JeffSjo

Dear Paw and RD, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!!!

Hi Ghost and happy posting!

Hi friends, It's nice to be here again. I've been considering this matter of plagiarism some more. Thank you everyone for letting this thread go on without any major fights on it!!! I've been thinking some more about Dr. Wierwilles motivation in copying so many works and not giving the proper credit in the form of acknowledgements. It's not that I want to make excuses for mistakes made by any man, it's just that I think that this topic can be considered separately from the multitude of other topics on this site to the degree that we may be able to see a little more clearly into the motivation of the man that started TWI. Then possibly we may all see the big picture a little more clearly. Especially in terms of percieving the Lord's justice in regards to seeing the fruit of the spirit of error. In the consideration of this category of fruit it seems to me that the correct terms for "the fear of the Lord" can be percieved. And no matter what our personal views are, I believe that the Lord's judgement is ultimately final and without respect of any man's person. I think that this is a touchy and controversial topic, especially when TWI affected many of us so differently. But to me, the time for covering these things up is long past. With so many people effected negatively by TWI, I view any attempt to put down people who have been legitimately hurt by TWI as short sighted and just as damaging and hurtfull as the original offense. But it seems to me that the folks who have been hurt the worst are also the most likely to speak and think in the angriest terms. I will not condemn them for that. I'm just glad that you've been willing to let this thread go on about the plagiarism issue alone. BACK TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED TOPIC I've been thinking about a few things that I remember from TWI history and think that they may apply. Dr. Wierwille claimed to have invented the hookshot in the game of basketball. I do not know if this is true or not because I do not know enough about the history of the game. I think that it is possible back in Dr. Wierwille's college days that the game looked a lot different than it does now. I think that it's likely that within the small circle of players and coaches that were around him in those days that someone might have said, "Look at that, Wierwille's invented a new shot!" Maybe they thought he did anyway and so Dr. himself thought so too. Personally, I cannot imagine that elsewhere somebody had come up with the hookshot before, probably many different people in many places. Even Elijah; because he was not able to see the big picture after all; thought he was alone. So Dr. might have thought he invented the hookshot. HERE IS MY POINT, EVEN THOUGH IT IS SOMEWHAT SPECULATIVE FOR LACK OF INFORMATION. If someone saw Dr.'s hookshot, developed it, and ultimately made it their own without giving Dr. credit it could have been viewed by Dr. as a lesson. Maybe that lesson was that it was their right to do that with the shot that he developed. So one little instance may have contributed to the same view of what Dr. felt was his right to do with other people's biblical work. If that was what was done to Dr. then it's possible that he decided to do the same himself. I am not saying this to excuse him. I'm saying this because I see value in coming to terms with the events in his life that lead to being who he was. No matter what any of us think of him, in one respect he was no different than any of us in that the events of his life contributed to the man he became. For me this is just one little possibility that seems to fit. Ultimately I believe the Lord will be the one to sum it all up in the most meaningful and relevent manner.

Dear T-bone, I sincerly wish that you could have made the title a little more clear and concise. :) :P

Hi year 2027, I hope that things go well with you and yours. Thank you for this statement. Take care and God Bless.

