I just wanted to address something my friend socks said.
Sometimes, we aren't as polite and considerate here as we should be. But........considering that we all have one thing in common, that is, we came out of a dysfunctional group where conflict was not dealt with very effectively, I guess we just need to cut each other some slack.
Yeah, I've been as rude and insulting as anybody else here. But, when I apologize for my shameful behavior, my fellow gsers have been pretty quick to forgive. I appreciate that so much.
Maybe this little piece of real estate on the Net can allow us to practice our conflict resolution skills, and be forgiven when we mess up.
Maybe I'm an idealist, I don't know. But so many of us are just trying to find our own way. Ya know? I'm not making excuses for poor behavior. Just offering a reason why. Nobody knows for sure where I have been, or any other poster here, in our efforts to develositize from TWI. It's nice to know that we have company who can let us know when we are out of line.
Sorry for getting preachy or rambling. I hate preachy posts.
Somebody's gotta preach here ex10. There's been a real shortage of good old fashioned PREACHing lately. I try, but my newest book, working title "Buy This Book - It's Addressed To You", is taking up most of my free time. If it's gonna be ready for the printers, I gotta get hustling. I sense a real rush for this one coming up as it's going to meet some serious needs. Serious needs.
Still and all, I'm going to remember what you've said. In fact I'd like to use it in one of my future books, and there's quite a few in the hopper just waiting, news that will excite the many fan who've purchased my previous works. Yes, sales are down, but I'm believing for a real spike come spring.
Right now I have no one on ignore. Never have had anyone on ignore. I accidentally put myself on ignore once, which was weird. VERY weird. I'm posting like crazy, go to the threads, nada. Nothing. It was like not listening to yourself talk, not an easy task if you've ever tried it. I wasn't sure where I was - then I thought I might have been taking a "break". But that made no sense either.
Finally I unignored myself and that was actually very invigorating. All that "me" at once, suddenly visible. It was like Christmas, without the tree disposal problems afterwards. So I learned something. Things were back to normal, in fact they were even more normal than they were before.
Well no not so much disturbing, as just very sad that some folks can`t *go beyond what they have been taught* by a false prophet...
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
Surf over to the way website and look in their research link and you will see a picture that says its all about how TWI conducts its "research". The center piece is the notepad sitting in the middle (no doubt full of notes from a recent 3 hour meeting). This contains
the present truth as dispensed by the reigning MOG or second rate substitute. This is the real bible for the Way person. Go to meetings to get the truth and consider any and all suggestions from a higher up as a commandment even if it means not opening up the bible to check things out. Just keep checking your notes.
To the right is a concordance sitting under the light next to a flower which tells us that people are still being told to spend hours contemplating the meaning of a single word or prhase at the expense of the bigger picture and context. Despite TWI's cliams that the bible interprets iteself isn't amazing how they won't let that happen choosing rather to direct you to books to get the "real meaning". Its also interesting that the concordance is at the "right" of the picture - not the bible. Of course the current Way books are at the center of it all as if thats all that really matters - when in doubt just reach back into the treasure chest. Look at your notes first of course.
And here is the kicker - we have the bible on the "left" ! Wow. TWI with all its attention to detail ! Somebody needs to take a check up from the neck up after letting that faux pas occur. Of course maybe it was intentional and they are being honest about how the feel about the bible being inferior to TWI meeting notes, publications, and concordance. The bible is the least prominent book in the whole picture and there is no independdent light source for it as there was for the concordance. From looking at the picture we see that TWI expects you to read your notes first, then stare into a condordance and then crack open a Way book or two. And then if you really still don't know what is happening then maybe, just maybe, look at the bible. Though we do see that it is open to the new testament section towards the back. Obviously the Old Testament pages of that bible have rarely been examine - after all that stuff was just for our learning and doesn't need to be considered as important.
And then there are the old , hackneyed blurbs about figures of speech and customs as well as insinuations that TWI has Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek experts on staff. I doubt that they have anyone on staff or in the whole organization that has a anything close to an academic degree relating to these languages. Of course that still wouldn't stop them from promoting TWI as a research ministry that exceeds the finest seminaries and theology schools. After all, they've forgotten more than anyone will ever know about the "holy spirit field". Yea like thats how it would be listed in course catalogs at seminaries across the land - THEOL 4578 -"The Holy Spirit Field" 4 credit hours. No doubt VPW is mentioned heavily in these courses also.
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from.
If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
Most people don't have any problem seeing this point,
but I'll explain it anyway.
Leonard, Welch, Kenyon and the others: none of them endorsed vpw or twi.
Neither did Oral Roberts-who first taught the "Red Thread".
Plagiarizing their work does not mean they endorsed the end result.
Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were
"taught by them." They were the source of the material.
Look-
when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture.
That did not mean God endorsed the devil doing that, and it
did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture
as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment.
See the connection?
