WordWolf

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.

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.

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.

For the curious, we discussed plagiarism before. Here are some of the threads: Why Plagiarism Is A Big Deal http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/299-why-plagiarism-is-a-big-deal/ BG Leonard's book foundations Plagiarism http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/298-bg-leonards-book-foundationsplagiarism/ Interesting Twists on Plagiarism... http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/273-interesting-twists-on-plagiarism-in-regards-to-the-way-dr-wierwilles-works/ vp plagiarism documentation http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/22281-vp-plagiarism-documentation/ Why plagiarism matters http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24190-why-plagiarism-matters/ Plagiarism 101 http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/12755-plagiarism-101/

So, since it's still off-topic for this thread, start the new thread on your topic wherever you think is appropriate. If the staff disagrees on the location, they can move it. Either way, the content will stay the same and can be discussed wherever it is. But first you have to START the new thread.

As I said, we all have lives so nobody's sitting with a stopwatch timing your replies. If you want to participate in a thread, you have to read like everyone else. Read it the next day or the next week, but read it. I'm not spending hours and hours rewriting the same post in different ways because you didn't pay attention to the original post. Again, if there's something SPECIFIC you don't get, ask and I'll do my best to explain and restate THAT. So, we have a thread on a specific subject. If you have something to say on that subject, meet us on that thread. Subject to time constraints (like all the rest of us), participate like posters all over this board and all over cyberspace. I appreciate your candor about being pompous here, but being pompous doesn't get you special treatment.

When I followed the timeline, it looked like R1nker (I think it was her) introduced him to Bullinger, then vpw immersed himself in everything EWB, then immediately turned around and began using it. vpw's style was often to parrot immediately what another taught without stopping to "make it his own." So BGL's class was "xeroxed" in its entirety, Stiles' book was retyped almost word-for-word, Bullinger's work was transferred over point-for-point even with vpw copying mistakes, etc. So, unlikely he did- unless he did and didn't crack them open until she said something.[/b[

If you'd just left it there, you'd have come off looking better than you did after a few posts trying to lawyer out the idea that you went too far with what you said. For a moment, it sounded like you actually cared about her as a person.

Sometimes I really DO forget how long we've been doing this, and how many discussions of substance have passed through here. This was really more a summary of what other posters pointed out long ago, across different threads.

Sounds worth discussing. Since it's not really "About The Way", perhaps you'd like to open a new thread in Doctrinal about that very thing. Yes, I'm trying to keep this thread focused. You've missed the past decade or more of posting, but there's always someone intentionally looking to derail any thread that exposes twi faults or vpw faults. We don't need anyone accidentally derailing it before they start posting in it. :)

Once again, John and I agree on something! (Say hello to Jean for me, please.)

No, I'm not buying this one. Here's how it works. We have a discussion on the 1942 promise. Anyone is welcome to participate-you've specifically been invited to participate by the original poster of the thread (me). If you want to participate, you'll actually have to READ THE POSTS. You expect me to read your posts-and I do- so you're expected to show me the same courtesy you're expecting of me-and getting. Since we all have lives, you don't have to drop everything to read it, but you're expected to read the thread before joining it. It's not even a full page yet. So, start with the first post-the one you're claiming a problem with. If you're actually misunderstanding something in that post, ask about it in the thread and be specific. "I don't want to read that much, please summarize" is rather rich coming from you. I'll rephrase if some wording has you stuck, but I see no sign that was the case. I'm seeing you skip what you want and reply only to what you feel like-even if you skipped the more critical and replied only to the least point. And if I didn't think you could participate fully as a poster in the thread, I wouldn't have made it as easy as possible for you to reply while actually inviting you personally to join in. Make of that what you will.

A) So, it's not important enough for you to look up, but someone else should look it up, and it supposedly supports your position . That's a rather specific level of importance. B) Should be no surprise that you still can't remember that WE'VE posted what vpw wrote- and why it was completely inadequate. One comment buried over 100 pages into one book owned by a minority of twi'ers is not "proper attribution" nor was it even honest in this instance. If you want to get into that one, make a new thread and I'll explain or cut-and-paste what was already explained about that.

C) The alleged promise was based on ignorance. twi's system shares a trait with the Mikean system- they're both Gnostic systems based on secret knowledge. The twi system-which was vpw's system, set up by him and used by him all the time- was that study of the verses was the key to God (plus the "Law of Believing"),. So, the more you study the verses, the more "godly" you can become, especially if you study it the twi way. We've all seen far too many horror stories of twi "masters" who partly memorized vpw/twi materials and were bigger schmucks if anything. Geer spent hours going over vpw's teachings in between drugging women for vpw to rape and preparing to throw himself over vpw as a human shield if anyone tried to shoot him. But, let's expose the IGNORANCE in the alleged "promise." How DID the 1st century Christian church know God's Word? They knew the Torah/Old Testament. They knew the SPOKEN word, They knew The Word BY EXPERIENCE AND POWER. Think about it. They were getting converts left and right while being a disciple was ILLEGAL and punished by imprisonment, murder, or both. They got LOTS of converts with that going on. No amount of charismatic demagoguery can make up for the risk of being killed or imprisoned. You might get a few disaffected outsiders. They got Saul of Tarsus, former persecutor and murderer of Christians (he didn't put his hand on the knife, but he ordered it done.) Did the Greeks hear good speeches then run out and conclude that their gods walked among them and prepared to offer blood sacrifices? They SAW something. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, provide the extraordinary proof, and the claims stop looking extraordinary-at least in comparison to the proof. The 1st century Christians preached-but were known because they had power and could deliver where they spoke. Lots of people preached and didn't get significant converts. Theirs was a pragmatic, direct, power-based ministry. twi was never that. They were study-based, and TALKED ABOUT power lots of times, then considered "Kojacking" a significant witness of "power." 1st century Christians were never centrally-controlled nor organized. twi bore no resemblance to 1st century Christianity except where twi CLAIMED they did. But all the claims don't mean reality matches a claim. The 1st century Christians probably didn't have access to the entire New Testament ANYWHERE. All documents had to be hand-copied. With no printing press and no scanners and PDFs, that was a laborious process and few copies circulated for the 1st century AD (certainly relative to now.) So, twi has NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." because vpw NEVER had "The Word as it was known in the 1st Century." vpw might have known that when he phrased the promise he was supposedly given, but he skipped over "Church history". So, he was likely to make such a mistake where God Almighty would not. vpw made up the alleged 1942 promise. and it's easy to show all the errors. There was no such promise. There's no real, sensible reason to laud vpw or "his" books. They don't comrpise "revelation." "Seems I find myself in disagreement with the essence of that. "They" (which from the context of your post, appears to be aimed at the church that was based in Jerusalem), and the Word of God that they knew (be it the Torah/Old Testament, the SPOKEN word, or The Word BY EXPERIENCE AND POWER), didn't get to Saul or get him to do anything - aside from hauling them off to prison and making sure they were sentenced to death." I'm drawing a contrast between the verbiage-heavy, study-based system vpw propagated, and the simpler, action-based system in Acts. Saul of Tarsus consented to the deaths of Christians and their imprisonment for the "crime" of being Christians. He was a somewhat fanatical Jew-which made him actively anti-Christian. Would a speech reach him? No- somebody like that needs to see something. In his case, it wasn't a sales-pitch for a green-card, but being blown off his horse by a flash of light that spoke to him and gave him temporary blindness. THAT got his attention. Until then-and a day or so to think it over- no speech would have gotten through. When I say "they got" it was in the sense of "and FC Barcelona got Lionel Messi that season." ("We got Potter!") Saul of Tarsus joined the team. "And, as for the Greeks, I don't see that it was anything that they believed as a result of something they saw (or experienced) that turned the world upside down. Instead, I think it was their response to the words that Paul spoke - which they then believed to be the Word of God - which turned the world upside down." Acts 14: 7-13 (KJV) 7 And there they preached the gospel. 8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked: 9 The same heard Paul speak: who stedfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, 10 Said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet. And he leaped and walked. 11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. 12 And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Acts 4: 14-16 (KJV) 14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. 15 But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, 16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. Acts 5:12-16 12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch. 13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. 14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.) 15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. 16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one. Acts 6:8-10 8 And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people. 9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen. 10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Acts 8:5-13 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city. 9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: 10 To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. 11 And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. 12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Acts 9:32-35 32 And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda. 33 And there he found a certain man named Aeneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. 34 And Peter said unto him, Aeneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately. 35 And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord. Acts 9:36-42 36 Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. 37 And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. 38 And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them. 39 Then Peter arose and went with them. When he was come, they brought him into the upper chamber: and all the widows stood by him weeping, and shewing the coats and garments which Dorcas made, while she was with them. 40 But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up. 41 And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive. 42 And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. They certainly preached- but with nothing to see, there would not have been as dramatic a conversion rate. People SAW things, people EXPERIENCED things. It's one thing to believe someone can get healed- but if YOU'RE the one healed, it's hard to be convinced it didn't happen. I'm pretty sure the man born blind and the lame at the temple gate Beautiful weren't convinced that it was all just pretty speeches once they got their healing-they knew the difference. On the other hand, Paul did preach without the miracles, and the results weren't a swelling of converts. Acts 17:21 (For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.) 32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. A few converts joined, but the majority were just there for some entertainment and new philosophy. The Greeks who saw miracles sat up and paid attention. Is it possible to see a similarity between vpw's preaching about Greek words and Paul's preaching and miracles? vpw talked a good game, but when it came time to demonstrate power, he didn't. Saul of Tarsis got confused for a Greco-Roman god on the basis of ONE dramatic miracle. No reasonable person would look at the results of both and say there's little or no difference between them. The POINT OF THIS THREAD is to point out how the 1942 promise failed to match reality and is rather clearly not a promise from God. If you want to get into a different subject, please take it to a different thread.

