IMO it IS possible to think of PFAL as something separate from peoples' words, actions, religions, etc. PFAL as just words, true or not, with no relationship to what VP did. No relationship to the catholic church or any other church or religion. On GSC THAT would truly be thinking objectively.
There are many great things taught in PFAL: how to get born again, how to SIT, knowing that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you, knowing that Christ paid in full for all your sins, knowing how the bible fits with life, knowing that you CAN get answers to prayers, and many more.
Sure, these things have been taught before, but not under one roof. If you want to go shopping there are several stores to choose from. Target, Walmart, Walgreens, Sears, J C Penney, Dillards, Hudsons. In Michigan and some other states there's Meijer's. I always liked shopping there because they have a big selection of groceries (better than Walmart) plus the same retail stuff all those other places have.
Point is, it's always better when you can get more stuff you like under the same roof. PFAL has more stuff I like under the same roof than denominational churches. The PFAL store closed down years ago, but what I bought from it still works. No digital vs analog problem HERE!
how to get born again, how to SIT, knowing that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you, knowing that Christ paid in full for all your sins, knowing how the bible fits with life, knowing that you CAN get answers to prayers, and many more.
John,
If you can't find these things under one roof, you never looked. I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things, including the one I currently attend.
However, there are other aspects of VPW's doctrine that better fit your "under one roof" explanation: JC is not God, the dead are dead, dispensationalism/administrations, and latch those onto the items you mentioned.
I think I've said more than once that PFAL stands and falls on its merits, not on the character of VPW and not on the truth that it contains material that is often either unoriginal (no surprise there: he never claimed it was) or plagiarized (something some people are remarkably unwilling to accept, evidence be damned).
quote: I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things,
Hmm. A year ago my family stopped going to the fellowship for the John Hendricks ministry. Our first plan was to join a church. We just started inquiring at churches near our house (there are several). We went to a Methodist, Presbyterian, 2 United Churches of Christ, a mega church and a non denominational church. For each one we went to a Sunday service and a mid week service hoping to get a one on one with a minister or an associate pastor.
Since we had a good experience with that church in MI we figured we wouldn't have a problem finding a church that fit us. Everybody was nice as pie to us. It seems that even church people have the same glassy eyed fascination with new people as TWI did. We probably would have chosen the mega church because they had meetings for many categories of people every week (teens, old people, single parents, etc.) and none of the other churches stood out as being special, so based on better selection alone we probably would have tried the mega church, but alas fate intervened.
A guy I lived with for a year in TWI called requesting me to figure out the words and chords to Sam Pruyn's song "You've been forgiven" that Claudettee also recorded. I was able to do that and one thing led to another and we went to a fellowship with the Chris Geer people. Like I said in another thread, it's been a pleasant surprise.
When we were trying to find a church we experimented as to what we revealed to them about stuff like JCING and ADAN. This definitely would have been a problem. We probably could have coped, but the CG fellowship is really outstanding IMO. It was weird because I've heard negatives about him from GSC, John Hendricks, and of course LCM when we were still in TWI.
So how did you find these "plenty of churches" that teach SIT and incorruptible seed. Internet?
In post #99 you wrote: “D) There are no answers among Christians outside twi.”
I agree that there are lots of answers out there, but they’re not together in one place and free of crippling and corrupting error mixed in.
So, if we want to enjoy and utilize those answers, they are not accessible. As he himself admitted, but it was and still is ignored, Dr didn’t do all that much original work, but he did put it together sans the crippling error.
So, I concur with Dr that IN EFFECT there are no answers out there, outside of PFAL, except relatively irretrievable elements of truth and fact.
[but vpw said
"Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers." that's from "The Joy of Serving",
the supposed Last Commercial of VPW.
Mike said "IN EFFECT there are no answers out there" and
"There are lots of answers out there, but they're not together in one place and free of crippling
and corrupting error mixed in."
As usual, what Mike said vpw said, and what vpw said, are 2 different things.
Mike added a word of vpw, and changed a word of vpw.
When you do that, you no longer have the word of vpw.]
(Doojable, this also goes for the research tools that are out there, as I discussed this with you. They are out there, but who can find and refine them without God’s great guidance. God already did provide that great guidance to us grads and most of us have spurned it as not religious enough for the worldly tastes that dominate the masses.)
***
[This is that "God-breathed pfal" we keep hearing about.]
You wrote: “According to Mike, if we don't see The Last Great Commercial of VPW as anything less than the great spiritual wakeup call of the 20th century, we're spiritually inept.”
I’d refine it thusly:
The benefit of Dr’s final instructions is to us not to him, so the idea of “commercial” doesn’t fit.
[A commercial is an ADVERTISEMENT. The meaning of the word has NO
requirement like Mike is imposing on it.
This was a taped advertisement: a commercial.]
I wouldn’t put it as wide sweeping, either. I’d call it (especially when joined with a few other crucial things Dr stated) the great spiritual wakeup call FOR OLGS.
[As usual,
Mike is saying vpw said one thing, and vpw said another.
"Since this is the meeting here at this time of country coordinators
--and of course, what I'm going to say should be applicable to every
born-again believer, but especially to--our coordinators. I wanted
to just share a little bit tonight on the joy of serving."
Mike: "this message is for OLGs.
vpw: "this is for every born-again believer, especially coordinators."]
It’s crucial that you see the focus on OLGs if you want to represent my message. You set up a straw man when you omit this aspect of my message.
[Actually, I'll agree that YOUR message is just for OLGs.
Since that's not what vpw said, of course, this is MORE proof
he had ONE message, and you have ANOTHER (hetero) message.]
Lastly, I’d soften the “spiritually inept” part. The natural state of man is spiritually inept. What I see is that we OLGs, when facing what we allowed to slip through our fingers, must accept the fact that the understanding of spiritual matters we presently have is NOT the paragon of spiritual strength we thought it was.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we still have oodles of spiritual blind spots that guarantee eventual failure in ministering situations, even though we can enjoy limited successes in the short run due to what truths we DID master and get right from PFAL ...and even elsewhere.
We OLGs must accept the fact that we didn't absorb PFAL nearly as well as we thought we did, and ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, there is a wealth of information and instruction awaiting our re-discovery within written PFAL.
[if your "change a word, add a word, subtract a word" system is supposed
to be an IMPROVEMENT, I'll pass.
pfal itself spoke against that. ]
(snip)
Now that this thread is underway, in order to limit the size of this thread (so as to not offend those with understandable PFAL phobias), and to compartmentalize sub-topics as they emerge, maybe we could discuss having an entire forum for focusing on PFAL matters. Just a suggestion.
[Mike,
you're the only one who wants that.
Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that.
If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.]
At first I thought an entire forum would be too much, and I was bothered by the idea of rules, but Modaustin’s handling of the intro went farther than I expected, and neatly deals with some aspects I hadn’t thought through very well.
[Well,
you DO want to control the microphone.
You can do that when you control the forum.]
Now you, Mark, have reminded us all that the way Modaustin started it has the necessary wisdom to contain things, and also makes it easier for management to deal with things. I am very grateful to GSC management for not only allowing me to post, but also for the response work they are saddled with when people complain about my proPFAL message. Hopefully that workload will diminish.
(snip)
[No problem.
Right after you stop posting commercials of your OWN,
Yo wrote: "So VP had a 'Thus saith the Lord' attitude back in the 70's. So what? Jerry Falwell has that same attitude. So does Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggert. ... So did David Koresh. __ So how does that attitude make his PFAL any more Gawd breathed than not?"
Dr's exhibited attitude in the early 70’s does NOT prove that PFAL is God-breathed.
I have never argued that it does.
***
Dr’s attitude of “thus saith” coincides with the many “thus saith the lord” statements that are scattered all through PFAL, just like they were in the “air’ in the early 70’s.
BUT, Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements still do NOT prove that PFAL is indeed God-breathed.
[Please note he said this. The next time he contradicts this,
I'm bringing it back.]
***
I’m often accused of claiming that PFAL is greater than Dr claimed it to be, and that Dr never claimed it to be God-breathed, but my accusers are not in command of all the facts on this issue.
[Yes we are. Mike's manufactured "facts" don't count, since they distort
the plain meaning of accounts that meant entirely other things.]
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements (along with the “atmosphere” in the early 70’s), however DO INDICATE, or lightly prove, that those OLGs who THINK Dr never claimed to be producing anything more than a Bible aid, that the class and collaterals were MERELY some Bible research keys, have not sufficiently heard all of Dr’s message on this issue.
[Most will notice that Mike NEVER produces these "thus saith the lord" statements,
but instead expects us to believe he's representing the text fairly.
That's because whenever he DOES post something like that,
everyone else shows that the clear meaning of the text meant the
opposite of what Mike said.]
(WordWolf, the purpose of the PFAL book is not TOTALLY revealed in that book's beginning pages. Like I did with "A simple guy," I insist on ALL of the passages of PFAL on a give topic be brought to the table, not just selected ones.)
[incorrect.
Orange Book, page 4.
"This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach
the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21: rather it is
designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God
so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold."
If there was an additional meaning,
A) It must be stated as clearly
B) It must not contradict this as the CONTENTS and DESIGN.
C) It must not contradict what this is NOT-it is not a substitute
for Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.
That is, if it is to be held to the minimal standards for Scripture.
Since Mike's message does that, it is error.]
Dr’s many “thus saith the lord” statements show that these OLGs’ PFAL mastery was insufficient, as per Dr’s final instructions, to catch this “thus saith” nuance in written PFAL.
[Again, not one instance is given, just this mysterious
"there's a whole lot of them".]
***
Again, there is STILL no proof here in this post, nor even a weak indication, that any or all of this leads directly to PFAL being God-breathed, just that the internal claim within PFAL that it is the Word of God was missed by most later grads and forgotten by most early ones.
[ THERE IS NO "INTERNAL CLAIM WITHIN PFAL THAT IT IS THE WORD OF GOD.
There is a bald claim from Mike that there IS one,
but any supposed support for this claim melts in the morning sun.]
Still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here.
***
If it’s the case, and I think I have shown that it is,
["Still no proof of God-breathed PFAL here. If it's the case, and I think I have shown
that it is,"
Amazing how he can't see his own sentences, back to back, completely contradict
each other. Mike's message, attempting to claim what it attempts to claim,
of course contains many internal contradictions, but usually not back-to-back
in successive sentences.]
that we grads missed the CLAIM of God-breathedness within PFAL, then HOW MANY OTHER THINGS WERE MISSED?
[The premise was assumed and never demonstrated.
It's a supposition used to support ANOTHER supposition.
What do we have? Man's opinion. (In this case, Mike's opinion.)]
It’s in absorbing these OTHER MISSED THINGS that the proof of PFAL being God-breathed will be shown to each meek mastering student by the real author behind PFAL and all of it’s collected elements, God Himself.
[in other words,
Mike supposedly MADE his case,
AND the case can ONLY be made by God,
AND we're supposed to take Mike's word that this is worth
spending 30 seconds on, let alone years.]
***
For those who want more detail, all of this I posted at length in my lengthy post # 268 on doojable’s “Ok once and for all” thread, near the top of page 14 for those who kept the default setting of number of posts per page.
John, for me as a former way corps person, it is much harder to seperate VP and his actions from PFAL. After all, I enlisted in the way corps to "sit at the feet of the master," after he himself "recruited" me for the program.
There are many great things taught in PFAL: how to get born again, how to SIT, knowing that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you, knowing that Christ paid in full for all your sins, knowing how the bible fits with life, knowing that you CAN get answers to prayers, and many more.
Sure, these things have been taught before, but not under one roof.
Yeah, it may be a matter of location. Maybe churches are like businesses - "location, location, location". Maybe not.
A church I've attended (occasionally) "teaches" all of that, in some detail. SIT isn't taught the same way. Where PFAL was more of a production-line approach which (I think) proved difficult for some people and even generated long term difficulties for others, it's dealt with in a more personal, intimate approach.
This church did a series last year where they took each service and covered a huge laundry list of questions relating to life, the bible, many topics, all that had been submitted by the congregation. It was titled "Google It". :) , as in search for those answers. It wasn't a static one-teacher-at-the-podium series, it used media, guest speakers. The "how do we know there's a God" piece included non-Christian presenters who discussed why they're atheists. There was teaching from the bible. It was quite interesting, inspiring and helpful.
I find these kinds of things much more informative and helpful than continual and slightly rebaked restatements of what everyone already knows, where the "real" questions, needs and interests of people aren't dealt with.
I agree with Raf, that the "big ticket" items of JCING, Heaven, after-death life, etc. are probably the items that most ex-Wayfers define comfort levels by. There again, I've been surprised though. I think Wayfers often take a stance akin to picking a fight - "he ISN'T GOD!"....before even opening the discussion as to who Jesus Christ is/was - as one example.
There's also a personal-comfort level that I thnk a lot of people want too. If a church or ministry has some connection back to the "original" Way or PFAL based Way ministry, it might feel better, more "right" because there's an assumption that the major doctrinal and practical concerns will be dealt with the same way. But it's really no different than anyone else choosing a church because "I like what they teach". Same thing, IMO.
Anyhoo-a simple case could be made that if PFAL was an accumulation and collation of existing information into a single package, that existing information would have been/be available to everyone else too. If a person was looking for a replacement for it, odds are it's out there. (and of course even PFAL was a 3 part series with a lot of additional material so it wasn't a single class/answer/now-I-got-it-all solution).
And to add a twist to that idea and to deal with the "reissuing of God's Word" uh, doctrine - another case could be made that in the course of PFAL being developed, the entire intent of a "theopneustos" "reissuing" of God's Word wasn't fully achieved as intended. There's ample evidence to support all of these notions, if that's the direction someone wanted to go.
I made my peace with the fact that most churches are Trinitarian a long time ago. When I do have an opportunity to share my beliefs on the subject, usually with friends, I take the approach that because they think he's God, while I think he's Lord, they can teach me things about his Lordship that I might not otherwise get. And if they're willing to hear me out, because I think he's man and not God, I can usually teach them something about his obedience that they would not otherwise consider.
You wrote: “You know all about drama don't you Mike? __ Sorry you've got such a hang up about the Way Corps, which I dropped out of, btw. I can't change my past. __ Keep accusing and fighting... your identity depends on it.”
As for the Corps, I am extremely disappointed with them, and have been starting slowly in 1978 with personal observations, then accelerating in their handling of the ministry meltdown, climbing much higher in 1998 when I first found out about their fumbling of Dr’s final instructions, and now peaking as I see their persistence in ignoring these final instructions.
I now know why Dr was so often angry with them. I can’t think of an institution that has failed more spectacularly.
Keep in mind that I have not counted myself as superior. I had been counting on the Corps to help me with my deficiencies. I committed all the errors I am now complaining about, but I knew I didn’t have it together. It was a bitter disappointment for me to find out that they had not grown nearly as much as they projected to us peons.
I think it was you who wrote: “The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.”
In your method an assumption must be made first that an actual error is POSSIBLE for that sentence to make sense. In my method, the first assumption is that all PFAL errors are only apparent.
Someone must know ENOUGH of PFAL to see how an apparent error resolved.
In your method, finding a seemingly solid error is the end of the process, followed only by uncorking the Champagne. In my method a different kind of celebration takes place, knowing that the eventual resolution will be quite enlightening. When the adversary spins his web to bring forth an apparent error, it often means he’s trying to hide something good. While you are pouring the Champagne and your method winds down, my method is just getting started.
My method for working PFAL’s apparent errors, when it comes to these points, is pretty much identical to your method for working your KJV’s apparent errors. You know the method, you just don’t want to use it on PFAL.
Knowing PFAL inside and out, to the best of one’s ability, seems be necessary to do all the things that Jesus did.
You wrote: “First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed."
I give you credit for objectivity here. This was discussed a little by me and dmiller, the tatterations of PFAL being extremely minor compared to the ancient scripture difficulties.
***
You wrote: “By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.”
Thank you, again.
***
In a later post you wrote, countering WTH’s discourse on the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God: “You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.”
Each Gospel emphasizes different hats that Jesus wore. For those in his presence at the time he could have easily said the two different sentences separately, and referred to similar but different characteristics for both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Then each Gospel only reports one of the sentences, the one that best fits with that Gospel’s orientation with respect to Jesus’ differing roles. This is ONE way I’d research those scriptures. Another would be to see if time and place line up, because each Gospel MAY be referring to different but similar events.
In other words it may only LOOK like he used them interchangeably.
You wrote: “Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books. No need for citing sources amongst *family* members? Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).”
Thank you,
Gosh, first doojable, then Raf, now you. I’m hojnored.
In some ways and for some time it WAS a family.
I too am rankled by what it became.
***
You wrote: “What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.”
Some scraps fall from the master’s table to the dogs below. In some cases those “dogs” later became Sons of God as a result of those falling scraps.
PFAL was not produced to gain the approval of any worldly people nor institutions, so it shouldn’t be expected to conform to their rules.
You wrote: “Mike, I always cringe when anyone makes sweeping generalizations. Your comments about the Corps concern me deeply.”
But isn’t THAT a sweeping generalization, “I always cringe,” that you just used?
I know you don’t ALWAYS cringe, but I also know what you MEANT there.
Isn’t there a name for a legitimate figure of speech that characterizes sweeping generalizations that aren’t too sweeping? I forget the name.
I’m pretty careful to have either many observations behind my sweeping generalizations, OR doctrine behind them, OR both, OR it’s a close approximation with few significant exceptions, OR combionations of all the above.
Here’s an example of a doctrinal one: all men are liars. Here no amount of exceptions can change the rule. We all have SOME common characteristics, and I try my best to work within them. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Look at the early Romans chapters and there a bunch.
***
You wrote: “Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.”
I’m thankful for all the exceptions to the rule I saw develop over time.
I’m thankful for the Corps and all the good work they did prior to 1985. I benefited from those who were walking, but these benefits subsided as we progress into the mid 80’s.
***
You wrote: “Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other.”
I’m very happy for that bond, but not where I saw it as a division in the Body. The Corps camaraderie was supposed to be to help them get through training and then any hard times that hit the field. Instead I saw exclusive cliques develop, rudely excluding non-Corps far more than was called for and damaging the work they were trying to do. Many saw their membership as a license to be rude and elite; Craig was not the only one by far. The point of the whole thing was to serve, and many turned it into an opportunity to BE served. I SALUTE ANY AND ALL CORPS WHO RESISTED THIS, but many succumbed. By the mid 80’s I couldn’t see a shred of “in depth spiritual awareness.”
***
You wrote: “There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends.”
Let’s look at the same kinds of experiences from my perspective.
Remember that a prophet is not without honor EXCEPT in his own country and with his own kin. Now, of course, most posters are now gagging and protesting my labeling Dr as a prophet. Ok, those who can’t listen and control their emotions can leave the room.
I insist on this as a fundamental postulate from which to build on: Dr was God’s spokesman to teach us. At least I HAVE a fundamental postulate; many just think wherever their feelings of the moment lead them.
Working from within my postulate, have you ever wondered WHY a prophet lacks honor from those who are close to him?
It’s because the adversary first builds false expectations in us that a prophet can only be a goodie-goodie. Sometimes he uses actual preachers who lead what looks (on the surface) like a spotless life to prop up this illusion.
Then, with a real prophet, he watches and waits and tempts extra hard to get him to slip up, or better yet, throw in the towel temporarily and deliberately blow it. When he spots his chance he throws a spotlight on said prophet’s sin, making sure that as many people CLOSE TO HIM see it. He then, EVER SO SUBTLY, and sometimes over the course of many years, works on those who saw said sin. He exaggerates it as much as possible and even adds in complete fabrications to spice it up. He has the witnesses spread it ever so efficiently. (I know many think I’m speaking specifically about people here, but I’m not. I’ve long known that this a completely general process, repeated over and over throughout the centuries.) He makes SURE no one forgets what they saw. He has the witnesses build each other up to keep the stories alive. He attacks the integrity of the Word that the prophet accurately brings forth for God and for seekers of God. The more good Word the prophet brings forth, the more the adversary intensifies the kind of campaign outlined here.
How could the adversary NOT try to do such things?
Didn’t any of you Corps people here (not just singling out you dooj) know this was BOUND to happen well before you signed up?
Hadn’t you ever read Romans 7 or I John 1 and seen that all have sinned, even the greatest of prophets, with ONLY one exception?
Hadn’t you Corps people been taught that the adversary’s top priority was to attack the Word as it sits in believers’ minds, and that would also mean attacking the integrity of the man who teaches it to us?
Have you even ONCE flashed on this inevitable scenario over the decades?
Evidently not, at least not for a large majority here. I think a lot of the splinter group leaders who lean positively in Dr’s direction know this. Why don’t people here? Maybe all the Corps meant to some people was the social club and camaraderie.
There are definite “disadvantages” of being close to a prophet. Those who aren’t especially prepared to withstand this buffeting won’t last long.
As I look back on my life, my respect for Dr went down considerably as I worked at HQ. How could anything significant come out of New Knoxville is the kind of thinking that plagued residents of Jesus’ home town, and THAT’S where the “prophet not without honor” verse comes from.
When I returned to the field, and my major exposure to Dr returned to mostly tapes and videos, with a light sprinkling of magazine articles, and a much lighter sprinkling of collateral reading, my respect rose about to it’s previous levels before my HQ years... until the late 80’s meltdown and then all hell broke loose.
***
You wrote: “If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr portrayed.”
Spiritually, anyone born again is above rebuke and has lots of things that need to be carefully nurtured to bring out to the open. Some prophets were more successful at this, and as a result, they were able to defeat the adversary’s counter measures better. Some were not so good at this, and their students had a more difficult time tracking with the good Word such a prophet brings forth. If a prophet comes close to the man he knows to be, then more gets done and God’s Word is promoted freer and farther. If he doesn’t then everybody has a more difficult time, but the Word that prophet brings forth is just as pure as God is pure. Examples: David, Solomon, Balaam.
***
You wrote: “If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic.”
Dr did plenty of this, if you care to remember it in the face of the huge soap operas many choose to focus on. He also told us this in GMWD Chapter titled “Followers of Us” on pages 112, 113 (with my bold fonts, but Dr’s italics):
“As people get into the truth of God’s Word, it takes time for them to jell its greatness to the point that they walk on it. They need time to mature in God’s household and in the knowledge of His Word. In doing this they are to imitate the examples set by the men and women of God who are responsible to lead them. This does not mean that we take on our leaders’ idiosyncrasies and faults. It means that as we learn principles in God’s Word, we imitate those men and women as we see them practice the truth. It is a family learning situation, a growing experience. We learn from those who have been practicing the principles of God’s Word longer than we have. In doing this we become more and more perfected in His Word. We become more and more like the Lord Jesus Christ. In turn, as God’s children, we become more and more like our Heavenly Father, for we are learning to walk in the perfection to which He has called us. That is the pattern. We imitate the lives of those whom God has set in His household as leaders and overseers. They then imitate the Lord Jesus Christ by walking faithfully on God’s Word. As all of us do this, we are imitating the source of that Word, God. Paul sets this pattern of imitation very clearly in the first letter to the Corinthians.”
The italics that I bold fonted and the preceding words indicate that there is some work to do in sorting out our examples’ “practicing of the truth” from their “idiosyncrasies and faults.” This work can sometimes be hard work, but those called to leadership positions (as ALL Corps were supposed to have been called) should have been accustomed to that.
In the early days there was an ample supply of older leaders who had plenty of both, plenty of truth practices and plenty of idiosyncrasies and faults. Evidently many Corps members didn’t take this chapter to heart or didn’t even read it. The book GMWD came out in ’77, but the tapes and magazine articles it was developed from were from years earlier. Why wasn’t this chapter properly followed? See why Dr told us to master PFAL?
***
You wrote: “Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.”
No, I felt called to NOT go into the Corps. I felt that the ministry needed people outside it for balance. I did resent the fact that the Corps fell short of their advertised reputation. I was hurt by Corps people instead of helped by them. The sting still hurts me, just like many people here still hurt, but I try my best to forget it, not magnify it. I can forgive, but I wont whitewash it if the wound is still festering (to mix a few metaphors).
I mentioned some of this to “A simple guy” so I won’t go into this any more here.
***
You wrote: “As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.”
Dr pointed to the Word God taught him to write and gave the credit to Him and the men He worked with prior to Dr. Dr did OFTEN say that his ministry was totally by grace, that he was not a goodie-goodie but a downer and outer. He admitted he was weak and had flaws and that he fell short of the man he knew to be.
***
You wrote: “I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm.”
No, I explained in my lengthy post to you, and just yesterday on this thread, that the reason I point out all the self references in the class materials is to prove that we didn’t master it. The same references are very useful in pointing out that the attitude of maximum reception for PFAL is to recognize that it’s NOT Dr who is the real author but God is. This helps us to shape our attitudes in reading differently than if we are reading the word of man.
***
You wrote: “PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former”
PFAL accomplished this for me very well. IF we don’t get well pointed to the written Word then how can we know how and where to focus with the Father and Son in our sights. This is like another point you brought up on your thread about love versus study.
If we don’t study the accurate Word then all our loving and focus on God and Jesus Christ will be defined by the world, by tradition, by churchianity, and by Hollywood. I decline that quality of definition.
You quoted me thusly: “...we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.”
Then you wrote: “On this point I can concur with you Mike. A single detail can make all the difference between truth and error - between the genuine and the counterfeit.”
And to which I say: “Thank you!”
***
You then went on with a discourse on the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that I have printed out for study. Thank you again.
In that discourse you wrote: “Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.”
I agree. And we also need to know ALL the places where the same topic comes up in PFAL if we want to know what was actually written. This takes a lot of time. But if someone’s main motivation is to steer others away from PFAL the one or two conveniently selected passages and a cursory knowledge of the topic is all that is necessary tap into the adversary’s resources and deter others from looking for themselves more carefully.
That sounds like a great way to live it, Raf. In fact I remember you posting about that last year, at least in one post I read, and it made a great deal of sense to me.
Regarding my Barth analogy you wrote: “Since we only have vpw's word on this incident, I can't trust it any more than any other incident- and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is too long for me to trust it.”
VPW’s word on this incident is only incidental to the point I was making, which was that we need a theological makeover. You either missed that point or occluded it.
***
vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to plagiarize...”
STOP! Hold it right there!
Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to UTILIZE...
Big difference. God was the REAL owner of the intellectual property and God wanted Dr to utilize said material.
And you forgot how Dr had to OMIT lots of material too... by revelation,
And you forgot how Dr had to omit lots of other teachers from the process too... by revelation.
And let’s strike me being comfortable with “...an outright lie and a deception, OK? ! If I thought it was an outright lie and a deception I’d reject it. So, stop mis-representing me.
***
You wrote: “God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc. Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal- or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program) or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)”
Yes. It was right and proper for Dr to have absolute power over everything that was done in HIS ministry. And since PFAL was of God it was right and proper to promote it.
***
You wrote: “Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of everybody in twi except vpw.”
Not so. I think it was in my post above to doojable that I mentioned the inefficiencies that hurt when a prophet sins. As to the meltdown in 1986-89, that was all of our (especially the clergy and then the Corps) doing. There was no reason for the whole thing to fall. If leadership had done what “Followers of Us” urged as I posted above, then it would have straightened out.
And I never said Dr was never the cause of any problems. You again misrepresent me.
***
You wrote: “So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually. And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient experience and are too moronic to comprehend what Mike's talking about without such experience- which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.”
Another lying misrepresentation. I never said meetig Dr was crucial. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing through the BS you are so prolific with. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing that the PFAL is more important than focusing on endless soap operas.
And just in case you want to misrepresent on this, I said “crucial,” not “sufficient.” It is necessary for most grads to see this, but there are other factors that must be in place too.
***
You wrote: “vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal. And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master" pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of the books without having read them for DECADES.”
That should read “some of us can recite SOME VERY LIMITED sections of the books while remaining totally ignorant of many more others.”
***
You wrote: “Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own.”
First of all it was not so much the work of other people as it the work of God, working in them.
Second, Dr did not represent “other people's work as his own.”
I remind you of this:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“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.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
You wrote: “See, Mike lacked the closeness with vpw that the corps had. If he HAD, he'd have been in a better position to see him as he WAS, and not as he's built vpw up in his mind. __ Ever see people in love with a celebrity-from afar? Then when they get to actually meet the real person without the press releases, they're completely crushed, since the reality failed to meet the fantasy?”
Please see how I handled this in my response to doojable above.
***
You wrote: “...he's completely wrong with the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the ‘written pfal’ is supposedly superior to the ‘taped pfal’...”
Anyone who worked with Dr know that he put much more time and effort, as well as employing the additional efforts of staff, into the written product compared to the taped and videoed product.
Plus, there’s more material in the books than in the film class. The “time-travel” of Paul to the third heaven in the film is on the order of a few sentences, while it is an entire chapter in WWAY.
Plus, the human brain has much more real estate devoted to processing visual material compared to auditory. Plus, when reading is involved, most (if not all) people sub-vocalize the words and therefore also involve the auditory portions of their brain. Result, more is understood and remembered when reading is involved.
***
You wrote: “Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA. That's a completely different person than the one you've met. Mike loves the persona he's constructed.”