As to the other Christians vpw ripped off,
their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source,
who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make
it all about him.
The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE
from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal.
Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once
the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put
in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't
withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's
framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should
be replaced with material that CAN stand up.
The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is-
the framework.
People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on
many things, because they buy into the image of him
that he originated and propagated, and others passed on.
Truth will always remain true.
However,
supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should
be examined exceedingly carefully,
since its origin places it under suspicion.
====
This really is not difficult for most people to understand.
Gee WW thanks for the benevolent service you provide in helping us mentally challenged to get a glimpse of a great thinker in action. Hope it did not strain your brain to much to have to condescend to my level. I was particularly humbled by your way like leader style of your backhanded slap
(This really is not difficult for most people to understand.) which you kindly posted twice so it would be established for me. (Dove says in his best way peon voice SLAP... Thank you sir may I have another sir Please!) Your humbleness is very inspiring to a mental peon like me.
That Aside:
Ok first I will strip away the added issue that you kindly tossed in the mix. I never said or implied that any of those men endorsed VPW. So here is your post without your added issue. (I'll leave the slap in cause I liked it so.)
Most people don't have any problem seeing this point,
but I'll explain it anyway.
Leonard, Welch, Kenyon, Oral Roberts:
Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were
"taught by them." They were the source of the material.
Correct they were the source VP was an instructor. Consider these helpful definitions from the dictionary.
Teach- To impart knowledge or skill to
Learn - To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.
Those men did the work it was their work that taught me truth and I learned- gained knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through study.
Look-
when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture. it
did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture
as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment.
See the connection?
When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there.
As to the other Christians vpw ripped off,
their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source,
who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make
it all about him.
Your opinion! I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable.
That said it was not news to me that he used others work in his teachings they sold the books in the bookstore. And as Oldies (correct me if I am wrong here Oldies I think it was you) said it is documented several times on tape where he learned things from. He's right it is. Just for the occasion I dug out my old class instructors guide and gee session four it says - Note: show students the appendix page from the Bullinger Companion Bible on four crucified. Now that’s a pretty dumb thing to do for someone who is trying to deceive us into thinking that he authored this and take credit for it. And hey lets sell his Bible too so it will be really hard to figure it out. Please......
The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE
from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal.
Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once
the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put
in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't
withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's
framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should
be replaced with material that CAN stand up.
Wrong! Anything that he taught(assuming you thought he was the teacher) that was true is still true. "Framework" has nothing to do with truth.it stands on its own because it is true. 1+1 =2 regardless of framework or moral character.
The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is-
the framework.
People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on
many things, because they buy into the image of him
that he originated and propagated, and others passed on.
And that is their lack of study ethic. Truth is truth I have no image of Bullinger or Welch to draw from or the rest but I can read their words and weigh them as truth or not. If people based their perception of truth on an image they were foolish it has nothing to do with truth. And I would remind you that VP said himself don't believe it because VP says so. If they did they were in error. Their mistake!
Truth will always remain true.
Agreed Period
However,
supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should
be examined exceedingly carefully,
since its origin places it under suspicion.
Absolutely And upon careful examination I saw that the source from which it came (because it was obvious to me where it came from by the books available staring me in the face) was those men who taught me. So as I said it was their work that taught me and apparently I was not taught by a false prophet.
Well as I said above we have established where the teaching came from it was not VPs words but these other mens words which was pretty clear to me although not to some I guess. They authored the work hense they taught me VP was an instructer for lack of a better word, I dont consider those men to be false prophets maybe you do.
As i said he did a pretty poor job of disguising it pointing it out to them in session 4 of the class with a big red bullseye on it.
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
VPW did plagiarize and that is for sure though I've never been of the mind that what he stole was necessarily that "right on" to begin with. This is a mistake that I see VPW worshippers make over and over again. They excuse the crimes of VPW on the basis that what he stole was somehow "god breathed" and therefore not subject to the "laws of man" but I've never been completely comfortable with what he taught in the first place. Some of it indeed sounded impressive and very detailed especially the sections he copped from Leonard on the Holy Spirit but even so, I don't know that it represents something akin to a "lost biblical scroll". ITs simply another man's opnion on how the holy spirit works. VPW was very attracted to it - at least to the extent that he stole the material and published it under his own name. But that doesn't mean that it was "god breathed".
If someone does still hold onto some aspects of PFAL it would be better and more honorable for that person to consider the source and attempt to work with that to see if it still holds up. Some of VPW's sources were fairly obscure which is why I believe that he thought he could get away with undetected plagiarism in the first place. So one might have a difficult time tracking down original copies of books by Leoanard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyan, Starr, Mosley, et al. But its still the right thing to do rather than to blindly accept it all as "god breated".
Well the way people behave (fruit exhibited) whom subscribe to wierwilles teachings wherever he got them, is an ideal indication as to the spiritual healthiness of what they subscribe to.
