Leaderboard

I agree with you, Taxidev. Sarcasm seems a much better fit here than "actually stealing". (Thanks!) Paul had quite a sense of humor, didn't he? Nevertheless, even sarcasm is something which (to me) still belongs on the dark side of the light, as I have shown. (And thanks for considering that point as "excellent"!) But to keep things just a bit simpler, I offer this: Not that it matters much to you, Mike: I remember in PFAL (and so do you!) when VP was sharing about law and grace. After explaining how we're no longer under the law, he remarked: "Now, does this mean that we don't have to obey the ten commandments? And he went on to boldly say: "Certainly not!" Of course, that would also include the 8th commandment, wouldn't it? (Thou shalt not steal!) Concerning plagiarism, that seems pretty damned clear to me. I rest my case!

Now, there's this fiction that goes around-popular with a few handfuls of people- that vpw acknowledged his sources. That's easy to dismiss. 1) To give proper- as in LEGAL and MORAL- acknowledgement- vpw would have had to make them in the works he plagiarized. vpw did no such thing. 2) Did vpw say "Leonard and Bullinger are to thank for the Orange Book. If they hadn't done their work, the book would have been empty"? Did he say the same thing about Stiles and Bullinger and the White Book? No- and that would at least have acknowledged that all the work was theirs, even if it was insufficient to satisfy moral and legal standards of citing sources and giving credit where it is due. 3) Ever hear of "the Way-Living in Love"? It was a book put out by twi a decade or so after the White and Orange Books. It was a book-long advertisement of twi. Most twi'ers didn't have it. Those that had it, had it on the shelf, collecting dust. If you found someone with a copy, and took it down, and read, eventually you might find SOMETHING. If you made it all the way to page 209. you'd find this: ""'Somewhere in there I wrote the first holy spirit book. I can't remember exactly what year.'" "'I'd been working those 385 scriptures and they began to all fall into place.'" "'We're having the sixth edition printed now of that book: Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It's a great piece of research. Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit-that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then I worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped." I'm supposed to believe this is vpw citing his sources. Here he blatantly took credit for the content of the White Book. In fact, "those 385 Scriptures" were a list from Bullinger, which was its own book! Then comes his saying that what he taught wasn't original. A) That's not citing your sources. B) That's not even admitting all the material was a compilation of the work of others. I'm fine with eclecticism, where one thing is taken from here and another is taken from there. vpw didn't admit to THAT, either. (No mention the list was Bullinger's list, Stiles taught the steps, etc.) C) NOBODY does something without the influence of something else. But that's not plagiarism in and of itself. This was a rather VAGUE comment that conveniently skipped over the truth. Somehow, a few people reinterpret this to be a blanket confession that all of the content was taken from elsewhere- which is NOT what this said. So, vpw made an off-hand comment, buried in one book, that completely fails to address the plagiarism. Buried on another tape somewhere was similar comments-things that failed to say "and all the content was from these 3 guys". Why did he even bother? Simply put, he hedged his bets. In case somebody connected something, he could say "See, I said I didn't make all of it up." It was sufficient to cover his tracks- before the internet- for all of his life. It's STILL being used to whitewash his actions. vpw chronically and habitually used the work of others, took all the credit de facto by leaving them out, then occasionally made a vague off-hand remark that was meant to be mentioned if he got caught. That's not how the LAW works. That's not MORAL activity. But it was how he conducted his business.

See, Mike, you keep trying to sell yourself as some person of some study, then you expose your ignorance blatantly like this. We all agree that there were other sources (Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger) that vpw went to, and took material from. That's not even debated anymore. Those sources are therefore "PRIMARY SOURCES." If he took material from them, that makes his work "SECONDARY SOURCES." People who redid his material made "TERTIARY SOURCES." That's not a reflection of the content or its quality or utility. People with "tertiary source" material, ex-twi, might well have cleared out problems from vpw's version, which would make them more useful. That doesn't change that they're "tertiary sources." Objecting to technical definitions is not something someone does if they know their subject.

The subject of plagiarism is pretty simple. If you use the material of another- AND REFUSE TO CITE YOUR SOURCES- then you've plagiarized. The content and source don't change that. To cite your sources, you need to put the references in the same written work you're making. It's that simple. "Babylon Mystery Religion" was a book that was largely a rewrite from "The Two Babylons." Were sources cited? All over the book. Every single instance was end-noted to the end of its particular chapter- and many people didn't even notice that when they read. That author cited his sources. The previous book was public domain, so he didn't need to pay royalties, but he was still required to cite his sources- so he did. Did the pfal Orange Book cite its sources? Leonard was NEVER mentioned in it, and it was largely Leonard and Bullinger and nothng else (IIRC, Bullinger wasn't mentioned either, but if he was mentioned ONCE he was not mentioned the dozens of times he was needed to be mentioned for legal requirements. Did the RTHST White Book cite its sources? Hardly. Stiles is not named- and the first edition was his book retyped. Later editions add work by Bullinger (also not cited) and the phrasing is changed slightly more to make it look like less obvious plagiarism. In fact, the mention of an UNNAMED man who was Stiles was dropped from editions after the third- and the reference says that vpw did all the work. So, both books plagiarized heavily- they used material word-for-word as well as concept-by-concept and BOTH are plagiarism- from the works of others, and their content was almost completely composed of plagiarized materials of people who are not cited in those books. Plagiarism. And all meant to make vpw look knowledgeable.

Great posts, WordWolf !!! wierwille’s statement has the appearance of being humble and honest while at the same time suggests he is the superior theologian able to rightly divide “the word” when handling those subjects. I’m sure his half-a$$ed “disclaimer” would not have fooled any competent theologians especially if they were familiar with the works he plagiarized - but wierwille’s class materials - kept “in house” (conveniently avoiding peer review) tended to impress a lot of young and naive students who didn’t know squat about the Bible anyway, Maybe slightly off topic but it addresses another aspect of wierwille’s plagiarism - how it cheated his students out of a real learning experience...and sort of relates to peer review - After I left TWI and began exploring and expanding how i studied the Bible - I was electrified one day when I was checking out several commentaries that I bought at an estate sale of a pastor. One commentary - in a footnote actually referred to how another commentary interpreted the same passage and criticized it for missing a certain detail of a Greek phrase...another commentary referred to the different ways several commentaries interpreted a verse and gave pros and cons on each alternate view... my point is that my excitement came from getting a taste of the menu for critical thinkers - variety is exciting! That’s what genuine honest teachers do - they expand one’s horizon by presenting various works/viewpoints and let students hone their thinking skills.

That reminds me of something humorous: I was a good little wafer, because I had no friends outside of the household. Upon leaving, it became quite clear to my wife & I that we had no friends at all!

OS, stealing is wrong, no matter what it is. If you were in High School, or college, and got caught playgertzing, you would end-up in serious trouble. I was an English major, back in college, and wrote a lot of papers. I always quoted my sources, and gave credit to others for their ideas. VPW knew he was playgertzing, but he probably didn't care. Even when I quoted from the Bible, I would still give my source, and credit the Bible with the information I used.

I think in wierwille’s little delusional universe where everything revolved around his little narcissistic brain, an elitist mentality ruled supreme; wierwille thought he was superior in intellect and “spirituality”. In his mind The nonsense he passed off as “wisdom” trumps anything - the laws of man, personal boundaries, even the 10 commandments, if it suited his treacherous agenda. So...plagiarizing the works of others - no problem as long as no one finds out about it, garners him recognition, money and power...and gets him laid.

Dear Mike, in·tel·lec·tu·al prop·er·ty noun LAW a work or invention that is the result of creativity, such as a manuscript or a design, to which one has rights and for which one may apply for a patent, copyright, trademark, etc.

You probably have more up to date information than any of us here. It could be interesting for us if you could share what it's like now. If you were only in a fellowship/home group and visited Ohio only on special occasions, you probably had a fairly good time. If you were in rez or on staff, you could have seen a lot of - hmm - interesting things.

I find it interesting that you use the two views argument here, yet you fail to follow through on it. Yes, there's God's view and man's view. God's view is absolute, black or white (your either in fellowship or your not; you either obeyed Him or you didn't; something was either stolen or it wasn't) is necessary because those same rationalization we use to fudge our obedience to God, Christ could have used to fudge his obedience to The Law. If Christ didn't obey The Law, then we have no savior. If rationalizations were acceptable to God, then Christ could have stolen the temple poor box and proclaimed: "This money belongs to my father, I am his son, so it's not really stealing." Silly isn't it. But that's what you get when Man tries to impose shades of grey on God's black or white absolution. God's view is absolute; while man makes rationalizations. One such rationalization is stealing is okay is some contexts, but not in others. Not only does God and Paul tell us not to steal, God also tells us not to bear false witness (in this instance taking credit for something you didn't do). We are also commanded to obey the laws of men, like theft and plagerism. The only time we can disobey the laws of men is when the run contrary to the laws of God, for example, if there were laws against praying or attending church. We've discussed this at length before, but somehow you either don't read my posts or you refuse to see anything but your viewpoint.

Nothing you have said here excuses the unethical, illegal plagiarism that Wierwille exercised

Hey spotters. Cool stuff. The black hole / white dwarf stuff may seem like it is on the outskirts of imagination, but just reading through this thread it is pretty powerful. I really never thought about the gravitational pull of a narcissist that much before, but it is very real. Many of your top leaders in business are this way - reportedly Steve Jobs from Apple and Larry Ellison from Oracle are two more modern or recently modern examples. You really would have to categorize all Way Presidents in this fashion also. Groomed and bred with a low concern for others welfare and a high concern for the importance of their own position, they were raised to exploit. I think it is really interesting to consider the gravitational pull of a black hole on personal relationships too, like TBone talking about spousal relationships. Definitely friendships too. DWBH - I also never fully appreciated the implications of the Way Tree having its origins in AA. If you think about it, that kind of sums up the outreach efforts and strategy for the Way - the Way tree teachings and the Vision and Direction document that surrounds it. That is all based in AA - helping recovering alcoholics. Keeping people in a disease for life, producing works to show deliverance, meeting attendance required, managed, monitored. The Lord Jesus Christ is once again, remarkably absent. So many angles of realistic evaluation and comparison for our past experiences. And to me all of it is another positive mental construct to remove the subtle anti Christ influences of the Way out of my mind.

Wow T-Bone --- what a post --- that sure got my neurons flowing! About the supermassive black hole: I GET IT! To me, it's a perfect analogy of a narcissist, just as you described. (VP sure "sucked a lot of people" into his realm, huh?) Now, just a little more about black holes in general: (And please don't tell my wife!) I consider a black hole to be my favorite thing in the universe --- and for good reason: My wife is black!