As far as I'm concerned the plagiarism issue is settled. Dr Wierwille was not thinking correctly as he repeatedly copied people over the years and claimed the work as his own. I would be inclined to believe Dr. Wierille worked it out of God's Word all on his own except for the abundance of word for word; or nearly word for word copying of sentences, paragraphs, or even chapters. Some of the history that's been presented as in the case of B.G. Leonard and Dr. Wierwille point to at the very least Dr. Wierwille playing fast and loose with Rev. Leonard's permission to use the class material. As concerning the contributers who have passed on; I think that not giving full credit to the originators of these teaching is wrong, plain and simple. As to Dr. Wierwille's intentions, I think it is clear that Dr. Wierwille considered a lot of contemporary Christianity to be very bad. I think that he probably rationalized this copying in terms of, I cannot let their stands infect my pupils, or something like that. I think that it's possible that Dr. Wierwille was hurt by rejection from denominational Christianity in his early years and after that carried a chip on his shoulders for the rest of his life. But being unjustly condemned by hypocritical and heartless psuedochristlike (To the best of my knowledge I just made that word up.) judgements can burn someone for life sometimes, especially when someone pins it as the devil working through those certain heartless Christians. I CANNOT LOOK AT THESE THINGS WITHOUT REMINDING MYSELF THAT THE LORD HIMSELF WILL BE THE ULTIMATE JUDGE. I am sorrowful that a ministry that made extensive and questionable use of other scources has become such royal p-icks when it comes to their own copyrights and so forth. It is clearly huge hypocrisy that TWI dares sue others for less obvious and questionable copying that they themselves have done. This kind of hypocrisy is clearly something that angers the Lord IMO. I feel sorry for all the years that the Way Corps was dragged through the coals in order to not see the ministry blamed or to not even give the appearance of anything evil (Those are two different biblical admonitions.) turned out to have the teacher or teachers being worse than the corps who were released from the Way Corps training for far less damaging appearances than these issues here. And that's not even mentioning the far worse sins commited by leadership that are covered in other threads. What a huge stinky pile of poop it all became. I bet that a lot of folks in TWI now don't know what they've stepped in. (added in editing) Dear FRIENDS, I never know if I'll be able to get back soon when I'm done. Even more than usual this is one of those times. If this is the last that I can be back for a while I'll miss you all and I've tried to make every post count. Thank you all!!!!! (just in case)

Dear Penworks, Thanks for pulling this thread to the front. Dear Wordwolf, I see now that you weren't kidding about this topic having been discussed before. Dear Waysider, It seems clear to me that Dr. Wirewille had a clear pattern of using other people's works for me too. I'm still considering possibilities that he did it out of concern for "his kids" but if I go that way of thinking it won't be an easy road for sure. I'm really quite uncomfortable already considering what look to be his mistakes, and that's without the villanization. Dear Brideofjc, I don't see any reason to doubt this prophecy of B.G.Leonard's either. I think it's worth noting that this prophecy speaks of helping God's people, but the other one refers to more knowledge. I'm not sure where that observation may lead, I'm just throwing it out there. Dear Ham, I didn't have any intentions to plagiarize this thread with my newer one, no, really :)

Thank you again Wordwolf, In spite of these awkward postings back and forth that remind me of a bad game of phone tag I seem to be able to track with you o.k. Just so you know, I added comments to my previous thank you while you did your last posting. I want to bring that to your attention because it felt awkward to me when after I added my comments I saw you last post. A lot about what TWI became sure angers me however. (edited to correct a minor error that may also have been a minor freudian slip)

THANK YOU WORDWOLF. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THESE INSTANCES CERTAINLY SAY SOMETHING. I am still considering exactly what they are saying however. I'd rather not jump to conclusions in the mean time, especially jumping to anyone elses so to speak. Dear MIKE, I still believe in the Grace of God being at the root of PFAL and consequently at the origin of TWI. I DO HAVE ISSUES WITH YOUR THESIS HOWEVER. I do not believe that the PFAL class and the words of the PFAL are God breathed. I take issue with your thesis on many levels. I hold "God Breathed" to be the infallible standard that only applies to scripture or speach of equal worth. Even Dr. Wierwille stated often that he wouldn't guarantee that everything he said was "God breathed". I do not understand why you choose to take a stand concerning Dr. Wierwille's works that even he didn't take. Not only did Dr. Wierwille not take the same stand concerning his works, but HE OFTEN SAID MANY THINGS TO KEEP FOLKS FROM BELIEVING WHAT YOU CLAIM AS YOUR THESIS. That is how I remember it, so I conclude that your thesis is incorrect. AT LEAST WHEN I CLAIM SCRIPTURE TO BE GOD BREATHED I AGREE WITH WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS OF ITSELF. WHAT YOU SAY OF DR. WIERWILLE'S WORKS SHOULD NOT EXCEED WHAT HE SAID OF HIS OWN WORKS IMO. I am not in any way aggravated at you either. Dear What The Hey, IMO both Pond's scripture references and Wordwolf's precise information outweigh your points.

Personally, I cannot think of ANYTHING that I would have liked better (as it relates to this topic) than to have had Dr. Wierwille plainly and thoroughly credit his scources and then just as thoroughly explain his concerns about the scources. What an awesome record of his thinking concerning these things that would have left us. It would have also left us no doubt as to his concerns or his intentions. And for me it seems (in hindsight) as the right way for Dr. to have handled it. I would gladly take a good opportunity to show where I still agree with Dr. and work through the places where I've had to change some things for instance. Taking the opportunity to do so would be a good thing for me to do; and not leaving any doubt would be good too IMO. I just wish I could be sure of why Dr. did not do this. He left too much room for doubt on everyone's part. (added in editing) And another thing, I wish that if any of Doctor Wierwille's contemporaries felt they were plagiarized that they would have said so. Maybe they did, I'd certainly like to see it. If they were aware of it, they would have done everyone a huge service to simply say so as a matter of record. IMO this would be a situation where the value of the truth overrides any "decorum" type issues. I have a vague recollection of Dr. Wierwille mentioning B.G. Leonard. If I recall correctly, he mentioned asking B.G. if he could use his class material. It seemed to me that (looking back with a vague memory) that B.G. Leonard might have been obliged to say that he gave Dr. permission to do so if what Dr. Wierwille said is correct. Still, I believe that Dr. Wierwille should have credited B.G. Leonard better, especially in the written material.

I would like to know more specifics. The story that I remember from the old days is that Dr. Wierwille tried to document the Trinity in God's Word and then ended up discovering that God's Word did not teach the trinity. IMO it is very telling that the bible does not specifically mention the trinity. I know that this shouldn't become a doctrinal discussion. I just said that to point out that on the surface it gives a non-trinitarian viewpoint some credence, and so it also gave Dr. Wierwille the same credence as he taught this point in the PFAL class; to me anyway.

Dear Wordwolf, The case that you make is very compelling. What you have to say about the technicalities of the plagiarism issue seems sound to me, at the very least it is clear that you have a better handle on the issue than me. ESPECIALLY AS I'VE JUST FOUND OUT HOW TO CORRECTLY SPELL PLAGIARISM. :) lol :) In another thread I said that criminal behavior deserves to be described as criminal behavior. It is a simple matter of integrity at that point, whether or not it's pleasant is another issue entirely. Dear Mike, I'd really LIKE to agree with you that the reason that Dr. Wierwille left out the references was good, but I cannot. I think it's likely that his intentions were good. (It takes a lot for me to be convinced of evil intentions) Even with good intentions on his part I believe some of these decisions were mistakes. In my life people who were very convinced of their "spirituality" have done wicked things to me. They were so convinced that they were right that they were willing to completely ignore God's commandments as they are written in the church epistles. Even to this day it worries me when I consider their potential for leading people down this self-deceptive path of their's. For me, any claim of overriding wisdom on Dr.'s part that you claim to be true are overriden by the results that we see right before our very eyes for the most part. That leaves your claim to all the damage that would have been done by proper citations on Dr.'s part as unsound (when compared to the many,MANY clear and obvious examples otherwise) and at the very least to be misleading. Dear Pond, Well said. For me it's pretty simple. If we can be convinced to break God's Word, it proves that we are not walking with the Lord no matter how we try to justify it. If Dr. wierwille had handled this matter so that the ministry would not have to deal with even the very accusation, it would prove to me that his thinking was correct. The fruit of his thinking is that his works can be be shown to be plagarised. (Wordwolf and waysider are very convincing IMO) Dear What The Hey, IMO the scripture that Pond brings up trumps every one of the points that you make. (edited to add to my comments to Wordwolf) (spelling too)

I've had to change some doctrines that I've learned in PFAL. I've seen people defend these doctrines that I now believe to be mistaken, I've done the same thing in times past. If I can I'll give them a break, I'm not enjoying finding error or rubbing anyone's face in it. I've seen people attack doctrines that I believe to be true. Sometimes it seems that this is done in a mean spirited manner. Sometimes this is done in a manner that reminds me of "straining at a gnat"; in other words the pointing out of error is in itself making a mountain of a mole hile. Sometimes it seems that it's done with good intentions and in a respectful manner. Sometimes it seems to me that I can't possibly make sense out of something that Dr. Wierwille said unless I know the context of the comment. IMO this would be a good practice for those who seek to back up Dr. Wierwille and those who seek to discredit him too. (added in editing) Dear Mike, I hope that you continue to post. But you should do whatever you need to do to have the best on-line fellowship that you can.

I'd be interested in knowing the history of this doctrine in TWI too. As concerning intentions, having an opinion about someone's intentions is a lot easier than proving the same opinion. In my experience it's easier to have a doctrinal opinion if the effects of that opinion also line up with a prefered response in other people. Having a doctrinal opinion to your own hurt is always noteworthy. IMO

I'm thinking that a snake that size would eat a baby rabbit and that in this case momma or daddy objected to having the snake anywhere near the den. I wish that more people would find that kind of courage in the face of predators. SORRY EVERYONE; now back to the silly stuff...........

I do not know what to share with you Chuck except that what you have posted struck a chord in me. I really hope that you find the comfort you need, and that it is comfort and assurance that settles your heart before the Lord. I am very glad that you're sharing your doubts and I hope that the Lord answers them for you.

In my experience, the doctrines concerning marriages in a spiritual sense only are dangerous enough as it applies to the church. Even more so when the sexual act is included in the mess. As if spiritualising it or any other justification over-rides what amounts to simple adultery or fornication. I'm fairly certain that Paul menioned these things along with an exhortation to not be decieved in at least one place. I've seen folks consider themselves "joined" to a man in a spiritual sense even while they broke down the plain and simple commandments concerning the "for real marriage". I'm thinking that such joinings are often no better than a "white wedding" as sung by Billy Idol. If that's how it comes out in the wash when it's all said and done, there will be some very surprised and disssapointed people when the Lord has his say. It certainly is clear at any rate that when men exercise authority over followers, that there is an abundant number of ways for them to completely screw things up IMO. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. Once a man I knew in a little splinter group that I was a part of explained to me that it was o.k. with him that all the women in the group acted like beatle groupies (beatle groupies are my words, not his) when the MOG came around, even his wife and daughers. If anyone questioned this (I know by experience) they were marked as malcontents or worse. After all, this was only how this man's ministry worked, and to question his motives in allowing the ladies to act a little crazy was to be disloyal to the MOG. Never mind that he shared with us all that in order for him to continue in the ministry he had to forsake his own wedding vows. In hindsight I have no trouble saying that this whole situation was very twisted and very dangerous.

This may be opening up a whole different can of worms, but it seems to me that William Tyndale believed that the dead are not alive also. As I read his 1534 new testement and his commentary it seems that it wasn't uncommon for him to refer to what he believed as it pertains to the issues he was dealing with in an indirect manner. The way that he handled the resurrection in his introduction leads me to draw that conclusion about what he believed. In the same manner of reading-between-the-lines I first saw that he thought that Apollos wrote the book of Hebrews. The manner in which he brought it up was so gentle though that it seems much harder to rail against what he believed though. I take it as a very good example of gentleness while speaking the truth. BOY OH BOY, these issues are not easy ones to deal with, but IMO not demonizing anyone unjustly tends to make the whole thing much easier to look at. To be frank, I think that there is a reference in the bible (Jude 9) that would cause me to not demonize (so to speak) even the devil himself. To me there is both truth and a little tongue-in-cheek humor in saying it that way. NOT DEMONIZING THE DEVIL, chuckle. (edited for clarity) not uncommon for me P.S. I just figured out how to get to some of these articles through the home page. I'm just taking a lot of it in still.

Dear Oakspear, I haven't made up my mind yet as to how I'm going to sum up this thread as it developes so I'm going to respond to your opinions by pointing out other options, I'm willing to let the chips fall wherever they may when it's all said and done however. Or it may be the result of some sloppy writing mixed with very pressing concerns that Dr. Wierwille was dealing with at the time he was writing. For example they could be the result of many of his contemporaries rejecting him and questioning his motives, or maybe at a different time he might have been emotional about people being kidnapped as part of a deprogramming campaign.At the very least it indicates that Dr. Wierwille did not have adequate help in terms of proofreading and editing. There has been enough said on this site for me to not condemn anyone that was in a potential position to help Dr. Wierwille either, I believe that there is plenty of good reason to believe you all that you felt generally intimidated by the high handedness of TWI at the time that much of this stuff was written. On the other hand, if I have correctly recalled Chr-s G--r's teaching and I have correctly percieved his intent, it seems that some were able to at least try to help things become better than they were in terms of handling God's Word correctly. Dear Ham, I remember Dr. Wierwille say thing like that about the people he learned things from too. It seems clear to me that he didn't want folks in TWI focusing too much on the folks that he learned things from. To be completely frank Ham, I'm still considering "what's up with that" too. I'm still willing to consider the possibility that these things happened for what Dr. Wierwille considered good reasons, but I'm pretty sure that I'll end up considering some of these things that he did at the very least to be mistakes. Dear Socks, The fact that you do not paint Dr. Wierwille in "evil" terms as touching the plagarism issue helps make your posts easier for me to read. "Shot himself in the foot" or "leavened the whole loaf"? I'm still chewing on the issues here.

Thank you TrustAndObey for that. I always like hearing bits of how TWI is doind nowadays as my direct experience with them ended during the 1980's. My life experience with human nature leads me to think that if someone's own assessment of themself is that they are "80% correct" that it is very likely that they have far less than "80% correct". What I believe to be true for all of us is that the Lord will have the final say on this issue and compared to that, our own assessments of ourselves are at best an indicator of the state of our conscience. (edited for spelling)

This is a very interesting discussion to me. It could very well be placed in the doctrinal section as far as the discussion has gone, which is pretty far away from anything that pertains to just getting back from church IMO. Still, as the doctines involved has either helped or hurt us at various times, I appreciate reading your various statements. Dear Brideofjc, Whitedove was not being infantile because when he/she answered me, He/she stated that I was not put on ignore. I was thinking that I might have been put on ignore by Whitedove because one of my first conversations here on this site involved me getting angry at Whitedove. I am encouraged to see that Whitedove answered my concerns directly and that was before your comments concerning childish behavior on whitedove's part. Dear Whitedove, I don't consider myself to be one who sacrifices truth to play peacekeeper, but everyone's certainly free to have their own opinion about me. I do try to be one who looks at who I'm talking to and where they are coming from when I'm discussing a topic. I consider this to be part of "SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE". For me it seems to be the difference between being a bully and effectvely helping someone, or sometimes it is the difference between the conversation ending up productive or not. At the very least it has helped me not be mindlessly argumentative.

I wish I had something for you, and I'm sure many of wish we did too Cindy! I don't even know anyone who's dealt with this. I really hope it goes well for you though!

Dear Whitedove, I think that many folks were hurt by the application of the doctrine in times past. If leadership blamed me for lack of believing when in truth it was leadership's hypocrisy that meant they could not possibly give me Godly councel; I might be a little perturbed about it all too!! Some folks here have lost an awful lot due to these type of things. P.S. Can you read my posts Whitedove or not? Have you put me on ignore? I'd hate to miss out on fellowship that might be good for both of us. (edited for spelling)

Often times I remember Dr. Wierwille saying something like, "If I only knew how to explain it better" or some such thing. IMO BELIEVING is acting on a promise from God in the right time and place and it energizes God's own power to bring it to pass. Without God's specific promise or if something changes it causes the same action to look like a "swing and a miss". I spose that a sinner can act on a specific promise from God too, but it seems less likely that God would watch over a sinner in the same way he would a believer. WISDOM works for saint or sinner just the same way.