You can fling around all of the scriptures from any source you chose....and still be an ugly piece of work (of the flesh) as we witnessed in twi.
That said it was not news to me that he used others work in his teachings they sold the books in the bookstore. And as Oldies (correct me if I am wrong here Oldies I think it was you) said it is documented several times on tape where he learned things from. He's right it is. Just for the occasion I dug out my old class instructors guide and gee session four it says - Note: show students the appendix page from the Bullinger Companion Bible on four crucified. Now that’s a pretty dumb thing to do for someone who is trying to deceive us into thinking that he authored this and take credit for it. And hey lets sell his Bible too so it will be really hard to figure it out. Please......[/color]
Right on WhiteDove.
Another example of an additional VP source is Martin Luther.
Remember the books we were encouraged to read and the film about Martin Luther .... justification by faith... not by works.
Gee WW thanks for the benevolent service you provide in helping us mentally challenged to get a glimpse of a great thinker in action. Hope it did not strain your brain to much to have to condescend to my level. I was particularly humbled by your way like leader style of your backhanded slap
(This really is not difficult for most people to understand.) which you kindly posted twice so it would be established for me.
[You're welcome.
I posted it twice mainly because it struck me as
the most obvious point, and bore repeating.
MOST people get it pretty quickly.
If I really wanted to slap someone, I would have
named names, or given some reasons people would
find this particularly difficult or opaque.
And I already know my style shares little or nothing
in common with twi leadership-as they would have
loudly told you even when I was IN.]
(Dove says in his best way peon voice SLAP... Thank you sir may I have another sir Please!) Your humbleness is very inspiring to a mental peon like me.
[Of course, WD would never consider taking a
shot at another poster, would he? Especially when
trying to lecture another poster on such things...]
That Aside:
Ok first I will strip away the added issue that you kindly tossed in the mix. I never said or implied that any of those men endorsed VPW. So here is your post without your added issue. (I'll leave the slap in cause I liked it so.)
Most people don't have any problem seeing this point,
but I'll explain it anyway.
Leonard, Welch, Kenyon, Oral Roberts:
Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were
"taught by them." They were the source of the material.
Correct they were the source VP was an instructor. Consider these helpful definitions from the dictionary.
Teach- To impart knowledge or skill to
Learn - To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.
Those men did the work it was their work that taught me truth and I learned- gained knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through study.
[it was their material. However, there were fundamental
differences that were introduced-and those made a difference-
not because the material was factually different,
but because it was placed in a framework that specifically
used the material to make claims that had nothing to do
with the material.
Furthermore, there IS a difference between, say, teaching a
class in Intro to Psychology in college-which will of course use
textbooks by others, an outline by others, and lecture material
by others-
and teaching a class supposedly only on the Bible-
using a textbook with your name on it,
and leaving out all names of anyone whose material
was lifted, and then teaching it.
In the first case, it is understood that the teacher is
drawing from the textbook-which lacks his name-
and the work of many others-which is often SPECIFIED
and is always expected in college.]
Look-
when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture. it
did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture
as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment.
See the connection?
When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there.
["The words he spoke were true, his motive, however, was not."
The concept is certainly one you can grasp, understand and articulate-
when you wish to. (Perhaps my previous comment applied to you,
and you did not find this hard.)
"Truth is truth, regardless of who shares it, or their good or bad moral character."
That is technically true-but not the WHOLE truth.
When a person devoid of guile speaks the truth,
there is no subtext apart from the meaning of the words.
When a deceptive person speaks the truth,
EVEN IF WHAT THEY SAID WAS TECHNICALLY TRUE,
the truth "can dance a fine jig."
Words that are truthful can be used to imply something
false, or lead someone to a false conclusion.
I don't have far to go to give an example.
Luke 4:9-11 gives one.
satan says something true-he quotes Scripture.
He takes that truth, and uses it to justify a falsehood-
that the Son of God should demonstrate his identity
by flinging himself off a roof, to supposedly demonstrate
the quoted Scripture.
Granted, it was possible to receive the technical information
of the verse, when satan quoted Deuteronomy.
However, since the truth came from the mouth of a deceiver,
what was true was then used to suggest a falsehood was ALSO
true. That's why someone lacking in integrity is useless as an
information resource-or nearly so.
If Jesus had been less familiar with Scripture, and he heard
that true verse coupled with the untrue implication from the
mouth of the deceiver, he may well have recognized
Deuteronomy (or not) and otherwise been tricked into
believing the deception-that he was SUPPOSED to jump off
the roof, thinking that truth ALWAYS remains unaffected
when it is said by a deceiver. As we can all see,
this would have been incorrect. As God's Word shows us
in Luke 4, when the truth comes from the mouth of a
deceiver, it should be examined carefully-for it may be
used to hide or justify a lie.]
As to the other Christians vpw ripped off,
their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source,
who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make
it all about him.
Your opinion!
[vpw took the work of other Christians, crossed out their
names, and filled in his own. He did this for 3 classes worth of
materials, and several books.
vpw claimed that God spoke to him and claimed He would teach
vpw things unknown to all living Christians.
vpw claimed to have "special knowledge" from God, and to
have been appointed a teacher by God Almighty.
vpw called himself "THE Teacher".
Don't see a consistent pattern there?
Don't see he slapped his names on their work to take
all the credit?
Don't see that this painted a picture that made it all
about him?
Well, most of us think it's a rather clear picture.
You are free to hold a dissenting opinion, but ask yourself:
is this opinion really based on the "facts of the case"?]
I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable.
That said it was not news to me that he used others work in his teachings they sold the books in the bookstore.
[A FEW of his sources were in the bookstore.
Bullinger's "Word Studies in the Holy Spirit", aka "the Giver and His Gifts"
was NEVER carried in the Bookstore-and that was the source of,
among other things, the list of the 385 occurrences of "pneuma".
Stiles' "the Gift of the Holy Spirit" was never carried there, and his
name was never spoken. Leonard's name could only be found buried
200 pages into one book, and was missing everywhere else-
although there would have been no pfal classes if there had been
no Leonard.]
And as Oldies (correct me if I am wrong here Oldies I think it was you) said it is documented several times on tape where he learned things from.
[Nearly the entire contents of pfal was from Bullinger-from several books-from
Leonard-his CTC Gifts of the Spirit class-from Stiles' book and private tutoring
of vpw-and Kenyon's books filling in a few corners. A FEW sources are
documented, the ones for the bulk of the class remained hidden.]
He's right it is. Just for the occasion I dug out my old class instructors guide and gee session four it says - Note: show students the appendix page from the Bullinger Companion Bible on four crucified. Now that’s a pretty dumb thing to do for someone who is trying to deceive us into thinking that he authored this and take credit for it. And hey lets sell his Bible too so it will be really hard to figure it out. Please......[/color]
Him admitting to ONE book as a source was FINE. In this case,
it was necessary to show the picture to support his insistence
on "four crucified", which he got from Bullinger, and spent a lot
of time from for his own reasons.
Entire books whose entire contents, plus the several-week class
of Leonard-those were missing, not even mentioned in passing.
vpw knew which books and class he used. Is there any other
reason a LOGICAL person would accept for this, other than
attempting to take credit for their material?
If so, please present it.]
The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE
from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal.
Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once
the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put
in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't
withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's
framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should
be replaced with material that CAN stand up.
Wrong! Anything that he taught(assuming you thought he was the teacher) that was true is still true. "Framework" has nothing to do with truth.it stands on its own because it is true. 1+1 =2 regardless of framework or moral character.
[Fine-I phrased this awkwardly. Thank you for
catching that.
I made the point more clearly higher up in this post.
The reason a FRAMEWORK can "turn truth into a lie"
is because a framework can take one thing that is true
and attempt to use it to make a claim, suggestion or
implication that is NOT true.
Don't believe it?
Luke 4:9-11.
satan used a truth FROM God's Word-can't get truer than that-
to make an assertion that was NOT true.
In that instance, we can see a framework-which was false-
was used to take something truthful-a verse of Scripture-
and make it something untrustworthy, to make it a part of
a lie. Therefore, the truth we began with became a lie,
because of the framework it was utilized in.]
The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is-
the framework.
People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on
many things, because they buy into the image of him
that he originated and propagated, and others passed on.
And that is their lack of study ethic. Truth is truth I have no image of Bullinger or Welch to draw from or the rest but I can read their words and weigh them as truth or not. If people based their perception of truth on an image they were foolish it has nothing to do with truth. And I would remind you that VP said himself don't believe it because VP says so. If they did they were in error. Their mistake!
Truth will always remain true.
Agreed Period
However,
supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should
be examined exceedingly carefully,
since its origin places it under suspicion.
Absolutely And upon careful examination I saw that the source from which it came (because it was obvious to me where it came from by the books available staring me in the face) was those men who taught me. So as I said it was their work that taught me and apparently I was not taught by a false prophet.
[Their work was what was used as a resource.
Those men did not teach you.
You were taught by "THE Teacher."
He said so. He gave you a mailing address to write to him,
giving his name as "The Teacher".
Are you saying that you don't believe vpw was the teacher of pfal?
You said that he was the "instructor"-and that's synonymous with "teacher".
(At least, it's listed as such in a collegiate dictionary.)
Now,
were you taught by a false prophet?
That's easy to check.
According to vpw, a prophet is "one who speaks for God".
According to vpw, a false prophet is "one who claims to speak for God but does not",
and can be identified easily by his making of predictions that fail to come to pass.
He made a point of that second one in detail at ROA '79 in the keynote teachings.
Did vpw claim to speak for God?
He claimed to have a unique relationship with God-God teaching him
unknown truths, which vpw was to teach others. vpw certainly claimed
to TEACH for God.
Did vpw make predictions that failed to come to pass?
Well, I read a wealth of predictions from him regarding 1976 and
some conspiracies that failed to come to pass.
I bet you heard him make some of them.
So, based on that alone, was vpw a false prophet?
Well, I imagine there would be differences of opinion
as to the conclusion.
Which conclusion most accurately reflects what happened?]
Well as I said above we have established where the teaching came from it was not VPs words but these other mens words which was pretty clear to me although not to some I guess.
[so,
at the time you FIRST took pfal,
you came away from the sessions saying
"all this material came from others,
but vpw assembled their work into classes"?
That's REALLY what you said?]
They authored the work hense they taught me VP was an instructer for lack of a better word,
[vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR",
which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER."
If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that
others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal,
you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting
sessions he showed lcm how to conduct.
When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually
come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'?
And if he really was incidental to everything you learned,
why try to defend him so vociferously?]
I dont consider those men to be false prophets maybe you do.
[We're not blaming them for vpw's poor conduct and
self-centered 'ministry'. (I summed up some of the basics
on that above, in case you forgot what I meant by
'self-centered'.)]
As i said he did a pretty poor job of disguising it pointing it out to them in session 4 of the class with a big red bullseye on it.
[You said it, but that's not what happened.
vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing.
Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book.
If what you're saying was true, the students would have been
told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the
things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material."
Instead, they were told
"this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session."
That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session,
from a variety of teachers, mostly corps.
If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from
Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it-
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version
I guess when they can't beat ya WW, they just resort to personal insults. I thought your information was laid out completely and "thoroughly" and made a lot of sense.
Wolfs posts were chrystal clear, and made some very valid points....but I suppose personal insults are what one must resort to when unable to intellegently counter a point.
Pretty despicable to compare vpw and Luther...Oldies, I have never heard Luther accused of rape, fornicatio, adultery....using the scriptures to extort money, services and goods in God`s name.
Pretty despicable to compare vpw and Luther...Oldies, I have never heard Luther accused of rape, fornicatio, adultery....using the scriptures to extort money, services and goods in God`s name.
They were both remarkably similar in the sense that both taught that sin does not separate people from God, among other similar teachings.
Here's an excerpt from one of Dr. Luther's statements:
Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides ... No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.
From "Let Your Sins Be Strong, from "The Wittenberg Project"; "The Wartburg Segment", translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
22
41
23
Popular Days
Feb 25
28
Feb 15
27
Feb 14
23
Feb 24
22
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 26 posts
templelady 22 posts
WhiteDove 41 posts
allan w. 23 posts
Popular Days
Feb 25 2006
28 posts
Feb 15 2006
27 posts
Feb 14 2006
23 posts
Feb 24 2006
22 posts
ex10
I just wanted to address something my friend socks said.
Sometimes, we aren't as polite and considerate here as we should be. But........considering that we all have one thing in common, that is, we came out of a dysfunctional group where conflict was not dealt with very effectively, I guess we just need to cut each other some slack.
Yeah, I've been as rude and insulting as anybody else here. But, when I apologize for my shameful behavior, my fellow gsers have been pretty quick to forgive. I appreciate that so much.
Maybe this little piece of real estate on the Net can allow us to practice our conflict resolution skills, and be forgiven when we mess up.
Maybe I'm an idealist, I don't know. But so many of us are just trying to find our own way. Ya know? I'm not making excuses for poor behavior. Just offering a reason why. Nobody knows for sure where I have been, or any other poster here, in our efforts to develositize from TWI. It's nice to know that we have company who can let us know when we are out of line.
Sorry for getting preachy or rambling. I hate preachy posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Somebody's gotta preach here ex10. There's been a real shortage of good old fashioned PREACHing lately. I try, but my newest book, working title "Buy This Book - It's Addressed To You", is taking up most of my free time. If it's gonna be ready for the printers, I gotta get hustling. I sense a real rush for this one coming up as it's going to meet some serious needs. Serious needs.
Still and all, I'm going to remember what you've said. In fact I'd like to use it in one of my future books, and there's quite a few in the hopper just waiting, news that will excite the many fan who've purchased my previous works. Yes, sales are down, but I'm believing for a real spike come spring.
Right now I have no one on ignore. Never have had anyone on ignore. I accidentally put myself on ignore once, which was weird. VERY weird. I'm posting like crazy, go to the threads, nada. Nothing. It was like not listening to yourself talk, not an easy task if you've ever tried it. I wasn't sure where I was - then I thought I might have been taking a "break". But that made no sense either.
Finally I unignored myself and that was actually very invigorating. All that "me" at once, suddenly visible. It was like Christmas, without the tree disposal problems afterwards. So I learned something. Things were back to normal, in fact they were even more normal than they were before.