Actually, I’ve testified here that I had some difficulties liking the man when he was alive. Why have you forgotten that? Deliberate or just sloppy? Why have you forgotten that I compared him to Mickey Mantle and other residents of the “better” tail of some bell curves? Does my complete explanation of him shaking the earth not fit in with your smear campaign, and THAT’S why you deliberately omit my explanitory comments on this subject? You are swamped in dishonesty. You are blind to your own personal attacks on me? All you want to do is smear, not represent my position accurately and fully.
***
You wrote: “pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.”
Wrong and right.
We didn’t fully work PFAL, and then TWI failed as a result.
***
You wrote: “He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said it also.) Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless- a pox on you and your ancestors! And your mother dresses you funny. And you killed vpw. And so on.”
You mix fact with error.
VPW had faults and he suffered consequences because of them. So did we.
The grand scale fall of the ministry is because we had no spiritual power developed yet, being only casual students of the class on power.
POP was a lot more accurate than Geer wanted it to be. Dr rode circles around Geer and had him indict himself along with all the other top leaders. Search out all Dr’s usages of the word “fact” in that document, put them all together using a prior mastery of Dr written teachings on facts being 5-senses and not spiritual, and you will see that Geer unwittingly indicted himself as fact bound and not spiritual able to handle truths.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
Raf
And I accept that you weren't talking about the critics, skeptics, unfit researchers and crybabies when you used the word "phobia."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ok I just can't seem to figure out what an "OLG" is
please explain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It means "older leader grad," Mike's term for those to whom his message is most pertinent and directly addressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jardinero
Now THAT would be understandable.
J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: "Primal Scream"
Mama don't GO!!!!! Daddy come home.
IMO it IS possible to think of PFAL as something separate from peoples' words, actions, religions, etc. PFAL as just words, true or not, with no relationship to what VP did. No relationship to the catholic church or any other church or religion. On GSC THAT would truly be thinking objectively.
There are many great things taught in PFAL: how to get born again, how to SIT, knowing that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you, knowing that Christ paid in full for all your sins, knowing how the bible fits with life, knowing that you CAN get answers to prayers, and many more.
Sure, these things have been taught before, but not under one roof. If you want to go shopping there are several stores to choose from. Target, Walmart, Walgreens, Sears, J C Penney, Dillards, Hudsons. In Michigan and some other states there's Meijer's. I always liked shopping there because they have a big selection of groceries (better than Walmart) plus the same retail stuff all those other places have.
Point is, it's always better when you can get more stuff you like under the same roof. PFAL has more stuff I like under the same roof than denominational churches. The PFAL store closed down years ago, but what I bought from it still works. No digital vs analog problem HERE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
John,
If you can't find these things under one roof, you never looked. I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things, including the one I currently attend.
However, there are other aspects of VPW's doctrine that better fit your "under one roof" explanation: JC is not God, the dead are dead, dispensationalism/administrations, and latch those onto the items you mentioned.
I think I've said more than once that PFAL stands and falls on its merits, not on the character of VPW and not on the truth that it contains material that is often either unoriginal (no surprise there: he never claimed it was) or plagiarized (something some people are remarkably unwilling to accept, evidence be damned).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I've found PLENTY of churches that teach all these things,
Hmm. A year ago my family stopped going to the fellowship for the John Hendricks ministry. Our first plan was to join a church. We just started inquiring at churches near our house (there are several). We went to a Methodist, Presbyterian, 2 United Churches of Christ, a mega church and a non denominational church. For each one we went to a Sunday service and a mid week service hoping to get a one on one with a minister or an associate pastor.
Since we had a good experience with that church in MI we figured we wouldn't have a problem finding a church that fit us. Everybody was nice as pie to us. It seems that even church people have the same glassy eyed fascination with new people as TWI did. We probably would have chosen the mega church because they had meetings for many categories of people every week (teens, old people, single parents, etc.) and none of the other churches stood out as being special, so based on better selection alone we probably would have tried the mega church, but alas fate intervened.
A guy I lived with for a year in TWI called requesting me to figure out the words and chords to Sam Pruyn's song "You've been forgiven" that Claudettee also recorded. I was able to do that and one thing led to another and we went to a fellowship with the Chris Geer people. Like I said in another thread, it's been a pleasant surprise.
When we were trying to find a church we experimented as to what we revealed to them about stuff like JCING and ADAN. This definitely would have been a problem. We probably could have coped, but the CG fellowship is really outstanding IMO. It was weird because I've heard negatives about him from GSC, John Hendricks, and of course LCM when we were still in TWI.
So how did you find these "plenty of churches" that teach SIT and incorruptible seed. Internet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know, I just found them. Walked in and listened to the pastor. Stuck around for a while.
However, yes, they all (without exception or distinction) taught the Trinity and the dead are alive now.
I'm glad you're enoying the CG-affiliated fellowships, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I walked into a Baptist church once (on my own), and found 3 ex-twi folks there.
I stuck around for a while. The Pastor's messages were pretty good,
despite the *Jesus is God* rhetoric.
When that pastor left, I did too.
His replacement was not as understanding.
He (the original guy) and I had a few *heart to hearts*,
and he saw where I was coming from..
IMO -- he did a better job than docvic,
Despite his trinitarian leanings. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i thought this was of value....for consideration
http://www.thelionsheart.org/article_Godof...t_contents.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[Mike,
you're the only one who wants that.
Go ahead and make your OWN messageboard for that.
If people REALLY want to discuss it, and you invite them, they'll show up.]
[Well,you DO want to control the microphone.
You can do that when you control the forum.]
[No problem.
Right after you stop posting commercials of your OWN,
it will diminish AGAIN.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
John, for me as a former way corps person, it is much harder to seperate VP and his actions from PFAL. After all, I enlisted in the way corps to "sit at the feet of the master," after he himself "recruited" me for the program.
If I had only known what I do now............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Thanks CM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yeah, it may be a matter of location. Maybe churches are like businesses - "location, location, location".
Maybe not.
A church I've attended (occasionally) "teaches" all of that, in some detail. SIT isn't taught the same way. Where PFAL was more of a production-line approach which (I think) proved difficult for some people and even generated long term difficulties for others, it's dealt with in a more personal, intimate approach.
This church did a series last year where they took each service and covered a huge laundry list of questions relating to life, the bible, many topics, all that had been submitted by the congregation. It was titled "Google It". :) , as in search for those answers. It wasn't a static one-teacher-at-the-podium series, it used media, guest speakers. The "how do we know there's a God" piece included non-Christian presenters who discussed why they're atheists. There was teaching from the bible. It was quite interesting, inspiring and helpful.
I find these kinds of things much more informative and helpful than continual and slightly rebaked restatements of what everyone already knows, where the "real" questions, needs and interests of people aren't dealt with.
I agree with Raf, that the "big ticket" items of JCING, Heaven, after-death life, etc. are probably the items that most ex-Wayfers define comfort levels by. There again, I've been surprised though. I think Wayfers often take a stance akin to picking a fight - "he ISN'T GOD!"....before even opening the discussion as to who Jesus Christ is/was - as one example.
There's also a personal-comfort level that I thnk a lot of people want too. If a church or ministry has some connection back to the "original" Way or PFAL based Way ministry, it might feel better, more "right" because there's an assumption that the major doctrinal and practical concerns will be dealt with the same way. But it's really no different than anyone else choosing a church because "I like what they teach". Same thing, IMO.
