Sunday, 6 April 2014

The Crooked Serpent

On the most recent blog post about Vinson revising his Revelation commentary, I happened to receive a comment from IWWB elder, webmaster and son in the Vinson-faith Steven Crook.

Steve pointed out that the audio I had lifted off the IWWB site, and made the post about, was in-fact, from 2008. More to the point, it was not, as I had wrongly assumed, Mike admitting that he was going to be revising the Revelation commentary for the third time around. 


Instead, as a result of the redesign of the IWWB website, this was a repost of a much earlier teaching. Mike's audio, in its correct context, was him stating that he would be revising the Revelation commentary for the second time around, after the debacle of the "we no longer sin…" original.


This still leaves the question of whether Mike and his doting acolytes truly possess the "one mind of Jesus Christ" as they claim they do, being that Mike still admitted to having to revise the commentary at all.


However, unlike Mike and his elders, if I am in the wrong, I'll happily admit it and own my mistake, taking responsibility for it. Perhaps, as Mike has said, this shows that I am a true man of God?


But anyway, the point of this blog post is to reply in-depth to brother Crooks comment. IWWB elder Steve Crook's comments are in red, with my comments and rebuttal under each specific paragraph, as it applies.

_____________________________________________
_____________________________________________
I see you are still posting outright lies Mr. Bill Palmer. Well, you have gotten a bit confused again so please correct this misleading information.
Steve attempts from the start to insinuate that the entire premise of this blog, and my YouTube channel is based in "outright lies." In almost all cases, I simply allow Mike and his elders to incriminate themselves, with their own words, which they do frequently, and apparently, without even realising this fact. 

That I then choose to point out the fallacies, half-truths and double-standards that are applied by Mike and co is really the point of this blog. Again, I am not exactly sure what "outright lies" Crook is referring to. 


To my knowledge, no "outright lies" have been made on this blog and if they are, I will happily retract them with an apology. If Steve believes there are "outright lies" posted, he need only inform me of them.

The article that was recently posted and of which you reference was posted with an audio that was made in June of 2008. There were no study notes available for this audio, so they were transcribed from that audio and recently posted. The old Is, Was and Will Be site has been redone with the latest website technologies running it, and as we are correcting things we find, this article also needed to have study notes, so they were recently posted.
Yes, understood Steve. My mistake. No arguments there. I will not attempt to hide behind a veil of "I was not yet mature enough, but the Lord worked it all out" or some such bible-based clap-trap. I have posted this amendment above and will also make an amendment on the original blog post. Again, if I am in error, I see no problem with admitting it as such.
The series on "animals in scripture" was during the same time frame from which Mike publically repented of a teaching he had proclaimed and then was admonished by others to not be accurate. Mike took this information and repented but you claim he didn't. That lie is just as false as this mis-leading blog.
You claim Mike "publicly repented?" Indeed, I remember Mike's repentance, and I was suckered into his play-act of being persecuted by Ray Smith for apparently, being jealous of Mike working with Rob Jones. 

Mike's "repentance" (as I recall, he referred to it explicitly as a "mistake," and not a sin) all had to do with the "we no longer commit sin" phrase but as I have covered here on this blog prior, when and where did Mike repent of all of the other things within that commentary? 


Here are a few choice lines from that same Revelation commentary, which were repeated by Mike in late 2011, and then again in 2012. Firstly, here are the lines from the commentary in question:

Chap. 11 - Sin no longer has dominion over us.  Sin and the past are no longer a part of us now that we are in Christ and have Christ in us.  
Chap. 12 - Once we have overcome our flesh and our adversary, it is done because we are then in the image of Christ. It is that which purges us from the power of sin and is what makes us no longer under the dominion of sin
These phrases "sin no longer has dominion over us…" were a part of the framework of the commentary, used to buttress the notion that Mike and Rob "no longer commit sin…" among all of the other ridiculous things that were stated as supposed fact in that commentary.

Steve, you claim that Mike repented of this? What are you basing this on? I ask that truthfully. I have captured audio of Mike re-stating these claims in 2011 and 2012, here they are:






Steve - how can you honestly explain these statements? Oh, I am sure that you will come up with some roundabout, spiritualised half-truth but to anyone looking objectively at Vinson and his group, these statements speak volumes about Mike's so-called "repentance."

Had you honestly looked at this "latest" post, you would have noticed that it went with the same series of like articles on “animals in scripture,” which was completed some time ago. As is the case with this ENTIRE blog site, you take things out of context and repeatedly look for things of which you can attempt to smear a person’s name of whom you disagree with.
Firstly, yes, I acknowledge that I jumped the gun on Mike making a third revision of his hallowed Revelation commentary. Again, no argument there.

But for your second point, you claim that I am taking things out of context, and also, smearing a person's name? 

This notion, of taking matters out of context, is laughable! Especially when one considers your group's use of scripture, and how you attempt to "spiritualise" your way out of every historical or contradictory error it makes. 

Seriously, let's take a look at Jesus alleged words that "this generation would not pass away" (Matthew 24:34) until everything he had said come to fruition. 

Mike's and your own "work-around" for this glaring and obvious fail, is to say that all of this is spiritual, and that Jesus didn't really mean what he said, when he said it. If one takes this to a logical conclusion, (and if your interpretation is true), then Jesus was lying to his listeners, or deliberately deceiving them. To deceive someone makes you a deceiver - does it not?

This work-around that you use, is the same used by the infamous Harold Camping, who, when shown up for the fruit-cake that he was, finally came out and said his (Jesus') return was "spiritual." Just like IWWB, Camping set up a moveable goal post and then pointed his readers/listeners towards this, because to take anything on face value, instantly discredits the bible as a reliable text. 

To further show how it is that you accomplish this deception, here is what Mike stated when asked specifically about this verse:
If you know what and where is heaven then this all makes perfect spiritual sense, because it all happens “in heaven”, within the hearts and minds of every man in every generation, who is given to understand that what he reads will indeed happen in “this generation” which is reading these words, and “understanding what he reads.“ Read What and Where is Heaven? on iswasandwillbe.com
Again, Mike points the reader to his own writings for "the truth" of the matter. He cannot provide a plausible, historically accurate response to the readers question, because there isn't one! Instead, he must play semantics and try and interpolate his own answer into the supposed "hidden" meaning of the scripture. 

But, apparently, it is I who take things out of context? Sure thing Steve.

As for the accusation that I smear a person's name, I think it's incredibly hypocritical of you to make that claim Steve. I have captured Mike bashing Billy Graham and the Pope, claiming they apparently want Jesus killed, IWWB vice-president Mitch Kuhn backstabbing a former member for searching out the truth apart from IWWB, and perhaps most damning of all, Mike railing against his own family members for not believing as he does, referring to them as being in rebellion, and agreeing with another acolyte that they are "vessels of dishonour."
You hide behind false names and fake characters of which you create whole fake lives out of, in order to try and infiltrate a FREE-to-JOIN email mailing list. This mailing list group consists of like-minded, yes, LIKE-MINDED believers in Jesus Christ, yet you think we should encourage the thinking you express on this blog.
Yes Steve, I have created several alias, in order to catch out Mike at his own game. 
One was a "Dr. Cartwright," and in this alias, I wrote to Mike and stated that my marriage was in trouble because of my adherence to his doctrine on "days, months, times and years." In fact, I stated to Mike that my fictional wife Peggy had left me because I wouldn't take part in Easter. 

Mike's counsel to Dr. Cartwright was to let the marriage go in favour of following the teaching of Mike Vinson. That, to me, and to any rational person, speaks volumes about your little cult-group Steve. That you would elevate the teaching of Mike above a person's marriage is reprehensible, and yet, this is precisely what took place. What God has joined, let not man separate appears to be yet another scripture that IWWB unknowingly discredit, and hang themselves with.  

But all the same, thanks for the heads up. I think I will probably publish the Dr. Cartwright letters at some point. Stay tuned!

Re "like-minded" believers, that is simply another way of spinning your groups promotion of what is actually termed "group think." Group think is very typical of cult-groups. 

The Wikipedia article on group think (link above) states the following: 
Loyalty to the group requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking... 
This group adherence, and the loss of independent thinking is precisely what I was subjected to while I was in IWWB. To think for oneself is to be seen as being outside the "one mind" of Jesus Christ, which yourself and Mike claim to possess. 

