Every time I think about pfal, I think about how vpw opened it up with the statement that it is not a class about the bible, but a class about how to read the bible.
Then I think about 4 crucified, 'my god, my god, for this purpose was I spared', the church of the navelites, 'today (no comma)' v 'today, (comma)', 'became' void v 'was' void, 'manifestations' v 'gifts', 'administrations', 'tree' v 'cross', hands above Jesus' head on a tree v spread out on a cross, 'virgin birth' v 'virgin conception', and all the little 'nuances' that pfal honed in on...and drew our thinking towards...and caused us to actively divide the scriptures into nice little packages that stood by themselves instead of as a part of the whole picture...
And I can't help but to realize that the purpose was just that...
To keep us from seeing the whole picture.
Why would anybody want to keep others from seeing the whole picture?
So that others would never see the truth...
Of anything.
Was it done to justify vpw's behavior?
I think it was done to keep us from even looking at his behavior.
I posted this down in "Mikeland" but thought it fit here as well:
In my opinion, PFAL (veepee) didn't so much teach me how to read and understand the Bible, it taught me that what the other religions were teaching me was wrong and that what veepee (and TWI) were teaching me was right.
PFAL (again JMO) was a class presented under the guise of "unlocking the Bible" but really was just a way to indoctrinate us into TWI and away from the other religions.
In VPWs teachings when he taught the Bible was correct as written, did that agreement, while not out and out condoning his behavior at least not out and out condemn it either?
This is not about TWI doctrine in the sense of proving or disproving its validity
Depends on what behavior you are talking about.
His godly behavior that produced real fruit seems like it would agree with PFAL.
On the other hand I can't find anything in PFAL that would condone adultery, heck that may have been surmised by some, but wasn't taught in PFAL.
He should have made an emphasis of it in Christian Family & Sex.
you are not going to make a shambles of this thread like you do so many others. This isn't about what we believed or why we stayed its about whether VPW confined himself to taechings that either 1-gave him some measure of justification for his "activities and/or 2 didn't specifically preclude his "activities"
try to derail again and see how fast I find that moderator button, clear???
In VPWs teachings when he deviated from orthodoxy in significant ways, did that departure give, if not actual support at least an out, to justify his on going behavior?
Without doctrinal examples, its hard to say. But as far as that goes PFAL itself doesn't seem to openly condone things like abuse and adultry. His main deviations from "orthodoxy" were those on the trinity and concerning the dead being alive and a few others. I don't see where these attempted to justify his behavior. It was more his private teachings that seem to justify the ungodly behavior stuff like "you'll never be able to serve God people until you loosen up sexually". Possibly the one where the king owns all the women in the kingdom might apply here: -- VPW wrote in PFAL:
There are many examples of correction in the
Bible. Take David, for instance. David was off the
ball. He found beautiful Bathsheba and then had her
husband shot while in the front lines of battle so that
he, David, could have Bathsheba as his wife. A few
people knew about the sequence of events leading to
David’s marriage, but nobody had a right to say any-
thing because
David was king and every woman in the
kingdom was technically the property of the king or
belonged to the king.
(PFAL p.86)
To make a good case that this teaching was an attempt to condone his beahvior, we then have to show where VPW taught that he was some kind of king and entitled to to same things he supposed David "technically" possesssed. Hard task.
On the other hand, I would point out that VPW called David "off the ball" instead of that he committed adultery and murder. The scripture says that David was "doing evil" . As far as VPW goes was to say that David "had Uriah killed " -- Later VPW writes:
The moment David said, “Let me know who it is,”
Nathan said, “You are the man.” At that moment
David recognized the truth of what Nathan was
bringing from God and David said, “Well, I am
sorry.” He turned to God and asked God to forgive
him. Then it says in the Word of God that David was
a man after God’s own heart. He was not after God’s
heart when he was out
fooling around
with Bathsheba
and having Uriah killed; no, but when he was back in
line, David was a man after God’s own heart.
When
we rightly divide The Word and we walk in the power
of it – then we are men and women after God’s own
heart.
(PFAL p.87)
Here VPW says David was "fooling around" with Bathsheba. This might give some insight into what VPW thought of adultery. He seems to minimize Davids sin. In Nathan's parable to David, Bathehseba is the analogous to the lamb who the rich man "butchered". VPW calls it "fooling around." The scripture says David "took her".
Then VPW makes it appear like David simply asked God to forgive him and then instantly he was a "man after God's own heart". Here we might see a glimpse of how VPW saw sin, and how to then get back right with God. Just ask God to forgive you then "rightly divide The word and walk in the power of it". This teaching fails miserably and completely misses the mark. Among other things it omits godly sorrow, contrition, and the consequences of sin. Compare VPW's teaching to the link below.
I think VPW's foundation was weak. He approached this section of the Bible with preconcieved ideas about sin and restoration along with misapplying "rightly dividing the word" . And that led him to miss the point and make an eronous conclusion. But I doubt that he intentionally misinterpreted this scripture to justify his own sins. He probably thought he was right.
In VPWs teachings when he taught the Bible was correct as written, did that agreement, while not out and out condoning his behavior at least not out and out condemn it either?
To simplify things I would have to say doctrine influences behavior - in other words your belief system winds up being a guidance system or rules for faith and PRACTICE...And with that in mind I mentioned elsewhere [TWI's God thread]
of the similarities between VPW's theology and Gnosticism - the two main items being: holding knowledge in ultra high regard - to the point of reason being superior to faith [becoming super Bible jocks, proud, holding keys to the Word's interpretation, elitism] and separating matter and spirit - to the point where [since matter is evil and spirit can't sin] it didn't matter what you did in the flesh.
If it catches on TWI could be referred to as the New Knoxville Gnostics.
Thanks, Goey - between you and Belle giving me some feedback - I wasn't aware of how bad it was. Tonto kept telling me "do it so people can read it" - I figured that meant bigger letters and more color!
Thanks, Goey - between you and Belle giving me some feedback - I wasn't aware of how bad it was. Tonto kept telling me "do it so people can read it" - I figured that meant bigger letters and more color!
Mo, I still have all my TWIt stuff save the things that my ex took, which were his to begin with.
I don't have time to go through it right now, but this week-end I'll dig it out. I have a few ideas off the top of my head, but don't have the quotes to back it up and it could very well be CRS creeping up on me, so I'll wait till I can look it up. :)
I think there's been some good points made so far on this thread...
...It seems to me that the doctrine he taught was the doctrine that he found to be "most comfortable" for himself and his lifestyle...His Christian Family and Sex seminar was not only a joke, but was most revealing when it came to his sexual attitudes.
His insistance on "informing" all of his "kids" about current sexual slang was not necessary at all. He seemed to enjoy it immensely...HIs "virteous woman" teaching was the height of hypocracy...he put his own wife into a posistion of humiliation by committing adultry and totally disregarded his wedding vows...
So what is it? Some of teachings, his behavior was just the opposite of what he taught...while there were other times when he bended the scriptures to justify his own actions. This would indicate that at times, he knew his behavior was sinful and wrong while at other times, he rationalized that he was right...In either case, the man was a severe egomaniac...narcisstic and insecure. The lusts of his flesh were always just under the surface...
...How much of what he taught was designed to justify his action can be debated, but it seems certain that there was much of it that he tailor made to fit his hedonistic lifestyle, his desire to "bed down" young girls, be the mog and control people's lives and of course...generate huge amounts of revenue into the twi bank account...that's why we call him GRIFTER VIC.
I have a few ideas off the top of my head, but don't have the quotes to back it up and it could very well be CRS creeping up on me, so I'll wait till I can look it up. :)
Geesh..I don't know about others but I'd feel a bit 'uncomfortable' throwing stones VPs' way in the name of errant doctrine whilst sitting in the middle pew of another church that was just as ( if not more ) 'outlandish' in departure from 'orthodox' teaching.
(hope Belles still got me on ignore) !!
p.s. And you can't hit the moderator button on this one because I've put duct tape over it , so there !!
Geesh..I don't know about others but I'd feel a bit 'uncomfortable' throwing stones VPs' way in the name of errant doctrine whilst sitting in the middle pew of another church that was just as ( if not more ) 'outlandish' in departure from 'orthodox' teaching.
(hope Belles still got me on ignore) !!
p.s. And you can't hit the moderator button on this one because I've put duct tape over it , so there !!
Allan,
Let me give you a little hint...
The biggest problem with what you're saying is this: GSCafe is not an "ex-Mormon" site. GSCafe is not an "ex-Catholic" site. GSCafe is not an "ex-Hindu" site. It's not "ex-JW, ex Wicca, ex-Southern Baptist, ex-Hari Krishna."
GSCafe is an ex-TWI site.
The reason why you're p1ssing so many folks off is not necessarily that folks want to defend LDS theology. With the exception of Mo, I don't think anybody would. The problem is that, from all appearances, Mo seems to be a nice lady. And the comments are out-of-scope for this site...particularly when they are brought in on threads where they are completely out of context.
I mean, if you want to start a thread where folks can dog out LDS theology as un-Christian and dog out LDS leadership for being cult leaders, I don't know if folks would respond or not, but at least it would be in the correct context. The thread would be about "what's wrong with LDS."
There's a little difference between your bashing Mo's beliefs and the anti-Catholic stuff that happens: most of the anti-Catholic stuff is from folks who were Catholics as children and who had bad experiences. Is your constant bashing of her beliefs because you are an ex-LDS? Because if that were the case, it would be a h3ll of a lot more understandable than just coming out of the blue.
I don't know about others but I'd feel a bit 'uncomfortable' throwing stones VPs' way in the name of errant doctrine whilst sitting in the middle pew of another church that was just as ( if not more ) 'outlandish' in departure from 'orthodox' teaching
The issue isn't whether the teachings were orthodox
the issue is Did VPW teach what he did to get scripture to, if not tally with his lifestyle, at least not out and out condemn it.
But then I already said that at the beginning.
I would be interested in any thoughts you have On THE TOPIC
Oh..o.k. I don't think he taught Jesus Christ is not God, the dead are not alive, the nine manifestations, hell is not a place of eternal torment, the Holy Spirit and the holy spirit, the four crucified, J.C. our passover, etc...etc... for any ulterior motives except maybe at times to BE controversial (which is often good for publicity).
He could have taken the 'easy road' and stayed with the 'orthodox' type beliefs. As some of you said, he was charismatic enough to pull it off anyway.
Maybe in hindsight he should have taught on polygamy, which would have kept a lot of 'smouldering' crotches satisfied, but I don't think he believed that was 'scriptural' !
i dont know exactly what orthodox beliefs are, so i cant say how far they deviate, but I am surprised that no one has brought up the teachings on righteousness, sanctification and justification where the wierwille believer is mostly a passive receiver without hardly any involvement in the process. No matter how out to lunch or how despicable you are ---one *ZAP* and you are righteous and all is forgotten--he also did away with any final judgement of any kind which erases any need for any great degrees of personal responsibility.
There was really no need to reform any sort of bad character traits, they didnt matter -they were paid for--, just teach a twig and stack on another reward
I'm trying to remember how he explained Annais and Saphira it seems that it wasn't God who struck them down--Can anyone help here or am I thinking of some other incident??
Recommended Posts
CoolWaters
Every time I think about pfal, I think about how vpw opened it up with the statement that it is not a class about the bible, but a class about how to read the bible.
Then I think about 4 crucified, 'my god, my god, for this purpose was I spared', the church of the navelites, 'today (no comma)' v 'today, (comma)', 'became' void v 'was' void, 'manifestations' v 'gifts', 'administrations', 'tree' v 'cross', hands above Jesus' head on a tree v spread out on a cross, 'virgin birth' v 'virgin conception', and all the little 'nuances' that pfal honed in on...and drew our thinking towards...and caused us to actively divide the scriptures into nice little packages that stood by themselves instead of as a part of the whole picture...
And I can't help but to realize that the purpose was just that...
To keep us from seeing the whole picture.
Why would anybody want to keep others from seeing the whole picture?
So that others would never see the truth...
Of anything.
Was it done to justify vpw's behavior?
I think it was done to keep us from even looking at his behavior.
Why justify something that isn't even seen?
Just imo...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I posted this down in "Mikeland" but thought it fit here as well:
In my opinion, PFAL (veepee) didn't so much teach me how to read and understand the Bible, it taught me that what the other religions were teaching me was wrong and that what veepee (and TWI) were teaching me was right.
PFAL (again JMO) was a class presented under the guise of "unlocking the Bible" but really was just a way to indoctrinate us into TWI and away from the other religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
And if someone believed what was taught, yeah, that was probably the case.
You believed it, so what is the problem? You allowed it in your life. Pretty hard to blame someone else for that isn't it?
You or I could have walked away anytime.
Sometimes I did. At varying points in my twi stint, I didn't go to twig for months at a time...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Depends on what behavior you are talking about.
His godly behavior that produced real fruit seems like it would agree with PFAL.
On the other hand I can't find anything in PFAL that would condone adultery, heck that may have been surmised by some, but wasn't taught in PFAL.
