Struck Dead – Acts 5:1-11 – Dead? – or Just Encrypted?

confidential, HIPPA privacy protected, & mission-specific collaborations are here
open comments for general public and open subscribers are below
Admin PLB Accountant, R. Roma

This is our second test of encrypting and decrypting our collaborations that are on private (non-public) back pages, password protected, and encrypted for confidential and HIPPA privacy protected information related to our missions.

Decyrpt the encrypted segment below.

Decryption will synthesize an article about Ananias and Sapphira and their marriage-covenant fraud to lie to the Holy Spirit and then ‘go to church’  based on the scripture and elaborated in an excellent article by New Testament scholar, Craig Keener, Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11.

Ananias and Sapphira wanted to look sold out to God like so many others in the heat of revival.”

Encrypted below is the second test to replace our old triple encryption (DES) with new FHE (fully homomorphic encryption) designed for use in our encrypted pages and emails.

Thanks to Celie∞Hilbert/CRH for writing the code.

For registered users (trainers, students) who set your own Markov applets on each device, you need to re-key your Markov applets at each level of the following protocol: 1) this overall is a novel mode of triple encryption (not DES), synthesizing our off-site private DNS confidential computing, so you must key to our new private DNS server, 2) followed by lattice generated non-symmetric random wrapped Augur-Ethereum embedded keys that are generated for you with each usage, 3) and further decentralized completely off of the internet in user-specific homomorphic encryption that is generated internally on each user device (FHE, analogy to DARPA PROCEED) which means that you need completely to disconnect from all internet as a necessary trigger for decryption to happen on your unique and specific device, 4) and followed by a final round of elliptic curve unique password generations for one-time passwords that uniquely bind FHE to your unique 3FA predicted authentications so the content will be proxy re-encrypted automatically whenever you reconnect to the internet.  After configuration, you should see a banner showing “3e-5,” which means the entire cycle in the future will take no more than .03 seconds.

Decrypt and report, please.

Use the decryption steps sent via HIPPA protected emails.

Please remember this test is now triple encrypted.

This means the first decrypt layer is an eminence grise, so your first result will always be coherent and readable content, but completely irrelevant to any case, client information, mission, or patient information.

The second layer will self-destruct the faux coherent page if not decrypted to the second-layer in the allotted time.  Failure will be followed by a permanent ban-lockout and a redirect to fake pages with mixed readable and unreadable content (this is how you will know) until an administrator unlocks the sequence again for you for another round of tests.

The third layer will yield a fully translated version of Struck Dead—Acts 5:1-11 and with your name and your fully extended bio interlaced with excess and randomly changing lattice generated mixed incoherent and coherent materials embedded into your bio, and finally interpreted (decrypted) into its most parsed down and coherent final form (Saint Occam’s Razor – invented to defend divine miracles, including the invisibility of Elijah) after a final pause interval for final 2FA predicted authentication (3FA implementation soon).  You may use your Markov applets (which no one else knows) instead of biometric authentications.

To learn more about multi-modal confidentiality, privacy, confidential off-site computing, and authentication, see “Block Cipher Techniques,” and other technical publications of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).

Happy decrypting.


AS1-945SM – Are Bivocational Clergy Becoming a New Norm?


confidential, HIPPA privacy protected, & mission-specific collaborations are here
open comments for general public and open subscribers are below
Admin PLB Accountant, R. Roma

contributed by ACS/JR, member SSSR – ref. vocational practices of ‘clergy’ 

Republished by Inigo auto-da-fé (SJ), and member of JSTOR.  Republished in regard to many questions about full-time intercessory prayer as a full-time vocation, and as calling in the Holy Spirit, known and practiced throughout history.

Compare below on how full-time intercessory prayer is interwoven into this subject matter.

We don’t want to violate copyrights.  I (ACS/JR) no longer email requests as I did in 2012-2019 to Ref: 1436F92C-1EAB-4914-97AE-5149526A3B79. 

See the new end-note annotations that apply this study to our work, here – May 28, 2021.


Transitions in the American religious landscape including religious nonaffiliation, congregational and seminary enrollment declines, and the proliferation of megachurches have reshaped the clergy labor market and increased the precariousness of this type of work. One potential indication of this growing instability is the supposedly increasing number of bivocational clergy who depend on a second job to supplement their income. There are few reliable data, however, that can trace out national-level trends of bivocational clergy. Using the Current Population Survey, this study tests whether there has been any proportional increase in bivocational clergy and to what extent such an increase has been localized to certain groups. We find that the percentage of clergy who report having a second job has not increased since 1996. However, clergy who are female, unmarried, or working in the American northeast are increasingly likely to report working a second job. These trends suggest that clergy who receive  occupational advantages—due to gender or marital status—or who live in highly religious/low cost-of-living regions of the country may be protected from taking on a second job whereas those clergy without these advantages increasingly must depend on additional sources of income. 

Keywords: clergy, vocation, gender, occupation

Our Annotations (not parts of the study above)

The units of measurement in the scalars above may not be consistent with the metrics published by George Barna, in his measures for discerning full-time, 100% sold-out commitments, or ‘Revolution-commitments’ in his book, “Revolution,” in contrast to what Barna identifies/measures in lukewarm, half-commitments, and with Barna attracting occasional ire from big church pastors.

Barna contrasts revolution commitments as sold-out and full commitments as against lukewarm, easy, safe, commitments of people of faith either as church members in box-churches, or outside of them, all across the U.S.

This newer SSSR study above targets ordained clergy.  It explores factors (factor analyses, defined or proposed?) for the perceived necessity of bi-vocational sources of income.  The focus is fair and important.

I (ACS/JR) am studying whether the study above might be cross-correlated to full-time work already being done by students here in their full-time so-called secular work, but who are seeking the Holy Spirit (Acts 2) to infuse and own their daily practices?

For example. even if we stick with valid short and simple (clean) heuristics alone, and without formal statistics, then what differences really exist between bi-vocational ordained clergy in the study above, and the full-time students and mentors here, doing full-time work in so-called ‘secular’ skilled vocations, trades, and professions, when we conform to the Holy Spirit poured out on us (Acts chapters, 1, 2, and whole book of Acts)?

Are such short and simple decision-making steps (heuristics) really any more complicated than the learned steps in fishing used by ordinary fishermen, like Peter?

What side of the boat produced Peter’s best catch?

This is a trick question – be careful.

Since Barna’s metrics focus on degrees of sold-outness and degrees of commitment unto revolution, contrasted against degrees of lukewarmness in church-member covenants for mediocrity (let-the-pastor-do-it … we already pay him … and we pay him enough, that he does not need to be bi-vocational .. that is what we pay him for … so let the pastor do it“) —  praise-loving pastors, according to previous SSSR, Hartford, ATS (and other funded studies to be published in the future on pastoral bankruptcies) — some praise-loving pastors fall for this line of pastor-elevated reasoning — “I am up here … you are down there below … we call this ‘the priesthood of all believers’ … with me above … and all other believers, namely, you-all down below me” — and no, I am not practicing Voltaire satire because these satires and parodies are already embedded in the fact-based statistics.

On my end, I  take the formal metrics necessary for hard-studies, for case-studies for work that we do outside of box-churches, the kind of statistics (beyond valid snap-judgment heuristics), and the measures that we need for rigorous studies of service in the work-a-day fields of life, the practical measures of boots on the ground effectiveness, on the streets, in private homes, in businesses, that today we are doing in contemporary underground railroad services of all kinds –  I take the necessary measures (statistics) required to measure works of good-faith in the world, to require formal statistics that are non-parametric.


Very expensive.

Our unjustified hostility against statistical studies today is based on ignorance of the “Book of Numbers.”  This book was ‘purposed’ for the purpose of going to war.  It was a war census.  And now the condition because – an extremely lesser percentage of the total number of those actually numbered in the “Book of Numbers” actually showed up for war, and actually went to warthe greater percentage wandered 40 years — with their names written in the Book!  Even more expensive! – 40 years wandering, a lifetime.

An ultimate expense.

We are automatically now dealing with – statistics.  Partial knowledge.  We are not omniscient.  Welcome to the use of statistics.  God was not fooled.  God numbers.

Our hostilities against statistical studies, and what cautionary or encouraging tales that statistics may tell us, our hostility against such hard-studies shows another ‘measure’ – of our wandering.   Today.

To answer the trick question above.  The question is not “on what side of the boat” (a parametric) – but in what mode – was Peter’s best catch of fish?

St. Peter’s boat and Boat is a parameter.  Begging pardon for my double meaning regarding St. Peter’s boat-Boat, in begged pardons from my Catholic brothers and sisters, but I was taught by one of the beloved-best to tease this in history (not in clinical stats), namely, Jeffrey Burton Russell,  see, “History of Medieval Christianity: Prophecy & Order,” (1968, 1986, 2000), on these tensions in history.

The question about Peter’s boat and Boat sets a false parameter.

It’s a parametric question – and the misleading answer can be measured parametrically.

No harm in trying.  Maybe returning some useful results.   For those who like this sort of question.  We need such question-askers all around.

For Peter’s biggest catch – it’s not about the side of the boat or Boat, but about the mode of action – the mode of Peter’s action was non-parametric.

Expensive.  Very expensive.  See the lifetime expensive costs of wandering in the wilderness – with our names written in the books – wandering for 40 years, above.  At least in his catch in this case, St. Peter – obeyed.

His mode was obedience.

Hate to say.  Rejoice to say.  And this part of the comment is no Voltaire parody.  And even if it were, I know Catholics who love Voltaire.   Some come out and — confess — it!   Confess, you Cretans.

Or is this a Voltaire parody and satire?

Consider.  Reverend Thomas Bayes, an ordained Presbyterian minister, never published and only kept quiet his most famous statistical revelation, and a revolution for statistics too, “Bayes’ theorem.”  It has use for studying all kinds of things – in the commons of the world.  Not just for studying religion.  These measures are valuable for practical care in “false positives,” and “false negatives,” in clinical measurements – of all kinds. We today are dependent on Bayes and his devotional statistics, for much of what we do – when we really ‘care.’  Some who loved Thomas Bayes found his stashed-away notes, after his death.   Never published.  Private devotions?

Private devotions?  I know a few statisticians, and gifted, God-called businessmen and women too, who muster forward statistics showing (‘tending to show’) that mathematicians among all natural scientists have the highest percentages of belief in God.

Was Bayes in private devotion? – when he scribbled his statistical revelations?

What about Kekule (more about Kekule, later)?

Now with St. Peter, to ‘catch’ the serious question — do we really know what counts as private devotions before God, to a statistician? – to a fisherman-in-the-fishing-business, using a short-and-simple obedience (heuristic of obedience) and experiencing a full catch of Success and Prosperity?

Fool that I am, I’ve wondered what the Bayesian probability was that Bayes’ private notes would be found after his death?

Just found?

Then, published?

To Bless the entire clinical, scientific, and the business-public world?

Before a knee-jerk answer saying how easy it might have been for the bi-vocational fisherman, Peter (back to the theme of bi-vocational clergy) to catch Peter’s biggest catch of fish – before a knee-jerk answer,  “oh!, that was not expensive for Peter – Peter’s biggest catch was easy!” – I confess in my public confessional here, I too want easy for me – and now! — but, before answering.

By what was Peter, Caught?

Consider the Cost.


submitted by ACS/JR, SSSR member – updated May 28, 2021
© revised, Inigo auto-da-fé (SJ), JSTOR member, republish June 22, 2021

KF228-20196J5Y – Clergy Malpractice – Sex Slavery, Trafficking, Keith Raniere Guilty on All Counts – Religious Daycare for Children?

contributed via email by T.J.

confidential, HIPPA privacy protected, & mission-specific collaborations are here
open comments for general public and open subscribers are below
Admin PLB Accountant, Dick Roma

Quick Link – Includes Jury Verdict Sheet

This new case regarding Keith Raniere does not qualify on the same order of magnitude for clergy malpractice as the landmark case, F.G v. MacDonell and its lineage.

Popular reporting of the Raniere case labels the followers of Keith Raniere as a ‘cult’. This label is melodrama because the label might lead naive readers to assume the Raniere case has no relevance for clergy and full-time caregiving in cases of spiritual care. The Raniere case does not distinguish between cult and religion. The case does not give criteria to know the difference between cult and religion. Anyone who wants extra reading, see one of the best explorations of the confused lines between cult and religion, where cult and religion sometimes merge, by Marci Hamilton, a leading scholar of constitutional law who specializes in church/state issues, see “JUSTICE DENIED: What America Must Do to Protect Its Children” (Cambridge 2008, 2012), who wrote also, “GOD VS. THE GAVEL: Religion and the Rule of Law” (Cambridge 2005, 2007).

In short, the Raniere case puts us back into the territory already identified as the confused boundaries where cult and religion mergeThis case does apply to clergy and to full-time spiritual caregivers. 

The plot of the Raniere case is ancient.  The plot goes back at least to the story of the unnamed woman concubine in Judges 19–20, a woman from Bethlehem who lived with a Levite priest in the hill country of Ephraim.  The woman is raped to death. The priest does nothing to save her.  The rape causes the first bloody civil war between the tribes of God’s people.

Here are a few issues from the case of Keith Raniere that are issues all the way back in history to Judges 19-20.  They are relevant in our work as full-time mentors and students.

For one issue, the case raises old issues about how and when spiritual authority becomes abused by people with authority so that men or women insiders are coerced, threatened, ‘blackmailed’, or by violence put under pressures to have sex with leaders – by forced ‘consent’?  More generally, what is consent? 

For another issue, the case raises age-old questions about whether consent can include consent to be a ‘slave’? This issue of consensual slavery is not trivial. Arguments that people want to be slaves are more common than we think.  Especially in arguments in favor of sex-slavery, the argument goes that sex and human trafficking victims really want the protections of their slavery.  Arguments today are cloaked under fancy rhetoric about voluntary consent.  Arguments in court and in social policy arguments try and justify many forms of slavery in the U.S.  These arguments go back at least to the shameful era of the Fugitive Slave ActAnd before that – some justified by theology from pulpits.

For another issue, with questions about sex, sex slavery, and sex trafficking put aside, the Raniere case raises questions about how and when people with authority create obedience ‘slaves’ to spiritual authority for a variety of ‘religious’ purposes and chores. Sometimes without the perpetrators and victims knowing.  Almost always without admitting – almost always denying – that they are creating slaves.  Just joking? just read the Raniere case.

A most troubling issue in the practice by followers of Raniere is that they ran eleven daycare centers for children worldwide.  The existence of children in day care may have played a huge role – a far greater role than can be published in popular media because we do not have access to the subjective opinions of the jury – the jury decision includes unpublished juror reasons for judging to convict Raniere on all counts.  Good judges expect impartial juries.  The problem with juries of our peers is that jurors are our peers and they are mothers and fathers too. 

… distributed by email to users as 20196J5Y.docx, and 20196J5Y.odt

BF774 – Degrees of Influence – God’s Big Book of “Numbers”

contributed by Celie∞Hilbert, PhD, Research Mathematician, via direct log-in
reviewed by “Episcopal Maenad,” by email, May 25, 2021

confidential, HIPPA privacy protected, & mission-specific collaborations are here
open comments for general public and open subscribers are below
Admin PLB Accountant, R. Roma

in memorial of MTB, 50 year, no-fear, go-anywhere street-worker, recently deceased

The Holy Spirit signed no contract to cooperate with results of studies on degrees of social influence starting with smallest groups.

Studies about degrees of influence go like this.  Start with our friends or nuclear families (first degree).  Move on to how our friends and family influence our friends’ friends and families of friends (second degree).  Next move on to study the influence of our friends’ friends’ friends and family (third degree).  And so on. It all starts with smallest groups.  The smallest groups are often our nuclear families.  These smallest groups, however, can be nuclear groups that are stronger than nuclear family because they are forged together by strongest covenant-bonds for service and obedience – just as Jesus said, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers. For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother” (Matthew 12:48-50).

The focus in studies of degrees of influence in social networking , churches, politics, local bar rooms – and for our local mission teams would have us know that the influence of just 20 workers in the field (just one full-time trainer working with just one full-time learner – times 10 = 20) is an effective influence on 160,000 people, whose further networks have an effective influence on another 25,600,000,000 (twenty-five billion, six hundred million). 

These measures are generally true.  They all start with smallest groups.  Not big numbers:  but, full-time commitment replicated in others.

True, these studies are true, but are potentially misleading.  Misleading because having an influence on 25,600,000,000 people (twenty-five billion, six hundred million) says nothing about the quality and kind of the influence.

Influence? For life?  For death? 

Or for mediocrity and lukewarmness by camping in ‘safe zones’ in between life and death?

Most full-time trainers here have used The Tempest as an instruction and training media. The Tempest is all about winning battles by prayer alone.  In the Julie Taymor version, Prospera recites standard language about using prayer:  1) some prayers to heal, 2) some prayers to harm (harm evil).  These two elements of prayer are just basic introductions to prayer. To heal and bless the Good.  To destroy and harm the evil.  That’s prayer in a nutshell.

The effects of Answered prayers in physical results on earth can be more complicated in because of the number and the spectrum of results of influence on others.   The Tempest revisits the mixture – and it is a mixture – of many influences and many effects predicted in the Mountains of Blessings and Curses.  

The basic statistical studies on degrees of influence do not show who, or Who gets the benefits of effects of influence – in 25,600,000,000 (twenty-five billion, six hundred million) – effects of influence. 

The studies do not show the reasons why.  Or the complicated mixtures.  Other studies must measure these mixtures.  

The Holy Spirit alone authors and knows the real influence of our contemporary “Book of Numbers.”  As we have written many times, the Book of Numbers was a census for going to war.  Many were counted for war.  Very few showed up.  Of all those numbered for war, only the smallest handful showed up fully committed and the greatest number in this massive Book of Numbers wandered and died in the wilderness – with their names on the books

What kind of influence is it to be called to war – and not show up?  How to measure that failure to show up for war on that generation? – on their own living children who got to wander with the adults? – how to measure that failure to show up for war on next generations who suffered for their cowardice?  – what kind of influence are we having? – especially because our radiating effects in furthermost outward circles really does influence 25,600,000,000 others?

It is a truism among some professional mathematicians that  – “God has the Big Book of Numbers, God has All the Beautiful Proofs, God has all Mathematical Theorems.”  There are emotional expressions in the scriptures that show God disgusted and wanting to repent for making an earth full of a Big Book of Numbers.  In some cases, God is pleased and for the Joy set before Him, He implemented Salvation (Hebrews 12:2).

As to influence, we are not called just to influence others.  There is an idolatry in this focus on our influence.  We are called to be under the influence of the Spirit – unto obedience. 

God knows the degrees to which we are influenced by the Holy Spirit unto obedience.   

As MTB said over and over, now recently deceased in Texas, she said to the old forums (2004-2012) – Ananias and Sapphira got numbered for faking and lying about the measures of their obedience.  The Barna studies (here) describe people deliberately seeking churches that are deliberately lukewarm and half-committed and growing with big numbers – to avoid full-time commitment.

The simple studies about degrees of influence are generally accurate. 

These studies mean that 20 people here, say just 10 full-time mentors and with only 1 full-time student each (10 students), and then each reproducing full-time commitment in kind — these very small numbers can have an effective influence on 160,000 people.   

And more generally, this propagation of influence is certain to happen. 

For good or ill.  Influence happens.

We are either blessed or doomed, as you will, in having influence.

On good days, we hear and obey. 

Other days, we don’t care.   Enough.  

Technical – I Love the Smell of Ministry in The Morning

sent by T.J. via encrypted email

Another big church gets napalmed by “Big Fire” in Court: