Leaderboard

Learning what I have about VPW since leaving, I can't believe he would drive around alone with a female and not try something.

I took PFAL in January, 1971, in Long Island. Steve Perez was the class coordinator. We went to Rye every Sunday for SNS with Rev. Steve Heefner. We met all the groovy Christians from not only Rye, but Manhattan, Da Bronx, and Westchester. I hung with PDSTRO and we were playing and witnessing every where all the time! LOL! We met everybody and they went everywhere to play for fellowships. We met Elena Whiteside at those SNSs in Rye. She was living in Manhattan, downtown (Chelsea now). Nice place. PDSTRO went to OH in late December, 1971, to begin work on their first Album for way prod. Elena also went at that time and went to write that book. I went out to OH to record on that album, and hung out at NK for awhile. Spent time with Whiteside There and made plans to hookup again after ROA 72 to get the “inside scoop” on her time at HQ and her book. She was tight with Gretchen Morgan, wife of Bud, bigshot ABC Sports Producer, and the man who would film and direct, ROA ‘72, and changed. Dictor was working overtime trying to get Bud into the class so he could use him for those films. Bud took the class on his own, but never attended any fellowships or went further into wayville doctrines/classes. PDSTRO moved to OH in 1972. I still went to Manhattan several times to hang with Elena and grill her about her experiences with dictor. She was quite enthralled by dictor (as was I), and she had stars in her eyes recounting her experience. She was TOTALLY in love and she was brainwashed, just like the rest of us would be after spending any prolonged time in NK. As I posted in another thread, it turns out that the FACTS indeed, are that dictor got shit-faced on their drive to Van Wert, and ALL his “interview” material WAS nothing more than a drunken redneck hustle to try to get into this 30 year old Hippie’s underpants! She never told me he did. However, it was more than obvious, and that disturbed me. But, I willfully chose to ignore that ‘cuz it was “the mind of the flesh”! And, she was learning the ole “lockbox” doctrine, so truthful facts were out the window to protect the moggy. TWLIL was a piece of make-believe. The recorded, drunken fantasies and revisionist history of the Nazi Jeeezus in Ohio. It was so made up that even Dotsie and the kids had no idea of some of the things he said in that “book”. That immediately gave it away to me. i am not the least bit surprised that TWLIL is out-of-print. It’s just Nazi doc spewing forth one lie after another in order to get a hippie NYer to “open up” to him. Be well assured that TWIt’s lawyers, after the Allen and Kaufman lawsuits, made sure that dictor's past criminal activity had to be buried forever! His deeds needed to be expunged from the Rosie record in order to keep the $$! That’s also why they shit-canned da forehead. He was a legal liability. They could not afford to keep him and their minustray both. So, they dumped the Okie King and the Rosadonna era began and rules to this day. Don’t worry if you “ missed” this piece of TWIt propaganda. You missed nothing but lies, delusions of grandeur, and an Ohio redneck pervert trying to sex it up with a pretty 32 year old hippie from Manhattan. The usual perverted PIG did his thing and it was recorded in writing. She spent several months at HQ. She knew a lot which she never wrote. She went on to become a devoted Geerite. I fon’t know who she worships these days. Probably still the dictor............peace.

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.

Hi Grace, Since words matter, I just want to say that it wasn't a matter of how smart you were or are. Looking back, a lot of smart people didn't leave as soon as they think they should have.