He should have made an emphasis of it in Christian Family & Sex.
One man, one woman just wasn't enough, obviously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
OM you are
you are not going to make a shambles of this thread like you do so many others. This isn't about what we believed or why we stayed its about whether VPW confined himself to taechings that either 1-gave him some measure of justification for his "activities and/or 2 didn't specifically preclude his "activities"
try to derail again and see how fast I find that moderator button, clear???
We now return to the topic at hand
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Why not give some examples, you haven't offered any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Templelady Posted:
Without doctrinal examples, its hard to say. But as far as that goes PFAL itself doesn't seem to openly condone things like abuse and adultry. His main deviations from "orthodoxy" were those on the trinity and concerning the dead being alive and a few others. I don't see where these attempted to justify his behavior. It was more his private teachings that seem to justify the ungodly behavior stuff like "you'll never be able to serve God people until you loosen up sexually". Possibly the one where the king owns all the women in the kingdom might apply here: -- VPW wrote in PFAL:To make a good case that this teaching was an attempt to condone his beahvior, we then have to show where VPW taught that he was some kind of king and entitled to to same things he supposed David "technically" possesssed. Hard task.
On the other hand, I would point out that VPW called David "off the ball" instead of that he committed adultery and murder. The scripture says that David was "doing evil" . As far as VPW goes was to say that David "had Uriah killed " -- Later VPW writes:
Here VPW says David was "fooling around" with Bathsheba. This might give some insight into what VPW thought of adultery. He seems to minimize Davids sin. In Nathan's parable to David, Bathehseba is the analogous to the lamb who the rich man "butchered". VPW calls it "fooling around." The scripture says David "took her".
Then VPW makes it appear like David simply asked God to forgive him and then instantly he was a "man after God's own heart". Here we might see a glimpse of how VPW saw sin, and how to then get back right with God. Just ask God to forgive you then "rightly divide The word and walk in the power of it". This teaching fails miserably and completely misses the mark. Among other things it omits godly sorrow, contrition, and the consequences of sin. Compare VPW's teaching to the link below.
http://www.case-studies.com/biblestudies/david1.htm
I think VPW's foundation was weak. He approached this section of the Bible with preconcieved ideas about sin and restoration along with misapplying "rightly dividing the word" . And that led him to miss the point and make an eronous conclusion. But I doubt that he intentionally misinterpreted this scripture to justify his own sins. He probably thought he was right.
It would seem so.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
To simplify things I would have to say doctrine influences behavior - in other words your belief system winds up being a guidance system or rules for faith and PRACTICE...And with that in mind I mentioned elsewhere [TWI's God thread]
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=218781 and
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=230239
of the similarities between VPW's theology and Gnosticism - the two main items being: holding knowledge in ultra high regard - to the point of reason being superior to faith [becoming super Bible jocks, proud, holding keys to the Word's interpretation, elitism] and separating matter and spirit - to the point where [since matter is evil and spirit can't sin] it didn't matter what you did in the flesh.
If it catches on TWI could be referred to as the New Knoxville Gnostics.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
T-Bone,
I sure like your posts better without all the formatting - Much easier to read !
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Now that just takes the cake!!!!!
LMAO!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks, Goey - between you and Belle giving me some feedback - I wasn't aware of how bad it was. Tonto kept telling me "do it so people can read it" - I figured that meant bigger letters and more color!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Mo,
I think, as you will have noted in my postings, that this has been my thesis all along: that TWI doctrine was the enabler for the abuses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Jes goes to show ya 'bout trustin Injuns .....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
At the request of the participants I am expanding the focus of this thread by including JCING CFS, and any other of VPW"s teachings.
Other than that, the guidlines remain the same
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Mo, I still have all my TWIt stuff save the things that my ex took, which were his to begin with.
I don't have time to go through it right now, but this week-end I'll dig it out. I have a few ideas off the top of my head, but don't have the quotes to back it up and it could very well be CRS creeping up on me, so I'll wait till I can look it up. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I think there's been some good points made so far on this thread...
...It seems to me that the doctrine he taught was the doctrine that he found to be "most comfortable" for himself and his lifestyle...His Christian Family and Sex seminar was not only a joke, but was most revealing when it came to his sexual attitudes.
His insistance on "informing" all of his "kids" about current sexual slang was not necessary at all. He seemed to enjoy it immensely...HIs "virteous woman" teaching was the height of hypocracy...he put his own wife into a posistion of humiliation by committing adultry and totally disregarded his wedding vows...
So what is it? Some of teachings, his behavior was just the opposite of what he taught...while there were other times when he bended the scriptures to justify his own actions. This would indicate that at times, he knew his behavior was sinful and wrong while at other times, he rationalized that he was right...In either case, the man was a severe egomaniac...narcisstic and insecure. The lusts of his flesh were always just under the surface...
...How much of what he taught was designed to justify his action can be debated, but it seems certain that there was much of it that he tailor made to fit his hedonistic lifestyle, his desire to "bed down" young girls, be the mog and control people's lives and of course...generate huge amounts of revenue into the twi bank account...that's why we call him GRIFTER VIC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
You're much too young for CRS...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Geesh..I don't know about others but I'd feel a bit 'uncomfortable' throwing stones VPs' way in the name of errant doctrine whilst sitting in the middle pew of another church that was just as ( if not more ) 'outlandish' in departure from 'orthodox' teaching.
(hope Belles still got me on ignore) !!
p.s. And you can't hit the moderator button on this one because I've put duct tape over it , so there !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Allan,
Let me give you a little hint...
The biggest problem with what you're saying is this: GSCafe is not an "ex-Mormon" site. GSCafe is not an "ex-Catholic" site. GSCafe is not an "ex-Hindu" site. It's not "ex-JW, ex Wicca, ex-Southern Baptist, ex-Hari Krishna."
GSCafe is an ex-TWI site.
The reason why you're p1ssing so many folks off is not necessarily that folks want to defend LDS theology. With the exception of Mo, I don't think anybody would. The problem is that, from all appearances, Mo seems to be a nice lady. And the comments are out-of-scope for this site...particularly when they are brought in on threads where they are completely out of context.
I mean, if you want to start a thread where folks can dog out LDS theology as un-Christian and dog out LDS leadership for being cult leaders, I don't know if folks would respond or not, but at least it would be in the correct context. The thread would be about "what's wrong with LDS."
There's a little difference between your bashing Mo's beliefs and the anti-Catholic stuff that happens: most of the anti-Catholic stuff is from folks who were Catholics as children and who had bad experiences. Is your constant bashing of her beliefs because you are an ex-LDS? Because if that were the case, it would be a h3ll of a lot more understandable than just coming out of the blue.
Just a helpful hint...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Thank You Mark
Allan, Dear as I see it
A You can not post to this thread
B you can post to this thread and stay on topic
C You can go to the basement and resurrect the LDS thread or start one like Mark suggested and I'll meet you there
E A and C
F B and C
G none of the above
Some of the things I've been thinking about
"Our Father in the Word"
Man of God for Our Day and Time
Present Truth
The Infamous comma (we ceased, saying the will of the Lord be done vs We ceased saying the will of the Lord be done)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The issue isn't whether the teachings were orthodox
the issue is Did VPW teach what he did to get scripture to, if not tally with his lifestyle, at least not out and out condemn it.
But then I already said that at the beginning.
I would be interested in any thoughts you have On THE TOPIC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Oh..o.k. I don't think he taught Jesus Christ is not God, the dead are not alive, the nine manifestations, hell is not a place of eternal torment, the Holy Spirit and the holy spirit, the four crucified, J.C. our passover, etc...etc... for any ulterior motives except maybe at times to BE controversial (which is often good for publicity).
He could have taken the 'easy road' and stayed with the 'orthodox' type beliefs. As some of you said, he was charismatic enough to pull it off anyway.
Maybe in hindsight he should have taught on polygamy, which would have kept a lot of 'smouldering' crotches satisfied, but I don't think he believed that was 'scriptural' !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
i dont know exactly what orthodox beliefs are, so i cant say how far they deviate, but I am surprised that no one has brought up the teachings on righteousness, sanctification and justification where the wierwille believer is mostly a passive receiver without hardly any involvement in the process. No matter how out to lunch or how despicable you are ---one *ZAP* and you are righteous and all is forgotten--he also did away with any final judgement of any kind which erases any need for any great degrees of personal responsibility.
There was really no need to reform any sort of bad character traits, they didnt matter -they were paid for--, just teach a twig and stack on another reward
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Mstar
That "God doesn't condemn you"
I'm trying to remember how he explained Annais and Saphira it seems that it wasn't God who struck them down--Can anyone help here or am I thinking of some other incident??
Edited by templeladyLink 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.