Anyway, you're swell! Be preachy keen!
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'm a little confused here. It is well documented here ,geese there have been several threads on where book by book the teaching In PFAL came from. This was not any big revelation to me but to some it is I suppose. If one would choose to hold on to something they learned in PFAL wouldn't it be correct to say they were holding on to BG Leonard or Charles Welch or Kenyon's teaching ,not VP Wierwille. On one thread the work was plagiarized and wasn't his teaching on the other thread we were now to move beyond his teaching(which wasn't his teaching) that we were taught by a false prophet. If VP plagiarized others work then we were taught by them. If we were taught by a false prophet then that would rule out Kenyon Leonard or Welch. Seems it cant work both ways.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Surf over to the way website and look in their research link and you will see a picture that says its all about how TWI conducts its "research". The center piece is the notepad sitting in the middle (no doubt full of notes from a recent 3 hour meeting). This contains
the present truth as dispensed by the reigning MOG or second rate substitute. This is the real bible for the Way person. Go to meetings to get the truth and consider any and all suggestions from a higher up as a commandment even if it means not opening up the bible to check things out. Just keep checking your notes.
To the right is a concordance sitting under the light next to a flower which tells us that people are still being told to spend hours contemplating the meaning of a single word or prhase at the expense of the bigger picture and context. Despite TWI's cliams that the bible interprets iteself isn't amazing how they won't let that happen choosing rather to direct you to books to get the "real meaning". Its also interesting that the concordance is at the "right" of the picture - not the bible. Of course the current Way books are at the center of it all as if thats all that really matters - when in doubt just reach back into the treasure chest. Look at your notes first of course.
And here is the kicker - we have the bible on the "left" ! Wow. TWI with all its attention to detail ! Somebody needs to take a check up from the neck up after letting that faux pas occur. Of course maybe it was intentional and they are being honest about how the feel about the bible being inferior to TWI meeting notes, publications, and concordance. The bible is the least prominent book in the whole picture and there is no independdent light source for it as there was for the concordance. From looking at the picture we see that TWI expects you to read your notes first, then stare into a condordance and then crack open a Way book or two. And then if you really still don't know what is happening then maybe, just maybe, look at the bible. Though we do see that it is open to the new testament section towards the back. Obviously the Old Testament pages of that bible have rarely been examine - after all that stuff was just for our learning and doesn't need to be considered as important.
And then there are the old , hackneyed blurbs about figures of speech and customs as well as insinuations that TWI has Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek experts on staff. I doubt that they have anyone on staff or in the whole organization that has a anything close to an academic degree relating to these languages. Of course that still wouldn't stop them from promoting TWI as a research ministry that exceeds the finest seminaries and theology schools. After all, they've forgotten more than anyone will ever know about the "holy spirit field". Yea like thats how it would be listed in course catalogs at seminaries across the land - THEOL 4578 -"The Holy Spirit Field" 4 credit hours. No doubt VPW is mentioned heavily in these courses also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
I am sowwy. I didn't mean to offend anybody, I promise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Most people don't have any problem seeing this point,
but I'll explain it anyway.
Leonard, Welch, Kenyon and the others: none of them endorsed vpw or twi.
Neither did Oral Roberts-who first taught the "Red Thread".
Plagiarizing their work does not mean they endorsed the end result.
Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were
"taught by them." They were the source of the material.
Look-
when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture.
That did not mean God endorsed the devil doing that, and it
did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture
as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment.
See the connection?
As to the other Christians vpw ripped off,
their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source,
who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make
it all about him.
The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE
from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal.
Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once
the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put
in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't
withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's
framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should
be replaced with material that CAN stand up.
The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is-
the framework.
People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on
many things, because they buy into the image of him
that he originated and propagated, and others passed on.
Truth will always remain true.
However,
supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should
be examined exceedingly carefully,
since its origin places it under suspicion.
====
This really is not difficult for most people to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
The double talk never ends.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Apparently it is:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Gee WW thanks for the benevolent service you provide in helping us mentally challenged to get a glimpse of a great thinker in action. Hope it did not strain your brain to much to have to condescend to my level. I was particularly humbled by your way like leader style of your backhanded slap
(This really is not difficult for most people to understand.) which you kindly posted twice so it would be established for me. (Dove says in his best way peon voice SLAP... Thank you sir may I have another sir Please!) Your humbleness is very inspiring to a mental peon like me.
That Aside:
Ok first I will strip away the added issue that you kindly tossed in the mix. I never said or implied that any of those men endorsed VPW. So here is your post without your added issue. (I'll leave the slap in cause I liked it so.)
Most people don't have any problem seeing this point,
but I'll explain it anyway.
Leonard, Welch, Kenyon, Oral Roberts:
Plagiarizing their work and then teaching it does not mean we were
"taught by them." They were the source of the material.
Correct they were the source VP was an instructor. Consider these helpful definitions from the dictionary.
Teach- To impart knowledge or skill to
Learn - To gain knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through experience or study.
Those men did the work it was their work that taught me truth and I learned- gained knowledge, comprehension, or mastery of through study.
Look-
when Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted Scripture. it
did not mean that Jesus was getting instruction in Scripture
as God sees it. God was not "teaching" at that moment.
See the connection?
When the devil quoted scripture it was truth (God's Word) The words he spoke were true his motive however was not. Unfortunately for the devil Jesus had taken the time to learn scripture so no he did not learn anything as he already had learned it. Had he not known the scripture already,( given the fact that the words but not the motive were true) he could have learned something by the devil quoting God. Truth is truth regardless of who shares it or their good or bad moral character. It's just easier to swallow when the moral character is good. If a car is sitting on the street it is still a car if a priest or a rapist says hey there is a car sitting there.
As to the other Christians vpw ripped off,
their legitimate work was subverted by the supposed source,
who slapped his name on it, to take all the credit and make
it all about him.
Your opinion! I'll give you that the work should have been referenced in the books and credited. For an organization that was so nit picky about research papers being right it is inexcusable.
That said it was not news to me that he used others work in his teachings they sold the books in the bookstore. And as Oldies (correct me if I am wrong here Oldies I think it was you) said it is documented several times on tape where he learned things from. He's right it is. Just for the occasion I dug out my old class instructors guide and gee session four it says - Note: show students the appendix page from the Bullinger Companion Bible on four crucified. Now that’s a pretty dumb thing to do for someone who is trying to deceive us into thinking that he authored this and take credit for it. And hey lets sell his Bible too so it will be really hard to figure it out. Please......
The merits and faults of the material is a SEPARATE ISSUE
from vpw plagiarizing and being a criminal.
Anything that he taught that was true will still be true once
the person has examined it free of the framework vpw put
in place to claim it was all HIS. Anything that can't
withstand independent scrutiny without resorting to vpw's
framework to "prop it up" is not worth keeping and should
be replaced with material that CAN stand up.
Wrong! Anything that he taught(assuming you thought he was the teacher) that was true is still true. "Framework" has nothing to do with truth.it stands on its own because it is true. 1+1 =2 regardless of framework or moral character.
The most dangerous element of vpw's framework is-
the framework.
People refuse to consider whether vpw was in error on
many things, because they buy into the image of him
that he originated and propagated, and others passed on.
And that is their lack of study ethic. Truth is truth I have no image of Bullinger or Welch to draw from or the rest but I can read their words and weigh them as truth or not. If people based their perception of truth on an image they were foolish it has nothing to do with truth. And I would remind you that VP said himself don't believe it because VP says so. If they did they were in error. Their mistake!
Truth will always remain true.
Agreed Period
However,
supposed truth from a source of known FALSEHOODS should
be examined exceedingly carefully,
since its origin places it under suspicion.
Absolutely And upon careful examination I saw that the source from which it came (because it was obvious to me where it came from by the books available staring me in the face) was those men who taught me. So as I said it was their work that taught me and apparently I was not taught by a false prophet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pond
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Not taught by a false prophet? ROFL....
Just what do you think false prophets teach or where do you imagine their information comes from???
Geeze friend if their destructive doctrine was not cleverly disguised .... they couldn`t fool folks
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Hey Rascal
Well as I said above we have established where the teaching came from it was not VPs words but these other mens words which was pretty clear to me although not to some I guess. They authored the work hense they taught me VP was an instructer for lack of a better word, I dont consider those men to be false prophets maybe you do.
As i said he did a pretty poor job of disguising it pointing it out to them in session 4 of the class with a big red bullseye on it.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
I'm glad you admit that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
VPW did plagiarize and that is for sure though I've never been of the mind that what he stole was necessarily that "right on" to begin with. This is a mistake that I see VPW worshippers make over and over again. They excuse the crimes of VPW on the basis that what he stole was somehow "god breathed" and therefore not subject to the "laws of man" but I've never been completely comfortable with what he taught in the first place. Some of it indeed sounded impressive and very detailed especially the sections he copped from Leonard on the Holy Spirit but even so, I don't know that it represents something akin to a "lost biblical scroll". ITs simply another man's opnion on how the holy spirit works. VPW was very attracted to it - at least to the extent that he stole the material and published it under his own name. But that doesn't mean that it was "god breathed".
If someone does still hold onto some aspects of PFAL it would be better and more honorable for that person to consider the source and attempt to work with that to see if it still holds up. Some of VPW's sources were fairly obscure which is why I believe that he thought he could get away with undetected plagiarism in the first place. So one might have a difficult time tracking down original copies of books by Leoanard, Stiles, Bullinger, Kenyan, Starr, Mosley, et al. But its still the right thing to do rather than to blindly accept it all as "god breated".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Well the way people behave (fruit exhibited) whom subscribe to wierwilles teachings wherever he got them, is an ideal indication as to the spiritual healthiness of what they subscribe to.
You can fling around all of the scriptures from any source you chose....and still be an ugly piece of work (of the flesh) as we witnessed in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Right on WhiteDove.
Another example of an additional VP source is Martin Luther.
Remember the books we were encouraged to read and the film about Martin Luther .... justification by faith... not by works.
VP taught these things and showed us his source.
And if VP is a false prophet, so is Luther.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[i suppose you had an average education for the 20th century.
If so, then you heard about Martin Luther independently of twi,
more than a little. Christians in general know more than a bit
about him.
If vpw sent his people out with Martin Luther's comments on
justification by faith and not works, and sent them out to
interact with other Christians-or even attempt to graduate
a good high school or college- there would have been a
rather disturbing event. I know that in high school,
I learned MORE about Martin Luther than I ever learned
in twi.
Now, John Calvin isn't QUITE as famous to the average
Christian, to the average American.
Calvin spent a lot of time on the subject of free will.
(A LOT of time.)
vpw claimed he spent more time teaching on free will
than they do in any seminary. Considering the seminaries
teach Calvin, and vpw KNEW they did because he
supposedly went to decent schools, he knew he was
lying. However, the students he told this to didn't
know Calvin NOR his teachings, so vpw was able
to take credit for this subject to them.]
[Luther never claimed to speak for God.
Luther didn't take the money from God's people and
spend it on luxuries for himself.
Luther, in fact, argued vigorously against such.
Luther never molested or raped God's women.
Whatever Luther was, he was a man who was
of appropriate character-at least as laid out
by Scripture. So, Luther wasn't a false ANYTHING.
Did Luther claim to speak on God's behalf?
This statement lacks logical support, and thus
lacks merit.]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[so,
at the time you FIRST took pfal,
you came away from the sessions saying
"all this material came from others,
but vpw assembled their work into classes"?
That's REALLY what you said?]
[vpw claimed he was THE TEACHER. You said he was your "INSTRUCTOR",which means exactly the same thing as he was your "TEACHER."
If you had made the claim to vpw-aka "THE Teacher", that
others "taught" you during the 12 sessions of pfal,
you would have been subjected to one of the famed face-melting
sessions he showed lcm how to conduct.
When he called himself "The Teacher", did you actually
come away saying, "No, he didn't 'teach' during those 12 sessions'?
And if he really was incidental to everything you learned,
why try to defend him so vociferously?]
[We're not blaming them for vpw's poor conduct and
self-centered 'ministry'. (I summed up some of the basics
on that above, in case you forgot what I meant by
'self-centered'.)]
[You said it, but that's not what happened.
vpw spent one of his hour-blocks on the whole thing.
Then the students were shown a photograph from a page in a book.
If what you're saying was true, the students would have been
told, "vpw got this section from Bullinger, and this is one of the
things Bullinger used to back up his claim of this material."
Instead, they were told
"this is a picture that supports vpw's claims in this session."
That's what I heard EVERY TIME I sat thru that session,
from a variety of teachers, mostly corps.
If it was an attempt for vpw to say "I got this from
Bullinger", then he did a pretty poor job of it-
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the taped session
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the edited books
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the syllabus-even the Advanced class version
vpw "forgot" to mention it in the Home Studies]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
I seem to detect a bit of envy coming through this post, something I hadn't realised before.
Either that or a real unhealthy dose of bitterness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you meant me, then "envy" was a miss.
However, one quick dictionary check suggests "bitter"
was on the mark.
Here's what I found:
1. "having or being a taste that is sharp and acrid"
2. "causing a painful or stinging sensation"
3. "difficult or distasteful to accept, admit or bear"
4. "resulting from or expressive of severe grief, anguish or disappointment"
5. "marked by resentment or cynicism"
I think all of those might refer to my posts in this thread.
I won't speak for anyone else's posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
I guess when they can't beat ya WW, they just resort to personal insults. I thought your information was laid out completely and "thoroughly" and made a lot of sense.
And that back at ya last post was good.
Edited by outofdafogLink to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
I was thinking the same thing da fog....
Wolfs posts were chrystal clear, and made some very valid points....but I suppose personal insults are what one must resort to when unable to intellegently counter a point.
Pretty despicable to compare vpw and Luther...Oldies, I have never heard Luther accused of rape, fornicatio, adultery....using the scriptures to extort money, services and goods in God`s name.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
They were both remarkably similar in the sense that both taught that sin does not separate people from God, among other similar teachings.
Here's an excerpt from one of Dr. Luther's statements:
From "Let Your Sins Be Strong, from "The Wittenberg Project"; "The Wartburg Segment", translated by Erika Flores, from Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften, Letter No. 99, 1 Aug. 1521.)
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.