Hi WW. I think we can say that no, VPW did not cite his sources in a consistent, professional or scholarly way that would allow a reader of most of his work to track it. I used those three words deliberately - there are some references here and there but there is a notable absence of him foot noting sections of what he published under his name that were clearly and closely identical to other work of other writers and doing it consistently or in such a way that it would be on record. Nor did he observe professional and legal best practices in that area, nor educational standards. He did talk about them, at times. He referenced Bullinger, Leonard, etc. etc. but never in a way that credited them, nearly always making note that they had all somehow stepped into error at some point or stopped "believing" God at His Word. I think one of the likeliest reasons he did that was to support his claim that God would teach him like no other since etc. if he would teach that to others. If he referenced huge chunks of his ideas and language used to express them to others having it first it would erode that claim. The best thing he could have done was invite all critics including those he quoted, to question and negate his work if they so desired and then let the pieces fly as they might. That would have suited his two-fisted mans-man motorcycle riding personae he promoted. Instead he talked about it in ways that allowed him to "credit" them while making sure the listener understood they were not fit to judge his ultimate use of their words. Matthew 5 – "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all; neither by heaven, for it is God's throne nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one." "Honesty" is a moving target for a lot of people. In the Way it's reserved for "the truth of God's Word". Everything else to them is a "fact", unreliable and invalid. Facts are ignored and replaced by "what's the Word say?"....and of course the Word says to be honest and truthful in regards to our "facts". Jesus taught His followers to pursue honesty through clarity and performance. Say what you mean, mean it and do your best to do it. We're not going to perform a 100 per cent of that all the time, we know that, but any effort to redefine that blurs the reality Jesus led us to.

I remember once at a Rock of Ages (I forget the year) when VP was under the big-top, teaching quite a bit more in-depth concerning Biblical administrations than what was in PFAL. (things like: "not reading the past into the future" or "the present into the past" or "one part of the future into another part of the future", etc) Having loved grammar all my life, I was already aware of some of these things from studying comprehension skills. Nevertheless, I was very impressed with some things I hadn't come across. But here's the interesting part: Many times, he was pausing quite a few seconds between remarks. Ordinarily, I would suppose a teacher would be doing that either for inflection or merely to collect his thoughts. But often, I noticed him glancing upward before continuing. (And I'm sure many of you here at GS already know the rest!) He was intentionally giving the impression that God was revealing stuff directly to him by revelation --- fresh off the press, as it were. Along with many, I was in awe of his spiritual prowess! However, some years later I finally bought a copy of Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. Lo and behold! --- In Part I, III, iv, 1-6 (covering pages 105ff) I saw that entire ROA teaching (supposedly from God to VP to us) plainly laid out in print --- right before my very eyes! (What I thought then really isn't worth mentioning, so I'll just stop here.)

Glad to help! As I had indicated earlier: Although this is "somewhat more remote" in context with the actual record of Pentecost (Act 2:1-4, etc) it does indeed relate. (In fact, the entire Word from Gen to Rev is basically telling only one story --- of which we perceive baptism to be a rather important aspect.)

Thank you, Spectrum. Yes, now I recall this from the foundational class, although I think you explained it better in these few sentences than what I remember from the class. But, that could be due to my faded memory. So, this actually adds to my response to TLC, in that receiving holy spirit we are also seated in the heavenlies with Jesus Christ. Without that spirit within we can make no such claim.

Genesis 1: God's Table of Contents to the Bible (And it's available for download here at GS, if you like.)

Unfortunately, my plight wasn't as easy to become rid of. I kept giving them the benefit, of the benefit, of the benefit, of the benefit of the doubt, that they just didn't see the "wonderful new light" I had found yet --- the book I wrote about Gen 1. At one time, I was actually commanded in the name of Jesus Christ to literally burn all of my 7 years of private research on the subject --- which of course, I very sadly obeyed. (Boo-hoo!) But (with God's help) I was somehow able to put it all back together! That was in '95. And I kept hoping that the next Limb Coordinator might see the logical way I presented the material...and the next...and the next (many times waiting 3-5 years for a "different opinion" upon the arrival of the new clergy). Long story short: I finally left in utter frustration after another 14 years or so, in 2009. (And I published my book shortly thereafter.)

49, you nailed it! If I had been smarter, I would have left TWI sooner than I did. But, I was comfortable, and didn't want to change my thinking habits. Finally though, the Navy sent me to Italy, and I was forced to change my thought patterns. No more TWI for me! I will always be thankful to Uncle Sam, for getting me out of TWI.

Perhaps this is "old news" to you, but because I hadn't frequented GS in some time --- I had missed this topic from 2014. If it's not too late, I'll chime in: I remember "the split" which (to my knowledge) truly began sprouting up shortly after VP had died. By the latter 80's to early 90's (which LCM had termed the fog years) this rift in the ministry finally became quite evident to most everyone. Yet, (despite the variances here and there, which were contentions about one subject or the other...like adultery, etc) all in all, the different camps (offshoots) were still so similar (because of the 90% or so they yet had in common) that some distinction had to be made in order to recognize just which one still taught the absolute truth! Therefore, those of us who remained after "the deluge" were (affectionately) given the (high and lofty) title: "the faithful remnant". That sure made us proud not to have left along with those nasty rags --- which had once been part of a most beautiful robe...or something to that effect! Speaking of terminology though, I've something I consider quite unique to share which might interest you: Early on (in May '75) I was proud of The Way naming itself as such --- because they actually called it The Way Biblical Research and Teaching Ministry. Being rather analytically minded, one day I saw Jn 14:6 in a light I hadn't noticed before: Jn 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life..." And I thought to myself: "So, Jesus Christ is: (1) the way, (= The Way) (2) the truth, (= Biblical Research, which discovers the truth) (3) and the life..." (= and Teaching these things promotes the life within the Ministry) Now, I wasn't exactly sure if TWI actually saw it this way, but that didn't seem to matter to me: Because (after all) I considered they were just being honest as to who they are and what they were doing. And I simply marveled: "WOW!!! This really is the one and only true ministry of Jesus Christ, because (even by it's sheer name) it's just so plain to see! It's truly 'the way, the truth, and the life ministry' --- exactly like Jesus said!" Boy, was I hooked --- like a catfish on a lure! Later on though, (still being analytical) I noticed a rather subtle change to this perfection in what the ministry called itself. For by then (in order to make the proper distinction I mentioned above, once there were many similar ministries around) they had added something to the original; for it was now called: The Way Biblical Research Teaching and Fellowship Ministry. Spiritually, this didn't sit very well with me --- because it seemed akin to adding to the Word, which is wrong --- just like what Eve had done in Eden! (And Jesus Christ certainly didn't say: "I am the way the truth, the life and the fellowship...") So why the addition? Simply, it was just another convention they used --- in order to isolate and control people! Because now: It no longer mattered so much what was actually taught, because all of the various offshoots had their different flavors of truth, so to speak. What was so important though is what LCM sternly warned and threatened people with: "Just who do you stand with?" So, who you fellowshiped with made all the difference. And LCM's laws just "got tougher and tougher", until I had finally had my fill. If only I had been a bit keener in my spiritual perception (based upon the unwarranted addition to the ministry's name) I might have saved myself from a few more years of grief and frustration! And the moral? Hindsight is 20-20!

Perhaps this is a slight deviation from the topic, but for what it's worth, here goes: One thing which was presented quite accurately (in that other ministry, yet copied from elsewhere!) concerns the terms kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God. (For brevity's sake, I'll not belabor myself to show the subtleties of the distinction between them here.) Basically: (1) The kingdom of God is overall, covering everything concerning God's own kingdom --- which (of course) includes the spiritual realm. (2) However, the kingdom of heaven is rather limited to an earthly kingdom. You may recall how John the Baptist frequently remarked: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand". (Later on, just after Jesus had heard John was in prison...to be beheaded...he began using that phrase himself --- taking over where John had left off, as it were.) Anyway: Even though the (earthly) kingdom of heaven "was at hand", that doesn't necessarily mean it was a valid statement --- as of yet! (After all, to properly have a kingdom upon earth requires the physical presence of a king; and technically, Jesus wasn't yet a king; those of Israel merely assumed so at the time.) [Now: There's a rather mysterious reason why God allowed Israel to (falsely) proclaim Jesus as King of the Jews, even though it wasn't yet an actual reality. But I won't go into that aspect here and now. Let it suffice that (later on) Jesus will rule as a king upon earth.] [And that's where The Way had another thing correct: But as usual, the info was obtained (actually, plagiarized) from another source, long before PFAL.] And this concerns how the kingdom of heaven was discontinued after Jesus departed --- and is still being held in abeyance until his return (in Revelation) when he receives his official title as King of Kings, after which he'll rule his kingdom upon earth (the finally realized kingdom of heaven...duh!) for 1,000 years (aka: the millennium). Meanwhile, he's a resident of God's Kingdom. And it appears that he's the only one so far...who was once human. (The angels have resided there from antiquity.) Although being subjects of the realm isn't yet a virtual reality for us, we're informed in a figure that (spiritually speaking, mind you!) it's a present reality for us --- even as "we're already seated in the heavenlies", per Ephesians. And the reason this is so is because (as I said earlier) the Kingdom of God includes the spiritual realm, to which we have been initiated (baptized into) --- per our obedience to Ro 10:9, which pertains to the new birth (lit: born from above; ie: having received spiritual life). Nevertheless, what we have presently (though quite vast in itself!) is a merely a portion (earnest; or token, per Eph 1:14) of what we shall have in full, even as Jesus Christ has presently. So yes...technically Jesus is the only actual subject of The Kingdom of God, because (per Mk 16:19) he ascended to God's throne. But sometime later on, we'll join him there, where God rules as THE KING.

After reading what Spectrum showed me, I can respond. My answer to your question lines up perfectly with John 3:8. No one at the temple saw anything actually happen to the twelve. But they saw the result when they spoke in tongues. And they also saw the result when Peter stood up and gave the greatest impromptu teaching I know of.

You’re more than welcome GVC.

Thank you. It does make sense. And now I can answer TLC.

Read it, can't remember the contents, don't care to remember the contents. I probably chucked it in the woodburner along with so much other Wayfer stuff. Dont't care to remember what I did with it.

No that makes a lot more sense specific to the narrative. The inspiring part is the collaboration actually. It was not the one "lead apostle" or whatever, who got zapped with a lightning bolt, then he / she / it started "putting together a plan" for the distribution of the gift. It was all of them working together. The problem "needed to be 12" delves into what, governmental perfection? The same number as a jury for a trial? Yes the fulfilling of the prophecy of Psalms from Acts 1:20 also referenced. But the emphasis for teamwork here is what gets me out of "scribe city" currently LOL. On a deep front. Thx bro.

This might be a bit off-topic, but (to me) it still relates because it's along the lines of changing wording to suit one's own perspective. It has to do with The Way's "literal translations, according to usage". This classic example of mine (which I hope you'll enjoy, along with me) is as follows: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, [to determine] whether those things were so.” (Act 17:11 - KJV) The word whether is very interesting here. When this verse is worked honestly, it really means: “by searching the scriptures daily, they could determine for themselves whether or not what they had been taught made sense to them (that is: whether those things were so). For all they knew, there was potential for it not to line up with the scriptures they had at hand. And they could comprehend this merely by comparing it on their own, so they could plainly see for themselves if what they had heard was really the truth. Now—this is what God calls being noble. [And this is very simple to see: The word whether is the Greek word “ei”. Of the 292 times it occurs in the NT, it’s translated “if” 242 times. So—we can read this verse “and searched the scriptures daily, [to determine] IF those things were so.”.] But TWI had a different slant on this verse! They teach it just as though the Greek word “ei” should be translated “that” instead of “if”. In other words: “You work exactly what we showed you, until you can see for yourself that those things are so." Let’s show that another way --- by using the scripture verse again: [What TWI says is in red font --- and replaces what’s been crossed out.] "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word the teachings of The Way with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures only within those teachings (also including what was taught about them elsewhere, by looking up all the verses used --- via The Way International Publications Scripture Index...and reading all of those articles as well) daily, whether those things were so. proving to themselves that what was already taught to them was the absolute truth of the Word of God --- because they had made it their own! Now—that’s not what I consider being noble --- it’s what I call being puppets on a string!

Dude a married minister propositioned the girl next to you in class and you give him a pass? The error here is not in me saying she was molested. In my view a married man who is a clergyman should not be "moving the Word" with his penis in any capacity - propositioning members of the public taking his classes. This set the pattern for what later would become in the Way quid pro quo sexual harassment. The problem here is not in me "assuming the worst". And it's not in me being "insensitive" to an old pervy adulterer. The bad versus the worst is enough to discredit the man, and sufficiently make my point about the blind eye you have turned to it ever since the beginning. The only God breathed Word I see attached to Victor Paul Wierwille's life and actions consists of one letter. Scarlet in fact. A

"Opportunity"... Them: "Sounds like you have an opportunity." Me: "No, what I have is a big freakin' problem."

Taxidev: I guess the point I was trying to make is more like this: At the very moment God breathed unto Adam, he began living his natural life. And In acts, the very moment the rushing mighty wind thing happened is precisely when the 12 apostles' spiritual life began. And immediately after they had received this new life, they began putting it to use --- by speaking in tongues. As far as the polysyndeton (many ands) goes, that figure of speech doesn't always entail a rapid succession of things happening, but is always a semantic convention alluding to the importance (and stress) we should place upon each individual item contained therein. And as far as Pentecost is concerned, I believe the wind, the cloven tongues, their becoming born again and speaking in tongues all happened within a very short space of time. (In fact, I'm also of the opinion that the vision of the cloven tongues as of fire was not only God's way of letting them know they had already received the spirit, but was also as a sign that they would perceive what to do --- and use those tongues by speaking out.) Now my friend, please understand one thing about me as we get to know each other. Certainly I put my best foot forward (so to speak) when I proclaim things. In doing so, I'm giving it the best chance to be accepted by those who read my work. After all, I do need to sound as convincing as possible, don't I? However, that does not mean those things are settled in stone for me. Simply come up with something which sounds even more logical to me, and I have no problem adapting that in its place. Peace, bro...

Hey Mike: Don’t flatter yourself with your fantasy that I am your “opponent” in some grand “debate”. I am NOT your opponent. I feel deep sorrow and pity for you, not opposition. I have already told you, again, way back on page 11, that trying to engage you in a serious discussion about anything TWIt’n’Dic is like administering medicine to the dead. ALL your “research”, “manifestos”, “statements”, “theses”, “TVTs”, “discussions” of 40-50 years ago, “learning” from Popular Science and Popular Mechanics, lie detector “experts”, quotes from “old grads”, your “theories” (e.g. “the pure evil theory” etc.), transcripts from 53 year old SNS tapes, quotes from piffle, elena’s post-sex book about dictor paul and his drunken bullshit hustle to get into her hippie underpants, revisionist wierwille-worshipping tripe, revisionist B.G., Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger stohrees, quotes from various syllabi and lullabies, and overt lying, dealing one unicorn fantasy after another from your never ending shue of bullshit, is totally self-absorbed and IRRATIONAL. Irrational, as in illogical, unreasonable, insane. I for one, really wish the good-hearted GSCers here trying to dialogue reasonably with you would simply stop doing so. Go down to Doctrinal and pontificate your “ancient”, “overlooked” garbage there. No one should bother answering you any where else, as it leads to an incredible waste of byte-space which YOU don’t pay for! The members and Paw pay for it. Stop wasting our money and bytespace outside of doctrinal. I implore my fellow GSCers to refrain from posting to Mike or responding to him anywhere but in the Doctrinal Forums. Then, folks who really want to keep dealing with Mike’s illnesses publicly know exactly where to find him, newbies don’t have to read his garbage in Open, Way Int’l, or Offshoots Forums, and we need only see it if we choose to. Saves everyone a helluva lot of time and agita! So Mike......this will be THE last post from me to or about YOU anywhere at the GSC outside of Doctrinal Forums. I’m old enough to spot irrational bullshit, psychiatric pathologies, and insane behavior, to know I’ve had my fill of them for this lifetime. This is no ad hominem attack Mikey. This is simply a fact-filled, reasonable assessment of your mental state as evidenced by your rambling, nearly incoherent “essays”, along with your erratic and annoying posting behavior. You’re a gentle soul. Thanks for keeping yourself in Doctrinal. Happy Resurrection Day. See ya in Doctrinal only. No more “BeHappy troops” up here. Bye now.

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.