Anyhoo-a simple case could be made that if PFAL was an accumulation and collation of existing information into a single package, that existing information would have been/be available to everyone else too. If a person was looking for a replacement for it, odds are it's out there. (and of course even PFAL was a 3 part series with a lot of additional material so it wasn't a single class/answer/now-I-got-it-all solution).
And to add a twist to that idea and to deal with the "reissuing of God's Word" uh, doctrine - another case could be made that in the course of PFAL being developed, the entire intent of a "theopneustos" "reissuing" of God's Word wasn't fully achieved as intended. There's ample evidence to support all of these notions, if that's the direction someone wanted to go.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I made my peace with the fact that most churches are Trinitarian a long time ago. When I do have an opportunity to share my beliefs on the subject, usually with friends, I take the approach that because they think he's God, while I think he's Lord, they can teach me things about his Lordship that I might not otherwise get. And if they're willing to hear me out, because I think he's man and not God, I can usually teach them something about his obedience that they would not otherwise consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
A simple guy,
You wrote: “You know all about drama don't you Mike? __ Sorry you've got such a hang up about the Way Corps, which I dropped out of, btw. I can't change my past. __ Keep accusing and fighting... your identity depends on it.”
As for the Corps, I am extremely disappointed with them, and have been starting slowly in 1978 with personal observations, then accelerating in their handling of the ministry meltdown, climbing much higher in 1998 when I first found out about their fumbling of Dr’s final instructions, and now peaking as I see their persistence in ignoring these final instructions.
I now know why Dr was so often angry with them. I can’t think of an institution that has failed more spectacularly.
Keep in mind that I have not counted myself as superior. I had been counting on the Corps to help me with my deficiencies. I committed all the errors I am now complaining about, but I knew I didn’t have it together. It was a bitter disappointment for me to find out that they had not grown nearly as much as they projected to us peons.
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
Raf,
I think it was you who wrote: “The idea that someone must know PFAL inside and out to point out an actual error is ludicrous.”
In your method an assumption must be made first that an actual error is POSSIBLE for that sentence to make sense. In my method, the first assumption is that all PFAL errors are only apparent.
Someone must know ENOUGH of PFAL to see how an apparent error resolved.
In your method, finding a seemingly solid error is the end of the process, followed only by uncorking the Champagne. In my method a different kind of celebration takes place, knowing that the eventual resolution will be quite enlightening. When the adversary spins his web to bring forth an apparent error, it often means he’s trying to hide something good. While you are pouring the Champagne and your method winds down, my method is just getting started.
My method for working PFAL’s apparent errors, when it comes to these points, is pretty much identical to your method for working your KJV’s apparent errors. You know the method, you just don’t want to use it on PFAL.
Knowing PFAL inside and out, to the best of one’s ability, seems be necessary to do all the things that Jesus did.
You wrote: “First things first, when people say there are errors in PFAL, they are not talking about typos or crooked type. This is a silly attempt at distraction from the real issue. Not one error pointed out by anyone has ever said "the type on p. 32 is a little off-kilter: aha! PFAL is not God-breathed."
I give you credit for objectivity here. This was discussed a little by me and dmiller, the tatterations of PFAL being extremely minor compared to the ancient scripture difficulties.
***
You wrote: “By the way, I will concede that the existence of typos or misaligned text or anything else of that trivial miniscule irrelevant nature does not disprove Mike's thesis.”
Thank you, again.
***
In a later post you wrote, countering WTH’s discourse on the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God: “You can declare that they're different things, and cite VPW as evidence. But you can't make that argument from the words of Christ, because he used the terms interchangeably.”
Each Gospel emphasizes different hats that Jesus wore. For those in his presence at the time he could have easily said the two different sentences separately, and referred to similar but different characteristics for both the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God. Then each Gospel only reports one of the sentences, the one that best fits with that Gospel’s orientation with respect to Jesus’ differing roles. This is ONE way I’d research those scriptures. Another would be to see if time and place line up, because each Gospel MAY be referring to different but similar events.
In other words it may only LOOK like he used them interchangeably.
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
dmiller,
You wrote: “Granted -- twi was SUPPOSED to be a family, and the folks there got the books. No need for citing sources amongst *family* members? Meebe I'll even agree with that (for now -- though it rankles).”
Thank you,
Gosh, first doojable, then Raf, now you. I’m hojnored.
In some ways and for some time it WAS a family.
I too am rankled by what it became.
***
You wrote: “What you either fail to realize (or are completely ignoring), is the fact that those books were for sale to ANYONE who forked over the cash.”
Some scraps fall from the master’s table to the dogs below. In some cases those “dogs” later became Sons of God as a result of those falling scraps.
PFAL was not produced to gain the approval of any worldly people nor institutions, so it shouldn’t be expected to conform to their rules.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “Mike, I always cringe when anyone makes sweeping generalizations. Your comments about the Corps concern me deeply.”
But isn’t THAT a sweeping generalization, “I always cringe,” that you just used?
I know you don’t ALWAYS cringe, but I also know what you MEANT there.
Isn’t there a name for a legitimate figure of speech that characterizes sweeping generalizations that aren’t too sweeping? I forget the name.
I’m pretty careful to have either many observations behind my sweeping generalizations, OR doctrine behind them, OR both, OR it’s a close approximation with few significant exceptions, OR combionations of all the above.
Here’s an example of a doctrinal one: all men are liars. Here no amount of exceptions can change the rule. We all have SOME common characteristics, and I try my best to work within them. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Look at the early Romans chapters and there a bunch.
***
You wrote: “Many other than corps have decided to just stop the fight with you. On the other hand, not all corps are the same.”
I’m thankful for all the exceptions to the rule I saw develop over time.
I’m thankful for the Corps and all the good work they did prior to 1985. I benefited from those who were walking, but these benefits subsided as we progress into the mid 80’s.
***
You wrote: “Perhaps there is a bond that unites many of us ( and yes I was corps) we shared many experiences and saw things that we can discuss with each other.”
I’m very happy for that bond, but not where I saw it as a division in the Body. The Corps camaraderie was supposed to be to help them get through training and then any hard times that hit the field. Instead I saw exclusive cliques develop, rudely excluding non-Corps far more than was called for and damaging the work they were trying to do. Many saw their membership as a license to be rude and elite; Craig was not the only one by far. The point of the whole thing was to serve, and many turned it into an opportunity to BE served. I SALUTE ANY AND ALL CORPS WHO RESISTED THIS, but many succumbed. By the mid 80’s I couldn’t see a shred of “in depth spiritual awareness.”
***
You wrote: “There is a reason why so many are rejecting your theory. WE saw first hand a lot of what went on. Many saw and some even experienced the sins of VPW and his trusted friends.”
Let’s look at the same kinds of experiences from my perspective.
Remember that a prophet is not without honor EXCEPT in his own country and with his own kin. Now, of course, most posters are now gagging and protesting my labeling Dr as a prophet. Ok, those who can’t listen and control their emotions can leave the room.
I insist on this as a fundamental postulate from which to build on: Dr was God’s spokesman to teach us. At least I HAVE a fundamental postulate; many just think wherever their feelings of the moment lead them.
Working from within my postulate, have you ever wondered WHY a prophet lacks honor from those who are close to him?
It’s because the adversary first builds false expectations in us that a prophet can only be a goodie-goodie. Sometimes he uses actual preachers who lead what looks (on the surface) like a spotless life to prop up this illusion.
Then, with a real prophet, he watches and waits and tempts extra hard to get him to slip up, or better yet, throw in the towel temporarily and deliberately blow it. When he spots his chance he throws a spotlight on said prophet’s sin, making sure that as many people CLOSE TO HIM see it. He then, EVER SO SUBTLY, and sometimes over the course of many years, works on those who saw said sin. He exaggerates it as much as possible and even adds in complete fabrications to spice it up. He has the witnesses spread it ever so efficiently. (I know many think I’m speaking specifically about people here, but I’m not. I’ve long known that this a completely general process, repeated over and over throughout the centuries.) He makes SURE no one forgets what they saw. He has the witnesses build each other up to keep the stories alive. He attacks the integrity of the Word that the prophet accurately brings forth for God and for seekers of God. The more good Word the prophet brings forth, the more the adversary intensifies the kind of campaign outlined here.
How could the adversary NOT try to do such things?
Didn’t any of you Corps people here (not just singling out you dooj) know this was BOUND to happen well before you signed up?
Hadn’t you ever read Romans 7 or I John 1 and seen that all have sinned, even the greatest of prophets, with ONLY one exception?
Hadn’t you Corps people been taught that the adversary’s top priority was to attack the Word as it sits in believers’ minds, and that would also mean attacking the integrity of the man who teaches it to us?
Have you even ONCE flashed on this inevitable scenario over the decades?
Evidently not, at least not for a large majority here. I think a lot of the splinter group leaders who lean positively in Dr’s direction know this. Why don’t people here? Maybe all the Corps meant to some people was the social club and camaraderie.
There are definite “disadvantages” of being close to a prophet. Those who aren’t especially prepared to withstand this buffeting won’t last long.
As I look back on my life, my respect for Dr went down considerably as I worked at HQ. How could anything significant come out of New Knoxville is the kind of thinking that plagued residents of Jesus’ home town, and THAT’S where the “prophet not without honor” verse comes from.
When I returned to the field, and my major exposure to Dr returned to mostly tapes and videos, with a light sprinkling of magazine articles, and a much lighter sprinkling of collateral reading, my respect rose about to it’s previous levels before my HQ years... until the late 80’s meltdown and then all hell broke loose.
***
You wrote: “If you are equating Dr to the likes of the apostles Paul and Peter and John et al, you have a problem in that at least 2 of them wrote about being above rebuke and having self control - that is simply not the example Dr portrayed.”
Spiritually, anyone born again is above rebuke and has lots of things that need to be carefully nurtured to bring out to the open. Some prophets were more successful at this, and as a result, they were able to defeat the adversary’s counter measures better. Some were not so good at this, and their students had a more difficult time tracking with the good Word such a prophet brings forth. If a prophet comes close to the man he knows to be, then more gets done and God’s Word is promoted freer and farther. If he doesn’t then everybody has a more difficult time, but the Word that prophet brings forth is just as pure as God is pure. Examples: David, Solomon, Balaam.
***
You wrote: “If he wanted us to follow him he would have been like Paul and given us more to trust and something more solid to mimic.”
Dr did plenty of this, if you care to remember it in the face of the huge soap operas many choose to focus on. He also told us this in GMWD Chapter titled “Followers of Us” on pages 112, 113 (with my bold fonts, but Dr’s italics):
“As people get into the truth of God’s Word, it takes time for them to jell its greatness to the point that they walk on it. They need time to mature in God’s household and in the knowledge of His Word. In doing this they are to imitate the examples set by the men and women of God who are responsible to lead them. This does not mean that we take on our leaders’ idiosyncrasies and faults. It means that as we learn principles in God’s Word, we imitate those men and women as we see them practice the truth. It is a family learning situation, a growing experience. We learn from those who have been practicing the principles of God’s Word longer than we have. In doing this we become more and more perfected in His Word. We become more and more like the Lord Jesus Christ. In turn, as God’s children, we become more and more like our Heavenly Father, for we are learning to walk in the perfection to which He has called us. That is the pattern. We imitate the lives of those whom God has set in His household as leaders and overseers. They then imitate the Lord Jesus Christ by walking faithfully on God’s Word. As all of us do this, we are imitating the source of that Word, God. Paul sets this pattern of imitation very clearly in the first letter to the Corinthians.”
The italics that I bold fonted and the preceding words indicate that there is some work to do in sorting out our examples’ “practicing of the truth” from their “idiosyncrasies and faults.” This work can sometimes be hard work, but those called to leadership positions (as ALL Corps were supposed to have been called) should have been accustomed to that.
In the early days there was an ample supply of older leaders who had plenty of both, plenty of truth practices and plenty of idiosyncrasies and faults. Evidently many Corps members didn’t take this chapter to heart or didn’t even read it. The book GMWD came out in ’77, but the tapes and magazine articles it was developed from were from years earlier. Why wasn’t this chapter properly followed? See why Dr told us to master PFAL?
***
You wrote: “Sometimes you come across as resenting the fact that you were not in the Corps. That's just an impression and not an accusation - but it is a strong impression.”
No, I felt called to NOT go into the Corps. I felt that the ministry needed people outside it for balance. I did resent the fact that the Corps fell short of their advertised reputation. I was hurt by Corps people instead of helped by them. The sting still hurts me, just like many people here still hurt, but I try my best to forget it, not magnify it. I can forgive, but I wont whitewash it if the wound is still festering (to mix a few metaphors).
I mentioned some of this to “A simple guy” so I won’t go into this any more here.
***
You wrote: “As to the Pfal - God breathed thing.... Jesus Christ was the Living Word and He always pointed the way to the Father. He rarely even pointed to himself except to say that he was the way TO THE FATHER.”
Dr pointed to the Word God taught him to write and gave the credit to Him and the men He worked with prior to Dr. Dr did OFTEN say that his ministry was totally by grace, that he was not a goodie-goodie but a downer and outer. He admitted he was weak and had flaws and that he fell short of the man he knew to be.
***
You wrote: “I fail to see how PFAL does the same - at least the way you handle yourself. You seem to want us to focus on the class and see how the class points the way to itself and Dr's ministry - hmmmmmm.”
No, I explained in my lengthy post to you, and just yesterday on this thread, that the reason I point out all the self references in the class materials is to prove that we didn’t master it. The same references are very useful in pointing out that the attitude of maximum reception for PFAL is to recognize that it’s NOT Dr who is the real author but God is. This helps us to shape our attitudes in reading differently than if we are reading the word of man.
***
You wrote: “PFAL is a compilation of works that help make sense of the Bible. To the extent that it acccomplishes that it also points the way to the Father and his son. But the focus must be on the latter and not the former”
PFAL accomplished this for me very well. IF we don’t get well pointed to the written Word then how can we know how and where to focus with the Father and Son in our sights. This is like another point you brought up on your thread about love versus study.
If we don’t study the accurate Word then all our loving and focus on God and Jesus Christ will be defined by the world, by tradition, by churchianity, and by Hollywood. I decline that quality of definition.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Mike...just had to say that Angel (the main character in the vampire series by the same name) has red drapes at his windows...
:D
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CW,
I could just dye upon hearing that!
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
**********************************************************
What The Hey,
You quoted me thusly: “...we drifted fast and far from the fine details that Dr was wanting to transmit to us as we matured a little. Dr patiently dealt with this situation gently stepping up the intensity of his urging us to master the WRITTEN portion of the class, but we felt comfortable with the spoken pretty well mastered, and the collaterals pretty less well mastered, and we didn’t hear him.”
Then you wrote: “On this point I can concur with you Mike. A single detail can make all the difference between truth and error - between the genuine and the counterfeit.”
And to which I say: “Thank you!”
***
You then went on with a discourse on the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven that I have printed out for study. Thank you again.
In that discourse you wrote: “Whether you agree with VPW's conclusion or not is not really the issue. But if one is going to make it a point to refute what was written in PFAL, one would think one should make it a point to know what was actually written there in PFAL to begin with.”
I agree. And we also need to know ALL the places where the same topic comes up in PFAL if we want to know what was actually written. This takes a lot of time. But if someone’s main motivation is to steer others away from PFAL the one or two conveniently selected passages and a cursory knowledge of the topic is all that is necessary tap into the adversary’s resources and deter others from looking for themselves more carefully.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That sounds like a great way to live it, Raf. In fact I remember you posting about that last year, at least in one post I read, and it made a great deal of sense to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf and socks,
I too thought it was pretty practical. Before I came back to PFAL I was thinking much the same way about that topic and others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
Regarding my Barth analogy you wrote: “Since we only have vpw's word on this incident, I can't trust it any more than any other incident- and vpw's track record on inventing incidents is too long for me to trust it.”
VPW’s word on this incident is only incidental to the point I was making, which was that we need a theological makeover. You either missed that point or occluded it.
***
vpw spent the entire time of twi and pfal insisting that it was better than ANYTHING the Christian church can offer outside of twi and pfal. (Since it was a composite of the works of a few other Christians, this was-at least-an outright lie and a deception. Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to plagiarize...”
STOP! Hold it right there!
Mike is perfectly comfortable with this, and keeps saying that God WANTED it this way-God wanted vpw to UTILIZE...
Big difference. God was the REAL owner of the intellectual property and God wanted Dr to utilize said material.
And you forgot how Dr had to OMIT lots of material too... by revelation,
And you forgot how Dr had to omit lots of other teachers from the process too... by revelation.
And let’s strike me being comfortable with “...an outright lie and a deception, OK? ! If I thought it was an outright lie and a deception I’d reject it. So, stop mis-representing me.
***
You wrote: “God WANTED vpw to leave out footnotes, etc. Virtually everything in twi was an advertisement for pfal- or something that advertised pfal (like the wow program) or otherwise centralized power to vpw (like the corps.)”
Yes. It was right and proper for Dr to have absolute power over everything that was done in HIS ministry. And since PFAL was of God it was right and proper to promote it.
***
You wrote: “Mike, see, views that tape as a damning indictment of everybody in twi except vpw.”
Not so. I think it was in my post above to doojable that I mentioned the inefficiencies that hurt when a prophet sins. As to the meltdown in 1986-89, that was all of our (especially the clergy and then the Corps) doing. There was no reason for the whole thing to fall. If leadership had done what “Followers of Us” urged as I posted above, then it would have straightened out.
And I never said Dr was never the cause of any problems. You again misrepresent me.
***
You wrote: “So, Mike blames us all collectively and individually. And if you never met vpw, then you lack sufficient experience and are too moronic to comprehend what Mike's talking about without such experience- which is the ONLY thing that allows one to agree with Mike.”
Another lying misrepresentation. I never said meetig Dr was crucial. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing through the BS you are so prolific with. Seeing Dr’s ministry when it was thriving is crucial to seeing that the PFAL is more important than focusing on endless soap operas.
And just in case you want to misrepresent on this, I said “crucial,” not “sufficient.” It is necessary for most grads to see this, but there are other factors that must be in place too.
***
You wrote: “vpw makes commercial after commercial for pfal. And many of us, without hearing them, had set out to "master" pfal on our own-which is why some of us can recite sections of the books without having read them for DECADES.”
That should read “some of us can recite SOME VERY LIMITED sections of the books while remaining totally ignorant of many more others.”
***
You wrote: “Regarding the "new rules" that Mike claims that others are imposing on Wierwille, the pertinant rule dates from the Ten Commandments, if not before. It's simple, basic honesty, as illustrated in the commandment to not bear false witness. Wierwille represented other people's work as his own.”
First of all it was not so much the work of other people as it the work of God, working in them.
Second, Dr did not represent “other people's work as his own.”
I remind you of this:
(With my re-formatting and truncation
in re-presenting the following quotes)
First dmiller wrote:
Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,
and passed it off as his own.
Then oldiesman wrote:
dmiller,
sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,
and I base my belief on the following:
“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.”
Victor Paul Wierwille,
1972 The Way Living In Love
Elena Whiteside page 209
The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”
In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,
there it is, right before your eyes.
He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,
but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”
If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,
he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,
from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WordWolf,
You wrote: “See, Mike lacked the closeness with vpw that the corps had. If he HAD, he'd have been in a better position to see him as he WAS, and not as he's built vpw up in his mind. __ Ever see people in love with a celebrity-from afar? Then when they get to actually meet the real person without the press releases, they're completely crushed, since the reality failed to meet the fantasy?”
Please see how I handled this in my response to doojable above.
***
You wrote: “...he's completely wrong with the basis of his doctrine, as well as how the ‘written pfal’ is supposedly superior to the ‘taped pfal’...”
Anyone who worked with Dr know that he put much more time and effort, as well as employing the additional efforts of staff, into the written product compared to the taped and videoed product.
Plus, there’s more material in the books than in the film class. The “time-travel” of Paul to the third heaven in the film is on the order of a few sentences, while it is an entire chapter in WWAY.
Plus, the human brain has much more real estate devoted to processing visual material compared to auditory. Plus, when reading is involved, most (if not all) people sub-vocalize the words and therefore also involve the auditory portions of their brain. Result, more is understood and remembered when reading is involved.
***
You wrote: “Mike has met vpw a few times, and has constructed a detailed personality of him, based on those and his entire PUBLIC PERSONA. That's a completely different person than the one you've met. Mike loves the persona he's constructed.”
Actually, I’ve testified here that I had some difficulties liking the man when he was alive. Why have you forgotten that? Deliberate or just sloppy? Why have you forgotten that I compared him to Mickey Mantle and other residents of the “better” tail of some bell curves? Does my complete explanation of him shaking the earth not fit in with your smear campaign, and THAT’S why you deliberately omit my explanitory comments on this subject? You are swamped in dishonesty. You are blind to your own personal attacks on me? All you want to do is smear, not represent my position accurately and fully.
***
You wrote: “pfal didn't work, twi didnt work.”
Wrong and right.
We didn’t fully work PFAL, and then TWI failed as a result.
***
You wrote: “He has declared by fiat that it wasn't vpw's fault, but everyone else's. (That wasn't just "Passing of the Patriarch-Mike's said it also.) Therefore, like PoP did, Mike blames every leader and every corps person. It's all YOUR fault. vpw is blameless- a pox on you and your ancestors! And your mother dresses you funny. And you killed vpw. And so on.”
You mix fact with error.
VPW had faults and he suffered consequences because of them. So did we.
The grand scale fall of the ministry is because we had no spiritual power developed yet, being only casual students of the class on power.
POP was a lot more accurate than Geer wanted it to be. Dr rode circles around Geer and had him indict himself along with all the other top leaders. Search out all Dr’s usages of the word “fact” in that document, put them all together using a prior mastery of Dr written teachings on facts being 5-senses and not spiritual, and you will see that Geer unwittingly indicted himself as fact bound and not spiritual able to handle truths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites