Institute of Divine
Metaphysical Research®

How Can We Help?
< All Topics


Early 1974

Meeting at 3407 West 21st St., Los Angeles, California

at the request of Alfonso Maclin

Present at the meeting:

Dr. Kinley (founder and dean emeritus)

Dr. Gross (president)

Dr. Harris (International dean and vice president)

Dennis Droulard (Superintendent)

Gary Mathess (Public Relations)

Alfonso Maclin (dean of the Chicago branch)

The 90 minute cassette recording was received from Lee Warren or the Chicago Branch school during the mid 1980’s.  It was their tape number 29. 

Transcribed by Geraldine Rothstein  April 16, 1994.

Approved by International Public Relations Committee – May 1994

Transcriber’s notes:  Pause words, such as:  ah, you see what I mean, you follow, you understand etc were left out of the transcription unless emphasized for the sake of comprehensibility of the reader.

___ stands for a word or syllable which was not understood while transcribing


Page           Topic

2 – 7, 23 ………….  Correspondence between Alfonso Maclin and Dr. Harris

4 – 9 ……………… Doctrinal writings by class members

4 – 7, 12 ………….  Elohim the archetype original pattern of the universe

4 – 21 …………….. Adam

17 – 19 ……………  Don’t move ahead of the cloud

17 – 19…………….  Astroprojection as a correlation

19 – 21…………….  Purpose of Yahweh (condensed)

21 – 23…………….  Evangelism


Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________

Page:       Subject _________________________________________________


Dr. Harris: … upon at this time that Dr. Maclin called me from Chicago and requested a meeting with Dr. Kinley and myself.  And Dr. Kinley requested that I also invite Dr. Dennis Droulard, Dr. Gary Mathess, and our president – Dr. Carl F. Gross to this meeting.  On January the eighteenth 1974 I received this letter from Dr. Maclin.  It says:

Dear Dr. Harris:

Greetings in the bonds of peace, grace, love, mercy, peace and joy for Yahweh our father through his blessed son, Yahshua the Messiah.  Enclosed is a paper entitled “The Adamic Transgression.”  This particular subject in certain perspectives has caused a major controversy.  This is the reason why I have been inspired to write about it in order to reconcile all differences due to this particular controversy.  A definite, specific, conclusive judgement is requested.  Please analyze this writ polytechnically and in doing so please answer in writing all necessary corrections.  This decision must come through your office due to reluctance and the nonacceptation from lower offices on other subjects.  Also please give a copy of this writ to Dr. Kinley and please ask him if he would give specific comments to be included with your answer.  I am humbly requesting a response regarding this matter as soon as possible, as it is necessary to bring about reconciliation for iniquity.  Thanking you in advance for your full cooperation in response to my request.

                                                                                                Your brother eternally

                                                                                                Dr. Alfonso Maclin

Now on February the sixth 1974 after allowing Dr. Kinley to read this paper entitled, “The Adamic Transgression” and also Dr. Gross read it and I read it myself.  We got together and wrote a letter back to Dr. Alfonso Maclin which I’ll read to you.  Now I can understand that you may not realize why these particular points are made in regards to this paper since you haven’t, two of you have not read this paper.  But anyway we’ll go ahead and read the letter that we sent back to him.

February 6, 1974                  

Dear Dr. Maclin:

I received your letter and your paper entitled, “The Adamic Transgression” a few days ago and according to your request that I reply as soon as possible I am herewith submitting my analysis of your paper.  I’ve also complied with your request that Dr. Kinley analyze this paper and his comments are embodied as one with mine.  I certainly hope that there is peace and accord there in your branch school and what differences that might exist be cleared up as soon as possible so that all might be fully prepared for the soon to be revelation of Yahshua the Messiah from heaven.  I cannot over emphasize the importance and urgency of this reconciliation of one with another in Yahshua the Messiah.  Overall your paper was good and it is apparent that much study and preparation went into getting it into type.  You deserve our commendation; however, there are certain discrepancies and      irregularities that tend to subtract from this work ___ and we are enumerating these along with examples and corrections with the hope that you would accept these criticisms in the spirit of brotherly love in Yahshua the Messiah.

1.     You captioned your paper “The Adamic Transgression.”  This is in error, for as the apostle Paul wrote “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”  I Timothy 2:14.  A better caption would be “The Edenic Transgression.”

2.     You made statements which can be challenged by those versed in the contents of the Bible, for example:  “the reason why this is important is that the Mystery of Iniquity, which caused the fall of Adam, is an invisible spirit creature”  (page 1 line 12) whereas Adam’s fall was simply caused by his disobedience to the commandment of Yahweh Elohim.  Genesis 2:13, 14; Genesis 3:11, 17; and Romans 5:19.  Another example you stated on page 1 line 28 “the rebellion against this name Yahshua the Messiah caused the expulsion of Adam from the Garden.”  Here again the Bible shows that disobedience to the commandment of Yahweh caused the expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden.  Genesis 3:17-24.

3.     You made other statements which are obvious biblical quotes but you did not designate them as such and thereby give the reader the impression that they are your statements; for example: “remember without faith it is impossible to please Yahweh or he that comes to Yahweh must believe that he is and he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him.”  page 1 line 10.  Another example:  “this would produce faith, which is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.”  page 1 line 16.  Another example:  “remember there is none other name under heaven given whereby we must be saved neither is there salvation in any other name saving the name Yahshua the Messiah.”  page 1 line ___

4.     You made a reference to “the true son of Yahweh in righteousness and the true son in perdition” page 1 line 20.  Such a reference is definitely misleading and ambiguous for it is possible for one to get the idea that the true son of Yahweh was righteous and also in perdition.  You should have specified that the son of perdition was Satan or the devil.  John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3.

Yours in Yahshua the Messiah

Robert Harris, MD ___ ___

Dr. Harris:  Now, evidently it’s in, in regard to this letter that Dr. Maclin is here.  I’ll turn this meeting over to him now to make whatever comments that he would like to make in regards to why he wanted to come to Los Angeles to talk to us about Alfonso Maclin:  Let me have the letter doc.  The reason why I wanted to come is because we’ve made recent changes in our executive staff back in the state of Illinois, of which I have not forwarded a copy of these changes to the executive branch here as yet.  Dr. James Thompson has been chosen as the or appointed as the director of technical writing in the state of Illinois.

Dr. Harris: What’s what?

Alfonso Maclin: The director of technical writing, in other words, if any particular pamphlets are written for the state of Illinois or if anybody else chooses to write anything in regards to a fly paper or a leaflet or something like that, that’s in regard to doctrine then he is the one that will check it and scrutinize it with my final approval.  Now in doing this, in that whatever we put out that is a matter of life and death, then we would want to be absolutely sure as to what we’re putting out in reference to doctrine.  Now, in as much as, in as much as this is going to be done and in receiving the experience that I have in reference to the corrections on this paper, which I asked Dr. Harris for and I appreciate; however there are some questions that I have on the corrections.  Now I stated in the paper that

Dr. Kinley: Can I interrupt you?  I think it’s necessary to interrupt you at this point.  To proceed without a correction in its proper place is out of order I should say.  Now anything that any of the schools put out so far as writing according to the doctrine it should be submitted to the General Council here in California before it is put out in the state, simply for oversight it, and look at it, so that it will not be out of harmony with what we preach in the school.  So I suggest if you say that he has been appointed technical writer and all like that for the state of Illinois and that with your final approval I think that it should be extended on to the General Council here for final approval before it is adopted and put out in the state.

Alfonso Maclin:  That was right in order with what I’m saying here that was one of the points that I was gonna get to as I proceeded.  This is one of the reasons why I sent this paper, you know, to the state.  Now this paper was written before he was appointed in the position, but now in, in as much as the corrections that are state in the letter, which was not fully comprehended on my part;  this is the reason why I wanted to come here and get full assurance and better clarifications to the corrections so that whatever I write is a part of me and I would naturally be teaching it out there.  And I would want to be correct in what I was teaching and that is the reason why I came here:  to receive counsel on further necessary corrections.

Dr. Harris: Can I just say this, this might save you a lot of time as far as getting an understanding is concerned.  Now the criticisms or corrections that we made in regard to this paper, personally on my part, nor Dr. Kinley’s, were  intended as a lack of understanding on your part.  I think when you are, you’re writing you have to be polytechnical about everything that you say.  Dr. Kinley is a witness to this more so than I am.  When we were writing the first edition of the book and the 2nd edition of the book, sometimes it would take him three or four days to phrase one sentence.  Is that right?

Dr. Kinley:  That’s right.

Dr. Harris: Because every word is important, because somebody that’s reading that (you may know what you want to say) but the way the thing is written, it may give a different impression to the one that read it, so consequently you have to be real careful about how you make statements.  And the corrections we made on the paper were more from that standpoint, that the expressions you made were made in a way that might be a misconception about what you meant.  I believe that you and I know this.  You know better yourself, that it’s the way that you stated that makes the difference.  Now in the paper there, for instance you mention time and time again Adam was not deceived but Eve was in the transgression ___ reconcilable nature.  Now I know you know that but the paper is captioned “The Adamic Transgression,” so consequently that was one of the criticisms that we made.  And the quote that you made, every time you make a biblical quote, it should be listed as such that that’s where that quote is coming from or that expression is coming from, because somebody familiar with the Bible and you have not given credit to where quotation comes from, then they may think that you’re trying to take credit for it having made that yourself and such things like that.

Alfonso Maclin: I think that this teaches me that I should have clarified better, this particular writ was really not to be going out to anybody else, but we had a controversy on it back there in the state as I said in the paper.  And it was written to this extent, that whatever discrepancies were ___ ___ as being taught could be reconciled here at the executive branch here in the state of, of California and forwarded back to Illinois.  Now what I had promised the people was, I said, “Well what I’ll do, is that I’ll write a letter to go along with the writ requesting corrections.  Then what I’ll do is get xerox copies of the answers from Dr. Harris, give anybody a writ and furnish everybody with all necessary information so that we can be reconciled with what was going on.”  But now when I received this particular letter back there was some things that I didn’t understand and I’m not here to argue on any basis.  I want to be clear on what I’m doing, to receive direction in whatever areas that I’m teaching in, so that we all will be in harmony, in other words, we claim all the time that Illinois, New York, Ohio, and California.  One claim that we make about this school is that we all teach the same thing.  And that is my primary reason for being here.  Now anyway, in as much as the technicalities upon the way the thing that is expressed, one question I’d like to ask please, to get a clarification on is this:  and that is the caption.  Now first I’d like to read just a line from this paper:  “Yahweh Elohim appeared to Moses and the prophets, then to John on the Island of Patmos and last of all to the writer of Elohim the Archetype Pattern of the Universe.  The latter spoken of is the initiating principle of what is contained in this writ.”  In other words the only thing that I could put in this paper was what I read and understood from the book and what I have been taught since I’ve been in this school.  Now I make some references:  this title was taken from page number 14, volume 4 in Elohim the Archetype Pattern of the Universe.  It also is used on page 9, volume 2, paragraph 2 of the same book.  Now this is why I used the caption because I saw it in the book.  Now when we had the controversy.  The controversy was as to whether Adam was a transgressor or whether he broke the law, whether he was involved in the transgression.  That was the controversy.  Now the reason why the controversy came up was because the book so states that Adam as, Adam disobeyed the law of Yahweh and died, as the Israelites disobeyed the law of Yahweh and died.  And it said in fact, in fact that Adam sinned and broke the law.  Now I understand the perspective, and the allegory and the context in which the book is written in, to show forth principles but now the perspective that I was trying to get across to the brother was, that Adam as a son of Yahweh in righteousness, being a figure of him that was to come, laid down his life for his bride and was not deceived and the scriptures so show that he was numbered with the transgressors, not that he was a transgressor, but that he was numbered with the transgressors.  Now then when I caption the paper “The Adamic Transgression,” it was a phrase that I coined that it was the mystery that is illustrated on the 40 plate chart that we use in class, it’s on the 40 plate chart in this book, and it is used in expressions, one of the captions “Is there Life after Death” and also it’s used in the explanation of the expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden.  And I just couldn’t understand why the paper was captioned wrong and was in error, when in fact the chart is labeled as such.  So I would, would like a clarification on that if I could get it.

Dr. Kinley: That’s my indispensable duty to clarify that.

Alfonso Maclin: Alright      

Dr. Kinley: Now there is expressions and I told you when we were writing the letter

Dr. Harris: Right.

Dr. Kinley: I was the one that brought it up.

Dr. Harris: Right.

Dr. Kinley: And I said that we do and have used it many times

Dr. Harris: Right.

Dr. Kinley: In the book and on, on the floor.

Dr. Harris: Right.

Dr. Kinley: It’s out there on the charts and all.  They’re just wrong, definitely wrong.  Now that’s the clarification of it.  Now not that Adam didn’t sin.  He did sin.  He did disobey, that was in the book, I mean in the Bible, I’m talking about, but you see his disobedience was, it’s not like people would, would think.  In other words, all sin or transgression, or sin is a transgression of the law, that’s what sin is.  I don’t have a way to fix that, but now I have to explain it as it is in the Bible to keep the other fellow off of me, as I probably should do, which we have not done, that’s clear.  And so therefore when you asked for that information then I proceeded to correct and to rectify it myself, even though I did possess the knowledge that’s it’s been often used and all the way around in the school, but it’s, it’s wrong just the same.  How about that!

Alfonso Maclin: That’s, that’s fine.  As long as, I just want to get it from headquarters as to what it is.  Now Dr. Peter Goudeau, which is the director of visual aid production, is making a 40 plate chart.  Now am I in order to tell him that when he gets to plate number 15, on that chart should we put as a caption Edenic transgression instead of Adamic transgression.

Dr. Kinley: Well, it would be better to, to say that.  I think that’s what you said in the script, didn’t you Dr. Harris.

Dr. Harris: Right, right.

Dr. Kinley: It would be better to do it that way than to put it as it is on the 40 chart.  I, I want to make another correction here too.  We have had to correct a whole lot of mistakes and errors.  There is, Dr. Dennis probably realizes that more so than I do, a whole lot of errors is in the first volume and also in the second volume.  Is that right?

Dennis Droulard: Well over 200.

Dr. Kinley: Well over 200, but the real thing about it is this.  What we want to do, that brings me up to a place where I want to make a statement to you.  Now I noticed and I followed you close yesterday in everything that you said.  And I approved everything that you said.  And the reason why I did is because you’ve taken it from the Bible.  You took it as it was laid down in the Bible.  In your comment that you wrote here, or this letter that you wrote here.  I’ll point out one, that hasn’t been brought up yet.  About the, the reason why that Adam had sinned in the garden or was wrong was on the account of the name.  There was something said about it.  I don’t remember the exact words.

Alfonso Maclin: That’s in the letter.

Dr. Kinley: I have to know what it said now.  Tell me what it said.

Alfonso Maclin: I’ll read this again:  “To proceed further with our explanation of the Adamic transgression there are many called upon for us to remember.  Remember there is none other name under heaven given whereby we must be saved, neither is there salvation in any other name, saving the name of Yahshua the Messiah.  The rebellion against this name caused the expulsion of Adam from the garden.  Yahshua’s name represents understanding, wisdom, knowledge, obedience” etc.

Dr. Kinley: That’ll do.  That’ll do.  Now Adam knew nothing if you’re gonna take the 6th chapter of Exodus.  Yahweh himself said that they didn’t know his name.  So if they said that he didn’t, that if he said they didn’t know him, his name, then that’s making him ___ deceive himself.  Now that brings me right back to, to where were at a while ago about the edenic or adamic transgression.  Now listen sin is a transgression of the law.  Disobedience to the law is a transgression, but now for the sake of somebody understanding because they read in the Bible and everything they can think of bringing up against what you’re saying, you must defend yourself in, in the scriptures.  Now let me say this.  If someone else, just like A. B. Traina’s book or Bible, Holy Name Bible, now it will make statements in there, different than what’s in the King James Version of the Bible.  So now what you must do, you’ll either use one or the other in order to be in harmony with some biblical statements or what is written in the scriptures.  Do you understand what I mean?  Now if you don’t do that, then somebody will come and jump on you.

Alfonso Maclin: That’s right.

Dr. Kinley: They’re gonna say you teach erroneous doctrine.  Now I’ll give you another point ___ right on that score.  I think it’s in John.  It says no man hath ascended up to heaven save he that came down from heaven.

Dr. Harris: John 3:13

Dr. Kinley: That’s right, and it says which is in heaven.  Now A. B. Traina say this:  says which, instead of saying is in heaven meaning present tense, he says was in heaven.  Now that changes the complexion of it altogether.  Well now if you was gonna write something and you was gonna refer to it in his book, then you have to put it as he has it in his book.

Alfonso Maclin: I see. I get the point now. Alright.

Dr. Kinley: If you were gonna write, and write it as a King James quote then you’re gonna put it as the King James has it in there. That’s why we say King James or the other different Bibles, or quotes that are taken from that.  Now did I clear it.

Alfonso Maclin: Yes, you did.  And I think that it answers most of the questions that I had about the corrections, because as I said before, most of the things that I wrote about were taken from the book.

Dr. Kinley: Yes. I, I realize that, at least I follow you.

Alfonso Maclin: And I should have, if I was gonna write it, quote the entire sentence structure and state there the page and the volume or what have you in the paper so that it would be known where the information

Dr. Kinley: That’s right.

Alfonso Maclin: Is coming from.

Dr. Kinley:  That’s right. 

Alfonso Maclin: Now, for example, to clarify what I’m saying (I’ll take it from the letter here) it says, “you make statements that can be challenged by those versed in the contents of the Bible.”  In other words, “the reason why this is important is that the mystery of iniquity, which caused the fall of Adam, is an invisible spirit creature,’ page 1 line 12, whereas Adam’s fall was simply caused by his disobedience”

Dr. Kinley: Just a minute there.  Can I …

Alfonso Maclin:  um hum

Dr. Kinley: Now what you just said there with the remainder of the sentence.  Read it, repeat it again and I’ll stop you.

Alfonso Maclin:  The reason why this is important is that the mystery of iniquity

Dr. Kinley: Right there.  The mystery of iniquity.  Now you see Adam, he, there was no mystery of iniquity with him.  See he was not deceived.  So there couldn’t be no mystery of iniquity with him.  It was with the woman.  He knew well that, that what was said about him touching the tree and so forth and so on.  Nothing was said to the woman about trimming no trees or looking after the garden, nothing like that.  She didn’t have a delegation or responsibility there, as far as the keeping of the garden is concerned.  You follow what I mean? 

Alfonso Maclin: Um hum, but I have a question.

Dr. Kinley: Shoot

Alfonso Maclin: Suppose what makes the difference is the complete quotation, because I took this from an excerpt on page 14 and it’s probably what makes the difference.  I just want to get it clarified, because this is (page 14 volume 4) and it’s under the caption of the fall of lucifer and then Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.   “After Elohim had finished the physical creation, this evil, invisible Angelic Creature (lucifer) entered the Garden of Eden, and Moses referred to him as the ‘Serpent’ in Genesis 3:1 as follows:  ‘Now the SERPENT was more subtle than any beast of the field which Elohim had made.  And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath Elohim said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden?’ (Rev 12:9)”  I have a question about that too.  “The serpent appearing in this condition or (apparitional) form, in the earthly Most Holy Place (Garden of Eden), near the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Lucifer (or the Serpent), DECEIVED Eve by persuading her to TOUCH and EAT OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD and EVIL and gave it to her husband (Gen. 2:16-17) which brought about the transgression and fall of Adam, and caused his expulsion from the Garden of Eden as shown in Plate 15, and compared to the Pattern, Plate Number 1, and also Plate Number 14.”  Now I can see my mistake in this because what I did is that, that I drew out a portion of this particular explanation and I just capsuled the statement and put it in the paper; whereas if I was gonna quote from the book, perhaps maybe I should have taken the whole expression and included the woman in it so that one could understand what I was talking about.

Dr. Kinley: Yes, you see it was pointing to the woman there, not the man, in the third chapter of Genesis (I mean being deceived and in the transgression.)

Alfonso Maclin: Um hum

Dr. Kinley: You follow what I mean?

Alfonso Maclin: Yes sir.

Dr. Kinley: Satan, the devil, asked her, I’ll put it that way.  What, what did he say?  He knew what Yahweh had said.  And she told him what Yahweh had said.  And he said “you shall not surely die,”  Now there could be a follow up on that, I don’t know whether I put it in the book or not.

Alfonso Maclin: Yes, it’s in there.

Dr. Kinley: Well I don’t know whether I did or not, because, it would be over here in what you call the New Testament or the other fellow calls the New Testament, in the 16th chapter I think it is or the 17th chapter of Matthew:  the expression from Peter, “ye shall not surely die or you shall die, ye shall die no death.”  or something like that.

Dr. Harris: The 16th doc

Dr. Kinley: 16th chapter. In what verse.  Well read it, read it so we can have, so we can have it as a recording.  Read it.  The reason why I’m talking ___ ___ the subject is: is because that it’s the same spirit in the garden back there, the same devil, not a new one, but the same devil, when Yahshua talked about dying or death, about how he was gonna be crucified and so forth and so on and Peter says you won’t die no death.  That was that same devil back there that said to Eve back there, “You, you won’t die.”  Now what verse is that?

Dr. Harris: The twenty second verse.  “Then Peter took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying, Be it far from Thee, Rabbi:  this shall not be unto Thee.” 

Dr. Kinley: Does it say about the death there?

Dr. Harris: No, it’s not in the Holy Name Bible .

Dr. Kinley:  ___ ___ ___ ___.  These quotes from one place or the another, often times I make them say what, what Bible you’re quoting from.  We don’t do it, we don’t do it half of the time like we should, but never the less it’s important.  I’ll say this too while I’m at it.  There’s millions, probably billions of people that don’t have the Holy Name Bible.  The majority of the people that have the Holy Name Bible that is know to us.  We have sent it to them.  We have bought it and sent it to em.  Now there may be some others that we don’t know anything about but I’m speaking primarily of the ministers and the important VIPs, but we do know those because we sent em to em.  And then, then this is the thing that we must all be conscious and realize at all times.  Be conscious of this.  The devil is saying and doing everything that he can do to impede and to tear up.  And now I want you to know this too.  Yahweh has given him power to do it with.  And he’s also given his ministers power and knowledge to ___ ___ to preach Yahweh and his ___ ___ ___.  Now just, let me, let me give you a piece of advice that I think will help you in time to come.  Now, these controversies that you have there in Chicago.  I don’t think it’s necessary to go to all this trouble about it.  I really don’t think its necessary.  Now, here’s why I don’t think it’s necessary.  You have a Bible there.  And I have a Bible there.  You have one there, just like we have here.  It will say the same thing.  One will say the same thing as the other.  Now where a problem can arise, is just like we said there about the Adamic transgression.  Now that can bring up a problem.  It has.  But the real truth about it is if you analyze it on down, analyze it on down – it was Adamic transgression cause sin is a transgression, or disobedience is a transgression.  Now he willfully did that.  Now I’ll say another thing too, right in conjunction with that, and this should be understood too:  Paul, I believe, says (might have to look in a commentary and find it, but Paul says that he was made to be sin for us, who did no sin.  He was made to be sin for us, that we may be the likeness of Elohim in him.  Now that’s in your Bible in Chicago.  It’s in everybody’s Bible all over the place.  And whenever these things come up and there should, there should and always going to be some kind of controversy.  Now for example it says the sons of god, I’ll put it like that, come to present, (in Job) to present them, the devil come also.  Now you are never gonna have no meeting but what the devil ain’t gonna be present.  And you are not gonna be able to satisfy him with your interpretations of the scriptures.  And he ain’t gonna, for example let’s put it like this:  Jesus said that (as though I’m talking about the King James Version), said:  that he come to fulfill.  The devil said he didn’t do that.  He said he come to institute.  You got a Bible.  There ain’t no need to write down or you don’t have to call us or go to unnecessary trouble to find out about that.  You got a book.  Take it and stand on it.

Alfonso Maclin:  Alright.

Dr. Kinley: So that’s the way to fix that, fix that.  But that will eliminate some of the problem and it will reconcile most of it than what it would be if you try to apply this and apply that, and apply the other, and interpret this and interpret that.  You’ll never be able to satisfy him, the devil.  He’s supposed to be a opposer and is always gonna be present.  So don’t expect, don’t expect this meeting or any other meeting to clear up things, cause it’s not gonna do it.  And remember this too,  we have just as much controversy here than you’ll ever have in Chicago.

Alfonso Maclin: Well now my main objective, as I said before, even though I have been raised up, I have not reached absolute perfection in my understanding and when I think I need some direction, I think that, that the only place that I can go is the source from whence I received it.  That’s why I’m here.  You know what I’m talking about?

Dr. Kinley: That’s correct, but the only thing I’m telling you is, now you said that you appeal to the source.  Now I’m saying to you as being the source, don’t put yourself to all that unnecessary trouble when you got a Bible.  Go on out there and knock em in the head and get it over with.

Alfonso Maclin: Alright.

Dr. Kinley: For example, it says that he’s was fulfilling and not instituting. Then he’s fulfilling and not instituting. Let him yell all he wants to about it, but that’s the way it is. You follow?

Alfonso Maclin: I follow. 

Dr. Kinley: You don’t have to come down here to see us or call us or write no letter about it.  Now, let me clear this up too.  Everything that Dennis, Dr. Dennis, just said, there’s how many was, in it, both volumes, number one and number two and there’s a ___ I think in this last volume.

Dennis Droulard: Over 200.  On the third page of this ___ volume in there.

Dr. Kinley: That’s right.  The very first page, right now, is an error.  Now here’s what I’m saying.  When it comes to infallibility and perfection in print, and so forth and so on, typographical errors and all like that and then statements like we just made there about the captions and all, even though they’re present up there on the chart.  Now it could, it could have been said around the other way, then it would have been in conjunction and in harmony with what you have written in the book, because what you have written in the Bible, Paul is explaining the thing.  What he’s intending to show is this:  he’s showing that the woman was deceived, not Adam, was in the transgression.  Then Adam disobeyed or sinned or transgressed, in that he simply’s taking that, on the account of his bride or on account of his wife.  Now that was in the purpose, that was in the plan to begin with.

Alfonso Maclin: Well, Dr. Kinley, is that a, can that be used or can it be understood as a paradox?

Dr. Kinley: Well, when you say a paradox.  A paradox is a thing that seems to be one way,  although it can taken as another.  That’s what a paradox is.  No, I wouldn’t say a paradox.  It could be used as such, but I wouldn’t use it as such, for this reason:  you have a full quotation in Romans 5:14 by the disobedience   (PAUSE IN THE TAPE. I CAN’T REALLY TELL IF ANYTHING WAS LEFT OUT.  THIS MAY HAVE BEEN THE END OF SIDE ONE OF HIS ORIGINAL TAPE)   disobedience that word disobedience is sufficient without going into a whole lot of preliminaries or paradox   (END OF SIDE 1 OF THE CASSETTE)  (BEGINNING OF SIDE 2 OF THE TAPE)  disobedience that word disobedience is sufficient, without going into a whole lot of preliminaries or paradoxes and so forth and so on.  It causes a long drawn out something or another,  more than likely you have a whole lot of errors in that and a whole lot of misunderstandings in the drawing out situation.  That’s what, that’s what we’re dealing with here now. 

Alfonso Maclin: Well, the reason why I’m asking this question, is that you taught us to be polytechnichal in our expressions and also in our analyzations

Dr. Kinley: That’s correct.

Alfonso Maclin: You taught us to do that.

Dr. Kinley: Yes, that’s right.

Alfonso Maclin: Now, it says that Adam, according to Luke 3:38, is a son of Yahweh.  Alright now, if you’re saying blatantly that he sinned and transgressed.  In that same particular quotation, it says that he is a figure of him that was to come.  Then if you just take it one way and he’s a figure of him that was to come, then you would make Yahshua the Messiah a transgressor. 

Dr. Kinley: Wrong. Listen here. Now I explained that. I’m gonna repeat.

Alfonso Maclin: Alright. 

Dr. Kinley: I said that Eve, Eve was in the transgression and Adam partaken of the fruit of the tree because of his bride.  And I go on and carry it on, take it back and showed you that, that was a thing that was even before the foundation of the world.  Yahweh knew what Adam was going to do, the woman.  And it was purposed for him to do what he’d done.  Now he was made to be responsible, I’m talking about the creator now.  He was made to be responsible, creator I’m talking about, for the things that he had created.  Created the man, told the man, and he was a figure of him that was to come.  Now Adam, I just made the expression a while ago, Adam partaken of the fruit of the tree.  Now that’s in disobedience.  He was told not to do that, but he did that on the account of his bride.  Now here’s the application of it.  Yahshua the Messiah, just made the expression a while ago, he was made to be sin for us, that we might be the likeness of Yahweh in him.  He’s made to be that sin sacrifice even before the foundation of the world.  He’s made to be that sin sacrifice even before the foundation of the world.  And it’s the only sacrifice that Yahweh will accept.  Now you, I could go ahead on and lay out a whole lot of stuff here about the prodigal son, but there’s no, but there’s no need of it.  Now you know how that is.  How he asked his father for his portion, and he gave his son, and then he went and spent it (the riotous living that he did), his fortune around, he made this, he made this that, he made the other, he made this, he made this that, ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___, you run out of gas.  Now then, he’s got to be responsible for his creation, for its restoration and redemption.  In other words, he has to take the responsibility on himself for what goes on.  Same thing, you got Nixon and the Watergate.  He didn’t probably create a whole lot of them things, but he’s got to take responsibility for it. 

Alfonso Maclin: Um hum. Cause he’s the head of it.

Dr. Kinley: And if he didn’t do it, then it’s dereliction of duty.  So anyhow you have to be responsible for it.  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ cause he made the man.   Yahweh Elohim made the man.  Now he’s got to be responsible for his redemption.

Dr. Gross: May I say this. I don’t see the Messiah made to be sin in the same respect as Adam.

Dr. Kinley: No, that’s right.

Dr. Gross: Adam disobeyed.

Dr. Kinley: That’s right.  It says there that he did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth, and that’s why John just didn’t want to baptize him, because he was not a sinner.  Now, you can’t take one sinner and make an atonement for the other.  You don’t do it that way.  You have to have a righteous man to accept the responsibility for it.

Alfonso Maclin: So you’re saying that Adam is a figure of him to come, he’s a figure of him that was to come. 

Dr. Kinley: Yes, Adam partaken of the fruit of the tree for, for the sake of his wife. In other words he took the responsibility on, on himself.

Alfonso Maclin: Now, Dr. Kinley, what, I have to be perfectly honest.  One thing that I don’t understand, is this:  if he’s a figure in one sense, you know, it would seem (and I want to take my assumptions out of it) that he would be a figure all the way.  Now here’s what I’m saying:  that if he willing partook of the sin for his bride, he willing died for her, went ahead and did what Yahweh said not to do, because of his instinctive love for his bride, being a figure of Yahshua the Messiah that was to come, that partook of our sins for us, he willingly died for us.  Now if that figure was, in that particular respect, then if Yahshua the Messiah was without sin even though he partake of the sin for us, it would seem like to me, the same would apply to Adam, if he’s a figure of him that was to come.

Dr. Gross: No ___ ___ ___ ___ being Adam died because he disobeyed the commandment, but the Messiah died to redeem Adam.  In other words Adam died and went down because of his bride, disobedience of the commandment not to touch of the tree.  The Messiah, he just, died and he was raised, first man Adam up, he was made to be sin, that is he come in the likeness of sinful flesh and went down into death to pick him up, but as far as him disobeying the commandment as Adam.  I don’t see that he did.

Alfonso Maclin: Well, is that right when I said in this paper at the end.  At the end, if you get it, it’s the next to the last paragraph “remember Adam as a son of Yahweh in righteousness was not deceived and was not a transgressor, but rather partook of the death of his offsprings that he might destroy him that had power of death, that is the devil.  Hebrews 2:14”  Now is that statement correct or ain’t it correct.

Dr. Gross: Adam died for the love for his wife, likewise the Messiah come and died for the love for his wife, for Israel, but the Messiah came down and was made to be sin in order to redeem Adam, through, by disobedience of the commandment, died.  But to say that the Messiah disobeyed the commandment and died, he was made to be sin.  I don’t see how you could say that.

Dr. Kinley: No, he didn’t disobey,

Dr. Gross: That’s right.

Dr. Kinley: He obeyed, I mean Yahshua the Messiah, he obeyed

Dr. Gross: And really Adam obeyed in disobeying and bringing it down

Dr. Kinley: And that’s the cardinal point right there.  Now Adam, that’s why, that’s why the subject matter is so technical.  When you say the Adamic transgression, that takes the things right there out of context, without an explanation; so it’s just better to use it in a different sense, as Paul uses it in Romans 5, in the 5th chapter of Romans, “by disobedience of one man sin entered,” and he’s talking about the Adamic sin or disobedience.  Now let’s say this too, while we’re after it.  The probabilities are, this is something that, it just hasn’t come out in the wash yet and it’s probably a little bit hard to see.  Now, Yahshua the Messiah was the word of Yahweh himself, and he was a son.  He was the word and a son.  Now when we carry that thing on back there to Adam, as a son.  Well, it was within him.  What I, what I’m really trying to say is this.  If you follow it down both ways he was executing the will of the father in what was done.  That’s the reason why I tried to show you that he was as a sacrifice before the creation.  That’s why I tried to show that, but as so far as the disobedience is concerned, it was really Adam, or the son himself, or the father speaking through the son saying, “don’t touch the tree.”  But you’d have one heck of a hard time getting somebody else to see that.  You’ll get older than Methuselah trying to get somebody to see that.

Dennis Droulard: Doc Kinley, you made a statement to me one time, it’s been 4 or 5 years ago, where you told, and I think you made it from the floor later too,  where you said A.., that Yahshua came in to fulfill the law not keep it.

Dr. Kinley: Um hum. That’s right.

Dennis Droulard: And that’s the same thing with Adam. 

Dr. Kinley: That’s correct!

Dennis Droulard: He’s fulfilling the purpose

Dr. Kinley: That’s right.

Dennis Droulard: Not keep it.

Dr. Kinley: That’s right!  That’s correct!  That’s what I’m trying to show. 

Dennis Droulard: Yeah.

Dr. Kinley: And that’s the correlation of the two sons.

Dennis Droulard: The purpose was:  Adam had to touch of that tree in order to first ___ not keep it.

Dr. Kinley: That’s right. That’s correct. That’s what I’m trying to show

Dennis Droulard: Yeah.

Dr. Kinley: And that’s the correlation of the two sons. 

Dennis Droulard:  The purpose was Adam had to touch of that tree in order to bring mankind down

Dr. Kinley: That’s correct.

Dennis Droulard: and the purpose was that Yahshua had to touch of that tree to bring mankind…

Dr. Kinley: That’s correct.  That had to be made sin for us, that we might be in him, the righteousness of Yahweh.  Now that’s the real, let me see if I,

Alfonso Maclin: I understand it, I understand

Dr. Kinley: Let me see. Let’s put one more thing in here.  This isn’t understood either:  that Yahweh was in Yahshua reconciling the world unto himself.  Now that that goes by the board.  Folks don’t understand that at all.  And they will definitely challenge you on that.

Gary Mathess: And He was in Adam bringing em down

Dr. Kinley:  That’s right.

Alfonso Maclin:  My questions on these things that are in the paper, I think that, matter of fact I know that they all have been cleared up.  I don’t think I even have to go through any more; matter of fact, I know that they all have been cleared up, I don’t think I even have to go through anymore ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ according to the will or purpose because I see the things that I failed to do and failed to document and if anything else is written according to the purpose, if Yahweh so wills it and then I’ll know the next time what to do, but I don’t at anytime intend to say anything or preach anything other than what I have been taught and what is written in this book so that we will say that Yahweh will be in harmony,

Dr. Kinley: That’s right.

Alfonso Maclin: But I do think my objections of another, another problem is necessary at this particular time.  I’ve had it on my mind for quite some time now and I might as well get it off my chest.  I’ve heard it said often “Don’t move ahead of the cloud.”   Now I, in my understanding and in the way that I see it, any thing that I come across, any correlation that I make, would have to come from what I’ve been taught and what was written.  Alright.  Now, in the manner in which Yahweh gives me words to express it, it might appear to be something that the old man has not gone into, but if I think it, it would have to come from what he has taught me and what he has written.  And I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about.  Dr. Harris is a professional medical doctor.  All of the correlations that he received on the physical body is a result of what he’s been taught out of the book and through Dr. Kinley’s mouth.  Is that right Dr. Harris?  Now Dr. Kinley does not go into perse physically speaking from this body here the correlations of the physical body, but these are revelations from Yahweh within that body according to what was written in the book and what has been spoken through this particular vessel.  Now then when we go into things perse that people haven’t heard the old man say or maybe they’ve been in class and they haven’t heard it, and you come up with something that apparently is new and you hear the expression,  “Don’t move ahead of the cloud.”  Now I would like to have that clarified please.  That would clear up some maybe misconceptions in my own mind and heart in reference to the way that the statement is being coined or used in the confines of the school. 

Dr. Kinley: Yes, I think that, that would be my duty to clarify.  I’ll say something else.  Now, I’m going to bring it up as a correlation.  You have heard me say this, that I know how to go to Rome or any where else I want to go, in more than one way.  I know how to take an airplane or ride a railroad train or I know how to make a projection and be there.  Now, it would take me as long as it would to go up than to explain somebody else how that’s being done.  Now I did that.  And I did it more than one time.  Then people come back and and they, they beg me never to do that no more.  In 1967 we had that in the class.  If you recall. Now I want, now here’s what I’m saying.  Now you do the same thing.  You do do it.  Everybody in the house does it, but you see…..


Dennis Droulard: After you just left Chicago and you were gettin ready to go to Los, Los Angeles and the last words I told you was not to go, not at that time cause you had just gotten ___ ___ ___.  Remember.  And that night you said I appeared to you in ___ ___ and told you, “Rip, you stay put.”  And you got on the telephone the next day and called up there in New York and told me, “alright I got your message.”  Now I was not conscious at all of appearing to you.  Not at all.  I was thinking about you but I was not conscious at all that I had made a projection, not, not at all.

Alfonso Maclin:  Yeah. I remember that.

Dr. Kinley: Now, maybe I can proceed  (LAUGHS)  about going ahead of the cloud.  Now the thing of it is.  Now here’s the whole score.  Now this is the purpose of Yahweh condensed.  This is it condensed.  And it’s always nice to refer to it as such.  And I was trying hard last night to show that the end was declared from the beginning and about institution and fulfillment.  And so far as Yahweh is concerned the thing has been concluded with, with him.  The whole show has been started and over with, with him but not with you.  So now what you have to do.  You have to follow through in order to see and to understand what it’s, it’s really all about.  Now let me show you what I’m talking about.  Now if you notice I brought that up about not going ahead of the cloud and then I brought up a correlation about projection.  Some people call it astroprojection.

Alfonso Maclin: I follow.

Dr. Kinley: Now Yahshua the Messiah did that many times to his disciples; when he was walking along the water down there and they thought they saw a spirit, he’s setting up there in the mountain.  Where’d that come from?  Back over there in Genesis the first chapter – the spirit of Yahweh moved upon the face of the water.  Now he’s got to fulfill all of that.  You follow what I’m talking about?

Alfonso Maclin: Yeah I see. 

Dr. Kinley: But now here’s the point, when you say run ahead of the cloud.  Now this is what I really mean by it:  don’t start nothing that you haven’t understood in the teaching without the ability to explain it, according to the teaching.  Now that’s what I mean don’t go ahead of the cloud.

Alfonso Maclin: I heard you.

Dr. Kinley: That’s what I’m talking about.  Now somebody else may say, “well you run ahead of the cloud.”  Uh uh.  You have the ability to explain it.  You wasn’t ahead of the cloud, not by any means.  You follow my thoughts.  

Alfonso Maclin:  Well, that clarifies it.  That is not the way it was originally projected to me.  I understand what you’re talking about now.

Dr. Kinley:  Yes.

Alfonso Maclin:  That if you possess the ability to explain what you’re talking about according to the knowledge of the scriptures

Dr. Kinley:  That’s right.

Alfonso Maclin: And prove what you’re talking about

Dr. Kinley: Now just a minute.  I want to put one thing in there.  It should be the Holy Spirit in you, that is in me and in you.  Then that won’t move you ahead of the cloud.  Now let me see if I can show that so that we can understand what we’re talking about.  Look how many writers there was, P.. Moses and Isaiah and Ezekiel and all of them and they were all right with the cloud all the time.  It may seem like he’s off, off course but he wasn’t.  So now, now that’s the way it is.  In other words, if we could just get one thing, if we could get it in our hats or in our heads or in our hearts and mind that there is a Holy Spirit in operation and that spirit is universal and it expresses itself to everybody (let’s put it that way) to everybody and there is a spirit of negation in existence and it’s just to the opposite or to the contrary.  Now what we wanna do is this.  You are never gonna get to the place (I just might as well come on up and say this it to you) you are never going to get to the place where you’re  gonna overtake Yahweh to such an extent until you can sit down and write a paper or follow some kind of statements and all that is made; or in other words, you’re finite and he’s infinite.  He’ll make a statement, you don’t know why he made it.  Just like he said,  “He declared the end from the beginning.”  Now Jehovah’s Witnesses say that when Yahweh put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, they was in the Garden of Eden, he didn’t know what they was, they was gonna do.  If that’d be the case how’s he gonna declare the end from the beginning.  Now they want to extend you to the place that they’re right about it and just as wrong as they can be.  I’d like to bring up something else while I’m on the floor.  They say that the Holy Spirit is not in any man and yet the Bible says your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit.  And Yahweh Elohim said he’d dwell between the wings of the cherubim within the tabernacle  Leviticus 16:2.  Now that just means the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t know nothing about what they’re talking about.  And they’re in direct disputation with the Bible, but unaware of it.  And Ezekiel 36: 24 and 25 – he says, I’ll wash you from all your idols and put my spirit within you.  Second chapter of Acts of the Apostles says the Holy Spirit was poured out upon.  That’s what they’re saying up on and it says there they were filled right in the same chapter – filled with the Holy Spirit.   So it’s upon and within too.  Now how about that.  See you’re in the atmosphere, it’s upon you and you certainly do breathe in and out of your lungs, within.  Now do you follow me?

Alfonso Maclin: Yeah. I understand.

Dr. Kinley:  The commandments was laid in the ark of the covenant, if that be the case then your body’s the temple and you have the Most Holy Place in there, said he was gonna put it in your hearts, in your inward parts.  Now your Bible says that.  Now my thoughts to you is, is this, in every respect and every regard as to any time you are working out there in the field, just remember now, that you are not going to be able to reconcile everybody to the right, right thing.  You are not going to be able to do that.  Now just rest assured that, that’s, that’s not going to happen.  It’s not supposed to.  But you hold true, you’re holding to the purpose.  Now here’s a condensed purpose:  Yahweh created, Elohim, Yahweh Elohim created everything, he declared the end from the beginning and he worked all things after the counsel of his own will.  Now listen now to what I’m going to say.  That’s why we went to the trouble to put them charts up there and then correlate one thing with another:  line upon line, precept upon precept.  Now that removes the necessity of a lot of long drawn out debates.  For example, if somebody say to you, say “well, how many stories does Noah’s ark have?”  “Well it has 3 stories.”  “Well, why does it have 3 stories?”  “Its the figure of something.”  Then if the tabernacle has 3 compartments, the temple has three compartments, so you’re just carrying one thing to the other and you’re just knocking down everything they say, just like I got through telling you about, the commandments or the tables of stone.  Now the devil, he gonna say no.  Now, I’ll give you one.  I’ll give another one.  Now you’ve got in your Bible there and I think it’s in Matthew, where that it says that his disciples come and stole him away, after he was crucified and he laid in Joseph’s new tomb, and the guard, and the stone and all rolled up at the door, and the resurrection, that he resurrected from the dead.  And they went up to the Sanhedrin Council that sent em down there to guide him and all, and they guarded him.  And they said that his disciples come and stole him away.  Now this is what we have been talking about right here.  We’ve been talking about the the Son, is that right?

Alfonso Maclin:  Right.

Dr. Kinley: Of Yahweh.  Now you got 2 sons, the one out there in the sky, and that natural sun out there in the sky, points to the son, the other son, the real son.  Now they work together from the Garden of Eden right on down, them two sons.  Now scientifically speaking, scientists don’t want to accept the fact that the vegetation could grow without the sun.  I agree with em, but they fail to see the sun in the creator, the son was before everything; but they’re looking at it ___ ___ like the sun.  Looking at it like that, and Moses’s vision – not understanding it of course.  Now let me say this.  Now you see them two sons come down.  Adam,  when the sun was going down, he was in, expulsated from the garden.  Right.  And Yahshua the Messiah fulfilling it now.  Yahshua, well let’s go back now and get this first and put this in there too, we could put Noah and the ark and then we come on down to Moses and the Children of Israel coming up there and then buried in the Red Sea; and I put on the chart a ring there and light on one side and darkness back towards Egypt.  And then to show the sun rise, the light and the darkness.  Now then I go on over to Joseph’s new tomb.  The sun is buried in the tomb.  Now if they went down together (it turned dark over the face of the earth from the sixth to the ninth hour, when he was crucified), they went down together, then they got to come up together.  So very early in the morning, as it begin to dawn towards the first day of the week, he rose from the dead; that is to say, he split right between (he is the light of the world), he split right between light and darkness.  How about that!  And he resurrected from the dead.  Now here’s my check.  Now, if you got it in your Bible that the disciples come and stole him away.  Now some idiot don’t know how to prove that he did.  That’s not so and that it’s a lie.  This morning, today, the sun rose in the east and it sure did set in the west.  He rose from the dead and he ascended on to his zenith and he sure did go down that is to say he he set down, ascended and set down.  I mean today, ___ ___ today.  Now you tell me who it is that could go out there and take the sun out of the sky and hide it away some place.  You can’t do that.

Alfonso Maclin: I got one other question.  I believe just one more.  I had planned within myself or the thought came to me, I’ve been reorganizing and getting the people to work together in harmony as a unit and delegating responsibilities to various ones so any body can do their job in their particular perspective and I had planned to make more visitations myself in the various churches to, as a witness to the people that are out there in those churches.  And in doing this I would have to be away from class from time to time that, I do have a man that is capable and able bodied to somewhat bridle the body in my absence.  And I would like some advice or wisdom on that, as to whether this is profitable or not.  Or is this the manner to go about it?  Or should this be done in some other way, in reference to propagation. 

Dr. Harris: My viewpoint is that I think you ought to stay there and be there in class or try to attract people to class.  I think that’s more profitable .  Now I know that’s it’s a very slow process and what have you .  And you don’t expect to get a whole lot of people to come in.  It’s part of the purpose that just a few, just a remnant, come in at this time, there’s one here and one there.  So my feelings about it is that you go out there and spent a lot of time in the churches and ask them to come to class that it could be that some of those that you already have there in the school might be discouraged and might leave while you’re out there trying to get others in.  You might loose out on some of those that you have even though you have someone to take your place, it’s not like you being there.  So I’d encourage those that are coming to school to try to encourage others that are out in the churches to come in and use whatever contact you’re able to make from time to tome on your job or what have you to try to to encourage them to come in where you’re teaching; but as far as you going out in the churches.  Generally speaking the, you’re going out there in the devil’s ___ and the situation is for the most part is just one of argumentation ___ hassles, and sometimes they can accuse you of being a trouble maker.  ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

Alfonso Maclin: Well, the reason why I asked that question, I know that Paul stated to the ministers and Paul writes to one of his strong in the faith and he tells him to do the work of an evangelist.  I know that evangelism can be projected in all types of forms.  Now we have initiated through the technical writing department to write up flyers so the students can go out in the various neighborhoods and put them in people’s mail boxes and pass em out wherever they can to advertise the school in that particular manner; and also we have initiated a movement in the public relations department to contact various television stations and radios and try to get around in that particular manner.  But I was just wondering about the personal aspect of going into the different churches.  I receive that particular piece of wisdom well.  I was just in a war about it.  I just didn’t know.  I was thinking about what you just said and I was thinkin about going out and doing all I could to leave Chicago and the surrounding areas without an excuse in reference to not hearing the gospel.

Dr. Harris: On occasion maybe somebody might extent you an invitation.  On such occasion if you accept the invitation then you might take some of the congregation along with you and you ___ ___.  On such an invitation like that then you might get a chance to say something or explain something there and you might be helpful; but generally speaking popping in on these churches, they’re not going to give you too much chance to say, to say anything in most circumstances.  The devil is wise, he’s slick and he’s not going to give you a chance to tear up his household.  No, he’s not going to do that for the most part.  So generally speaking it’s just a waste of time.

Alfonso Maclin:  Now, there is one other area that we’re in the process of trying to start something and that’s in Rockford.  David moved from here to Rockford and he got some people interested and we went down there on about four occasions but he hasn’t called us back recently and so I’ve been going down there. 

Dr. Kinley: Where

Alfonso Maclin: Down to Rockford, Illinois.  That’s about ninety miles, I don’t know the direction it’s from Chicago, but I was wondering about the various other cities in Illinois and the suburban communities.  Would it be wise to try and to instill in some of the other ministers to go out and try and get something started to spread it that way in the state? 

Dr. Kinley: I’m glad you brought that up.  I’ll take that one ___ ___ ___.  This boy that’s staying over here with Josephine and Bill

Dr. Harris: Ronnie Witherspoon.

Dr. Kinley: Ronnie Witherspoon. He went to Chicago. You were there when he was, before his departure, wasn’t it?

Alfonso Maclin: Right.

Dr. Kinley: I sent a message with him before he left he asked me if I wanted to send any messages before he went and I said I did and and this was the message that I sent.  I told him to tell you to remain steadfast and be alert at all times and to continue to try to admonish and encourage the people there in Chicago.  In other words it was just a general thing which you would know even without me having anything to say, if you tell me that’s what you was there for.  Now then he comes back and he tells me that Jim.

Dr. Harris: Thompson

Dr. Kinley: Thompson and his brother are thinking about going out and into some, he named the place

Alfonso Maclin: Townhurst

Dr. Kinley: Anhurst, or whatever you call it, and another place and starting up a school and he said that I said or that or, he told them that I said it would be alright.  But I never tell nobody nothing like that without saying, “well, see Rip” or whoever is in charge of that state.  I don’t do things that way and I didn’t think, then when he said that I said, but, I don’t think that Rip would be out of harmony with such a procedure,

Alfonso Maclin: No.

Dr. Kinley: But since he said it, but I did not say that, it didn’t come, it didn’t come in my mind.  I didn’t know nothing about it.  Nobody said nothing to me about it, but him, when he came back.  So I just want to let you know, I told him as he got back,  I said I didn’t think and I, that’s what we’re trying to do here is to get em to go and get something started somewhere and take the message, all over the world.  That’s what we’re really trying to do, every kinda way you know how to do it.  How’s that for that.

Alfonso Maclin: Umhum.  Alright.

Dr. Kinley: I’d like to ask you, now did you understand our position.  I’ll put it this way, I said our, I’ll, I’ll bring it back to myself.  Do you understand my position

Alfonso Maclin: Yes I do, doc.

Dr. Kinley: On, on what you wrote in the letter

Alfonso Maclin: Yes.

Dr. Kinley: And what is in that book.

Alfonso Maclin: Yes sir.

Dr. Kinley: Do you understand my position on it.

Alfonso Maclin:  Yes sir. Yes. I must confess that in my own mannerism I was a little bit irritated because I didn’t fully read and comprehend the motivation, thought, and intent of the paper.  I must confess that.  In other words I just got a little bit hot because I had taken the precept from the book but I understand now it was the manner in which I took it out without fully outlining what was written in the book and fully documenting the information that I took from it.

Dr. Kinley: Yes, the presentation of it.

Alfonso Maclin: So I think that, you said to save myself an unnecessary trip.  This…. 

About 34 Pages