Thursday, 3 April 2014

Vinson Revising The Revelation Commentary - Again

EDIT - IWWB elder Steve Crook has made me aware that Mike is not revising the Revelation commentary for the third time around. Please see this post for an update.

I am leaving the rest of the post below untouched as there are still many questions to answer as it pertains to Mike and IWWB having the "one mind" of Jesus Christ, and many points below still stand, and are valid.


Despite Mike Vinson's repeated assertion that he and his group of lackeys really do possess the "one mind of Jesus Christ," Vinson has come out and admitted in the most recent bible study (on the spiritual significance of the ass, ironically) that he is going to be revising the Revelation teaching series. 

Quite honestly, I think Mike ought to just throw the towel in here. This is a teaching series that has its foundation in Mike and another brother (Rob Jones) declaring themselves the world over, "sinless," specifically stating: "we no longer commit sin," amongst a world of other one-line head-shakers. 

When he was taken to task on this commentary, Vinson, instead of humbly and contritely admitting he'd made serious errors (read: sinned) turned around, and pointed the finger at his critics, accusing them of jealousy for working with a recent convert. Hilarious. You really can't make this stuff up. If you're so inclined, you can read more about this HERE

Note this screen grab, courtesy of "WayBack Machine," internet archive which shows Mike's original Revelation commentary, as it began to appear on his website:

You may click the image to enlarge it, but the opening paragraph states the following:
Rob Jones has spent many hours on the phone with me. Together we have accumulated many of the verses which give the symbols of the book of Revelation their force and meaning. As we can find the time, we will be going through the Unveiling Of Jesus Christ chapter by chapter. Coming to see where the symbols come from and what they mean will give the entire Bible new meaning.The Lord will probably return before we get to chapter 22, but we will just do what we can as we can. This is a never before published approach to this book. I pray that God will give us the opportunity to make this available to all as a witness to "the testimony of Jesus Christ."

Hah! Hilarious stuff really. 

All the same, to my knowledge, this new swing at things will be the THIRD such revision of the hallowed Revelation commentary. His first attempt was in partnership with another brother (Rob Jones, see above) and ended with Mike splitting from a long time associate, L. Ray Smith.

His second revision became a long winded teaching series where at one point, Mike praised the contributions of his associate Rob Jones who helped him pen such nonsense as the following: 
  • Yes, that’s right. When Christ is ruling with a rod of iron along with His elect during the millennial reign, he is preparing the rest of the world’s population for utter destruction
  • Yes, Christ is actually saying he will kill his elect with death
  • We, the elect, don’t make friends with those of the world or church because we know that people who do are the enemy of God 

These one-liners were NEVER publicly repented of but were instead, swept under the carpet as Mike set about playing the victim and trash-talking Ray Smith behind his back while claiming that he was "silent as a lamb" in the face of persecution.

But more to the point, this admission that he now needs to go back and revise the Revelation commentary for the 3rd time, or really, revise anything else, is a direct contradiction of the claim that he and his elders possess the one mind of Jesus Christ. 

If Mike did truly possess the one mind of Christ, and he were truly tapped into the truth to the exclusion of all others, (as he claims!) then there would be absolutely no need to go back and revise anything. After all, if he is receiving the truth from Christ as he has said many times, then how could he possibly be teaching anything in error, or need to go back and realign something he taught previously? 

Alas, Mike has once more revealed himself to be the forked tongue spiritual leader that he always has been. 

Here is Mike's candid admission, along with the transcript underneath:

"Now next week, we're going to start the book of Revelation. This is the end of the series on animals and we're going to start the book of Revelation. And of course thats going to be something that ah, that we started, did sometime back, and we're going to have to redo it because, we just weren't as mature as we needed to be at that time, and the Lord worked all that out. But we see now that this book is entirely a book about Christ, spiritually - not physically. In these past few years we've had a much deeper understanding of what it means to compare spiritual things with spiritual. So when we get started next week, we're going to understand a whole lot more about what everything in this book is…"
So as you can see, Vinson fails his own lofty self-imposed standards. He seems to be ignorant of what he is doing here, to an almost bizarre point. Wilful denial perhaps?