Since someone claimed to have some sort of reply for this thread, I'm bumping it up to make it easier to find. By all means, if someone has anything of substance to add to this thread, let them post it and we can discuss it. If it's legit, it will stand scrutiny. If it's not legit, no point in basing one's personal philosophy on it.

I was wondering if that was a BIT of a reach for a clue, but obviously you got there anyway. That is the correct artist and song. Mrs Wolf knows it from "Love, Actually", where Bill Nye played an old rocker who redid the song with Christmas lyrics as "Christmas is All Around". That's where the "let it snow" line came from. She hadn't heard the original until the other week.

Therein lies the flaw. Yes, either it was by revelation or it wasn't- and if it wasn't, then this is NOT special and unique, and it is only special and unique if it WAS by revelation. Therefore, we investigate carefully to see if it was by revelation or not. And looking to see if there were "benefits" and considering that the standard is a SMOKESCREEN. vpw himself pointed out that people claim a benefit from sitting on a therapist's couch. Christians all over the world claim benefits in their groups, and supposedly this is greatly superior to ALL of theirs. HIndus, Jews, Muslims, and so on similarly claim benefits of their groups, and this is supposedly greatly superior to ALL of theirs. How do we find out if this was by revelation or not, with some degree of authority? We examine the claimed specifics concerning the revelation. Mike's never actually done that. His process would hold up as "genuine" any group from which one would claim a benefit- and there are satanists who would claim they benefit from their group. So, we examine the specifics. What would we find? The same things we found when some of us already did this and discussed it. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24592-the-failed-1942-promise/ IF this failed a reasonable test for revelation, it could not be considered revelation. SINCE it failed SEVERAL reasonable tests for revelation, if could NOT be considered revelation. If it could not REASONABLY be considered revelation, then Mike should find out what the rest of us can teach him and why we're prospering and serving God while he's claiming we're not. Naturally, he's under no compulsion to do so, and I personally don't see it happening this side of the grave. However, I can be surprised, and I also can't rule out a miracle.

I'm hoping you guys come up with the name soon. I mean, you know music. I'm not dealing with a couple of cavemen here...

"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions." "Want some bacon?" "No man, I don't eat pork." "Are you Jewish?" "Nah, I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all." "Why not?" "Pigs are filthy animals. I don't eat filthy animals." "Bacon tastes gooood. Pork chops taste gooood.""

"You know I love you, I always will. My mind's made up by the way that I feel. There's no beginning, there'll be no end. 'Cause on my love you can depend." "It's written on the wind, it's everywhere I go So if you really love me, come on and let it snow show." "I see your face before me as I lay on my bed I kinda get to thinking, of all the things you said You gave your promise to me, and I gave mine to you I need someone beside me in everything I do."

Well, if it's a Brit we'd want to make fun of,. how about King George III, reigning British monarch during the US American Revolution?

*looks it up* Ok, Jon Gries was Lazlo Hollyfeld (the genius from a decade ago), Gabriel Jarret was Mitch Taylor (the new kid, 'Mighty Mouse"), Michelle Meyrink was Jordan Cochran (the hyperkinetic chick who makes stuff), Robert Prescott was KENT (the schmuck-student who sucked up to Prof Hathaway), Patti DÁrbanville was Shelly Nugil (she REALLY liked geeks), Val Atherton was Dr Hathaway (the actual villain that Kent drew attention away from) and Kilmer played Chris Knight, the graduating genius who learned to balance his life and wanted to teach Mitch how before Mitch turned into Lazlo Hollyfeld.) Amazing how well I remember the movie, but can't name virtually the entire cast.

Yeah, that would have given it away. I was confusing Robert Preston with Robert Prescott. Once I realized that, and saw Atherton and Kilmer, my first guess would have been "Real Genius." (Atherton was in that and "Ghostbusters." For a short moment, he was the go-to man if Hollywood wanted someone educated and incidental who should be punched.)

"You know I love you, I always will. My mind's made up by the way that I feel. There's no beginning, there'll be no end. 'Cause on my love you can depend." "It's written on the wind, it's everywhere I go So if you really love me, come on and let it show."