times 7 times abundant.

I can see how OPERATING revelation would go much better if the FULLNESS of fellowship was cultivated. But there also is phenomena where God initiates the revelation in spite of a man's being "crookeder than a dog's hind legs." Remember the account of Balaam and the exquisite revelation he got while attempting to prophesy against God's people for hire? Dr said he had no idea how that worked but that it did.

When you think on it, we all commit the greatest sin by breaking the greatest commandment, yet no one seems to get bent out of shape by that sin. We attach degrees of evil to sin that reflects our flesh point of view and how much we think it can hurt us and others at that time in history. Then fads change and we shift our perspective on which sins are the most evil, still missing the impact of the greatest sin.

Remember that Dr admitted in a big way that he failed to be the man he KNEW (by revelation) to be. I do not revere Dr's sin nor his person. I am thankful all that he got taught what he put into print and most of what got on tape. It saved my life and much more, and not just me.

Remember also that Dr FREQUENTLY said that his ministry was totally by grace. That means more now, doesn't it? I am thankful to God that he worked SOMETHING out with Dr to teach us what we needed then, and even more the books that we need even more now. When broken cisterns run dry, there's a huge amount of goodies to be re-discovered and re-worked in the written form of PFAL.

Thank you, doojable, for having a good civil discussion with me here. I greatly appreciate it. I wish all posters were as civil as you.

P.S. The phone number thing was not to promote parlor tricks, but to indicate specificity and precision. I saw a lot of B.S. revelation in the later years, and I saw no one getting revelation that specific and detailed that could be checked out later as accurate or not.

Edited December 13, 2005 by Mike