Consider what Mike has said while reading the following, lifted directly off the IWWB website, on a page titled "Is It Really Possible To Be, One In Spirit, With One Mind."
Select phrases that are highlighted, are my own doing.
At a conference in Indianapolis a few years ago, a brother asked me in front of the whole congregation if there is any way to know for certain that he and I were not just as deceived right now, as we were when we thought we knew the Truth, back when we were both in the World Wide Church of God. At first I simply reminded him that we see things now that we did not see or understand back then. I told that brother that what we now see and believe answers many more of our questions and is based upon scripture, whereas what we believed in the WWCG has been proven, in large part, to be totally false. “But we thought it was based on scripture when we were in the WWCG”, was his response. “But it wasn’t was it?” I asked. “Well no, but how can we be sure that what we believe now is not just as wrong, while we think it is right, as what we believed to be right back then?” This exchange went on way too long, as some of you who were there will no doubt agree. I feel sure some of you were probably thinking, “Why is Mike letting this go on so long? Why doesn’t he just tell the brother that it is not possible to prove the Truth to someone who admits he doesn’t know the Truth?” 
Well, I have never claimed to be the quickest mind in the world. I do not claim to be a great debater, nor do I want to or enjoy debating anyone. So what is the answer to that brother’s question? Can we know the Truth for certain?
The Lord finally gave me the Biblical answer to that brother’s question, and I will now share it with you. I asked him a simple question, “What are you saying, Brother? Are you saying that we cannot know for certain that we know the Truth? Is that your point?” I waited until he admitted that he really did not believe that it was possible for any of us to know for certain that what we now believe is any truer than what we thought to be the Truth in the WCG. He actually admitted that he did not believe that it was possible for us to know for certain that we are not just once more being deceived. At that point I told him “O. K. out of your own mouth you will be judged, because Christ has told us this…”
Mike then goes on to quote John 8:32 "you shall know the truth…" as though somehow, that proves and settles his argument. I also had to laugh at the circular and fallacious rhetoric used (apparently) by Mike's lackwit disciples - "why explain the truth to someone who doesn't think we can know it?" Well, wouldn't that be the whole point? To EXPLAIN your position so they may come to see the logic and the rationality of your argument? 
Of course, IWWB aren't dealing in anything provable or testable; rather their forte is speculative claims of the unknown, and unknowable. 

But as we've already seen here today in this one small example, Mike does not "know the truth" because if he truly did, there would be no need to revise his doctrine - EVER. The supposed truth would speak for itself.

So truthfully (yeah, pun there), what have we learned here? I'll tell you what I've taken away from this: it seems that Mike is simply a far more arrogant, and far more wilful denier than he was when he was back in the WWCoG. Rather than learning the life-lessons from the entire scenario of that time in his life, it seems that Mike is doomed to become a parody of Herbert W. Armstrong, just on a much smaller, more condensed scale.


  1. 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 and we hide NOTHING.

    We hold PUCLIC bible studies each day of the week in various formats and everything is in the open in that regard.

    You are disgruntled and obviously have an agenda, but before you post things about another site to “EXPOSE” things you don’t underdtand, please consider telling the truth and doing a little research before you post such none-sense.


    Steven Crook

    1. Hi there Steve. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Bravo my boy.

      I think it's best to address your points in a blog post. Suffice to say though, I see that you haven't addressed anything about the supposed "one mind" of IWWB / Mike Vinson and have also attempted to impute motive to myself.

      You say "we hide nothing." Sorry Steve, but that isn't true. I have screen grabs where specific posts, or questions are "password protected." Your mailing list requires approval first, where the acolyte must profess agreement to the doctrines of IWWB. Your new IWWB faces social media is by "invitation only."

      But you claim - "we hide NOTHING." Another lie Steve ol' boy.

      As I say, I'll thoroughly respond to this in a blog post and welcome the chance to clear matters up with an esteemed IWWB elder.

      You forgot to bless me, your spiritual enemy… Any reason?
      God bless you Steve!

    2. Please post my reply to your response here Bill. Thank you.

    3. Sorry, but No.

      Your "authority" only extends so far as IWWB Steve. It doesn't apply here, or in the real world.

      I won't be publishing your other reply because to be honest, it is fallacious and doesn't address any of the speculative claims you and Mike have made, except to quote scriptures which, like your "authority" only exist in your own mind.

      If you want to submit a considered, thoughtful reply to my latest post "The Crooked Serpent" then by all means do so on that blog post and it will be considered for approval.

      Consider this your first admonition.

    4. Hi again Steve. I await your rebuttal on the latest post titled "The Crooked Serpent," a play on words as it pertains to your name.

      You may comment here:

      I am also informed by Rick Olson that when you visited his house some years ago, you verbally agreed to purchase one of his hand-made banjos, but then later reneged.

      Here is what Rick states: Steve Crook came to my house and visited. He gave me his word to purchase one of my hand made banjo's. His word was no good. He never came through with any money!

      There you have it. If you, as the supposed "elect" can't stick to your word on a matter as basic as this, why should I trust anything you have to say at all? Doesn't this discredit you as having "the truth" when you obviously didn't see fit to honour your word to another brother?

      You need to wake up to yourself Steve, and pull your head out of Mike's rear end. But I believe you are too insecure in yourself to do that.

      Anyway, I await your rebuttal on the latest blog post.

  2. bill it is true that Mike did repent after the 'i'm sinless deal', however reluctant he was to do it. but when you believe that you were only sins are 'breaking the speed limit sometimes',as Mike told me, it becomes really easy to lie to yourself when you got a hundred people telling you how wonderful you are. Mike knows what he's done and like us all will be judged according to our works. I just can't believe Steve would send you an email in the open like that you must really touched a nerve, and cost them some viewers to the 'broadcasts' did you see the copyright notices they have over there now after Mike railed against Paul Crouch and the rest of them for doing that... unreal. don't get me wrong I still love Mike and pray for his repentance but the truth is the truth.

    1. Hey Steve, thanks for the comment again.

      I do realise that Mike "repented" after the failure of the original Revelation commentary. He didn't refer to it as a sin though, he called it "a mistake" which I feel was deliberate on his part.

      However, my opinion (and that's all it is) is that Mike realised he wasn't going to be able to get away with coming out and stating outright that he is sinless. So he retracted that part of the commentary, and his public repentance was based around that line. As far as I know, he never really touched on anything else in the commentary when he made his public apology, but rather, he went to great lengths to make sure that everyone knew he no longer considered himself "sinless."

      But if you go back and re-read some of the original commentary, you will find all throughout that Mike says "sin no longer has dominion" over him.

      I caught him out re-stating this in 2011, and then again in 2012.

      If you think about what that means, to say that "sin no longer has dominion " over you, what you are saying is that sin doesn't control you, and that you are its master. It's just a very underhanded way of stating that you no longer sin, and more to the point, it provides Mike and easy escape clause if he is taken to task on it.

      Yes, I have seen the copyright notices, and all of the other vain things that go in in that movement now. It has declined incredibly since the days when I, and you were involved.

      At one point, Mike had his elders declare that "wages were due" and he also said that he was entitled to "double honour, both physically and spiritually."

      Again, there was blow-back over this so Mike did his victim play-act and placed the blame on another guy who he said was "the driving force behind that study."

    2. Just to be clear, here are the audios of Mike stating that sin no longer has dominion over him. I don't say these things without having the evidence to back it up.

      Copy and paste into your browser:

      And if you want to hear the teaching on money that was later retracted, you can copy and paste this into your browser:

      Mike later tried to say he was a "reluctant contributor" but as you listen to him rubber-stamping the whole thing, it's hard to believe he is anything but approving of the entire teaching from start to finish.

      Thanks :)

  3. you're exactly right about him using the word mistake he did it deliberately I recall when he said that. and notice also he wasn't brought before the elders of the church like he claims they do meticulously. the whole days months and times is just an out working of this sinless doc. as wayne and I have discussed...iow look at how I don't sin by not keeping holy days. days just happen to be in the forefront cause I called Steve Creek on the paper he wrote about it which started this whole thing. in essence he's saying that he's perfect other than breaking the speed limit of course.

    1. Good points Steve.

      You are correct, he wasn't taken before the elders (there were none - right?) when this happened and also, he received far more than the legalistic 2 admonitions he now proscribes to others. When he was called on it, he refused to repent and claimed that he didn't sin, and that the paper on Revelation was valid, and correct.

      Mike is far from perfect. If I recall correctly, the sin of pride is on the 7 deadly sins list. Mike is as prideful as one can get. And as for gluttony, well, I have seen with my own eyes overweight people fellowshipping in IWWB.

  4. I tried posting that musta got lost when it was loading. in a nutshell basically I said the sunless tanning and the days not sometimes things are correlated because Mike is basically saying that he's just so perfect he's passed that 'baby stage' hand in essence is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, how loving right. the whole while not understanding that not keeping days is the exact same as keeping days. not understanding that nothing of itself is unclean. you need to pull out some of them old copyright quotes I guess Mike needs his broadcasts protected , i guess he thinks God isn't enough protection he needs the US you can't make this stuff up.

    1. Yeah mate I got your comment. I have comment approval activated to avoid spammers and the like.

      Agreed on what you're saying!

      In my opinion, the whole "days" thing was Mike culling the fellowship of people he couldn't control. He wants to be the centre of attention and he wants people in the fellowship that he can manipulate. If you stand up to Mike, he will just cut you off and no longer speak to you. He also likes to accuse people, just like someone else in the bible.

      Have a think about it… He accuses people and also, if you resist Father Mike, or an IWWB member, he/they will flee from you.

  5. forgot to say to that I agreed with your comment on him using mistake as opposed to sin. I recall when he said that thinking to myself just call it what it was Mike.

  6. sorry about the typo I know you know what I was saying the stupid talk to text drives me crazy.well there were defectoelders if Mike thought you were worthy of being able to teach that fact that made you elderly perse. you're right about the whole pride thing not that we all can't be prideful but the whole thing stemmed from him initially agreeing and then me finding out a month later and I'll talk to you did callex one mind that basically booted me from fellowship without being man enough to say it to my face even after he said we would talk again. I got the message, this tactic seems to be his mo with everybody else is well. and he just flat out lies saying that everyone got the Matthew 18 treatment nevermind that he actually agreed with me when we got off the phone so I got zero adminitions.