You have created a blog dedicated just to “exposing” another site and a man for things YOU don’t believe in and of which you distort the information you find. Anyone can read on their own by visiting http://www.iswasandwillbe.com and we hide NOTHINGWe hold PUCLIC bible studies each day of the week in various formats and everything is in the open in that regard.
Yes, this blog exposes IWWB for all to see. No argument there. 

You say that you hide "NOTHING." Sorry Steve, but this assertion of yours is false. 

Here are several screen grabs which show that IWWB have certain information that is only available to membership, in a secret society type fashion:









Again, given this, I would have to question the boldness of your statement: "we hide NOTHING." 


Your mailing list is subject to approval, and my alias Dr. Cartwright was removed from off of this mailing list for asking basic questions, as was another brother, John near Boston. 
The only explanation Vinson gave for removing my alias was the following: "your questions demonstrate that you are not one of us." The cult-esque overtones of Mike's statement appear to be obvious to all but yourself, and others within the confines of IWWB.

There was no 2nd admonition, or anything of that nature as Vinson frequently claims he does with every soul in his fellowship. Vinson got around this by saying "he (Dr. Cartwright) was never in our fellowship, just on the mailing list…" Ahem… How very convenient!
You are disgruntled and obviously have an agenda, but before you post things about another site to “EXPOSE” things you don’t understand, please consider telling the truth and doing a little research before you post such nonsense. Sincerely, Steven Crook
Note that Steven refuses to bless me, his spiritual enemy, as Jesus instructs him to do? The best he can muster is "sincerely." Weak. And again, we see the poor attempt of imputing motive in an effort to character assassinate me and dispel anything of value on this blog. 

In a moment of double-speak, Steve wants me to "consider telling the truth." Ironically Steve, that is the purpose of this entire blog. To tell the truth about Mike and his IWWB cult-group to any and all who will take the time to evaluate the information I present.

And apparently I "don't understand." Despite being in the Mike Vinson circle of trust for approx. 6 years, I really don't get how it works! Makes perfect sense.

Of course. It's much easier for Steve to say this, rather than admit that I've seen the fatal flaws in IWWB and have chosen a path that is truly free. Free from group-think, free from a former  WWCoG man and his bizarre doctrines, and free from a magic book that purports to hold all of the answers to life's questions. 

As the saying goes, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

4 comments:

  1. bill you never cease to disappoint...lol. meaning remind me not to be your enemy. serious question are you a writer? I love how they never challenge you on the factx its always some side issue or some ambiguous statement that means nothing. Mike and company sure do you do a good job at making your job easier that I can say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Steve! Great to hear from you. Am I a writer? Not as a such, I probably could have been if I wanted to but never pursued it professionally.

      I should clarify, I don't see Steve Crook as my enemy. He is probably a really decent guy but he hides behind the apron skirts of Mike and IWWB… When I was in IWWB, he rarely, if ever, had any time to communicate with me, even though I sent several emails, chats etc his way.

      Interestingly, when I was being secretly elbowed out the door for challenging Father Mike on his "days, months, times and years" doctrine in late 2010, Steve all of a sudden, out of the blue, began to write to me, telling me how wrong I was about everything and defending Mike to the last.

      I am told by others that know Mike and Steve more closely that Steve Crook has a co-dependant relationship with Mike and Sandi, and that at one point, he called Sandi "mom" and she referred to him as "son."

      He claims he is not following a man, but it is obvious for all to see that he is following Mike. If you removed Mike from Steve's life, I dare say he'd crumble.

      Back then, as he does now, Steven was not able to address anything in the argument, but instead, threw up side issues in an effort to try and discredit me.

      These guys cannot address the serious issues, so they don't even try to. Personally, I find them to be incredibly weak-minded and like all bullies, when you stand up to them, they run and hide and you see them for who they really are.

      God bless you Steve.

      Delete
  2. I think you're right and I think the one elongated word that best describes IWWb is cult of personality, and truthfully speaking I fell for it hook line and sinker until Mike proved himself by his fruit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fell for it too mate… There is no shame in admitting you have been deceived. The shame is to bury your head in the sand and act like nothing is wrong, or fail to speak out and warn other people.

      I hope this blog forewarns other people. Ignorance is not a virtue!

      Delete