WordWolf

For the benefit of those of you arriving late, I thought I'd mention a little about BG Leonard. "Brother Leonard" was a Christian up in Canada. He taught a class on understanding and applying the Bible. Among the hypothetical names he used were Johnny Jumpup Maggie Muggins Henry Bolocco His books were printed under the corporate name "Canadian Christian Press." Not long after vpw sat thru BG Leonard's class, vpw started running classes on understanding and applying the Bible. Among the hypothetical names he used were Johnny Jumpup Maggie Muggins Henry Bolocco His books were published under the corporate name "American Christian Press." The body of material from Leonard's class seems to have been copied over entirely into vpw's class. At least one person who took both said they find vpw's idiosyncratic pronunciations of certain words to be a copy of Leonard's speech patterns, as well.

He claimed "an apostle is one who brings new light to his generation. It may be old light, but to the people he brings it to, it's new." Actually, an apostle is a SENT ONE. vpw invented his definition so that it would just happen to apply to him. He claimed he was teaching "The Word like it hadn't been known since the First Century". Therefore, he expected his audience to figure out he was supposedly an apostle. As Goey pointed out, he said "a prophet is one who speaks for God." It IS true that he claimed that "technically" David's sin with Bathsheba was NOT adultery, since "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the king." That's straight out of PFAL, both the classes and the books. It comes up frequently on lists of Actual Errors in pfal.

The "riddle of the Sphinx" thing is straight out of Bullinger's "Witness of the Stars". What did lcm say about it?

Oenophile, thanks, it is coming along great. I get what you mean, but perhaps it was a good thing for some of us that we didn't know. Yes, it was better that he be allowed to deceive us!!!! The lesson here is that the man representing God should NOT SIN, not that we should ignore his sins. There's a difference between struggling against temptation, and deliberately making occasion for it. Deliberately choosing to hide your sources and claiming to originate the work, thus putting forth that yourself was some great one, is a decision, which you then put into action all by yourself. No, that is a separate issue. "Truth from the pen of a plagiarist is still truth. But plagiarism matters. Plagiarism may not reflect on the accuracy of the information that's stolen, but it does reflect on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers (by presuming the readers will never learn if the infraction.)" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/editorial/pl...m-wierwille.htm Even if it was all 100% factually correct, the plagiarism was still wrong. God is ALWAYS working to help people. This is not a free pass to sin. However, should we refrain from sinning, or is it equally "right" to sin as much as we feel like, knowing God will keep moving even if we deceive the brethren and do other things to them that are sins and criminal actions?

THIS is the point. And it doesn't take an advanced degree to see that it's wrong- everyone CAN see that it's wrong.

Sorry Raf, I should have asked you BEFORE I pulled my little stunt. I thought an ILLUSTRATION would make the point clear. It's WRONG to take someone else's work, change a few words, maybe leave out a little, then claim you originated it. (You do that by failing to give proper attribution.) Plagiarism is morally wrong, AND illegal. Plagiarism demonstrates a moral failing on the part of the plagiarist. When the plagiarist claims to represent God, it shows a deliberate moral failing that shows he is unworthy of trust. Actually, in pulling my little stunt, I thought the extensive quote would be spotted immediately by everyone, since it was right off the main website. I thought people would see my point, which was in the closing of that post, which was the only part NOT ripped off from Raf...

Go to now, Mr. Hammeroni.Don't ya think that lots of folks who enjoy Wierwille's books might go out and buy the works of Stiles, Kenyon, Bullinger, Leonard, et al.? See it in the "original"? Heck I would. We've been discussing this for most of a decade. Oldiesman? Would you really? Then, answer these simple questions... Do you currently own a copy of JE Stiles' "Gifts of the Holy Spirit"? How many books of Leonard and Kenyon do you own? How many of Bullinger's books do you own outside of "the Companion Bible" and "How to Enjoy the Bible"? For that matter, do you own THOSE books?

Less than you'd think-he plagiarized the 1942 promise! BG Leonard: Add "an early October invisible snowstorm", and inflate it to "like it hasn't been known" and you have the 1942 promise.

Friend Belle, being taught the Word like it hadn't been known since the first century, and saying that VPW was the SOLE SOURCE of accuracy, are two very different things. Obviously, he wasn't the sole source. I think you are drawing conclusions that you shouldn't. "Obviously he wasn't the sole source." Obviously you've forgotten what vpw said about other Christians all the time, calling their seminary "cemetaries" and so on. He didn't "mellow out" on that over time, either. Here's what vpw himself said in May 12, 1985.... (not long before he died) "Outside of this ministry, people, I've seen very few answers. If we knew where there were more, we'd go get 'em!" How's that selective memory working for you?

As that book has it, he learned a little bit from THIS man and a little from THAT man, THEN he went and studied out the subjects from the Bible, THEN he assembled his pfal classes. "Putting it all together so that it fit" was NOT the original work. They ALREADY fit. All he did was assemble them together. That's hardly considered "originality". That's taking Leonard's class, adding Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" and Stiles' "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" and calling it an original work. Furthermore, he NEVER gave proper attribution. twi was the result of ripping off a number of Christians, organizing it into an organization that concentrated authority at the top, then merchandizing it brilliantly. Any good car-salesman could have managed the same if he got a grounding in the right Christian sources. It wouldn't change YOURS. Great. It would have affected a lot of people who were-and are STILL being told- that the SOLE SOURCE of accurate knowledge of God is twi- and NOT that Christians in other places know much of ANYTHING.

Well, there is conflicting information about this. I don't have all the answers to this. VPW could have done a lot of the research on his own, which could have been the same research someone else did, years before. That's not impossible to imagine. Then again, we do have evidence of all the men of God he learned from who were scattered across the continent. No question he learned from these men. "THERE IS CONFLICTING INFORMATION ON THIS?" On what planet? vpw meets JE Stiles. vpw buys JE Stiles' books. vpw "writes" a book that uses IDENTICAL PHRASEOLOGY as Stiles' book-even when Stiles' vocabulary diverges RADICALLY from that of vpw's-using Stiles' ideas and his actual words. vpw is told about EW Bullinger's books. vpw buys every book Bullinger ever wrote. vpw "writes" books that contain entire chapters and subjects straight from Bullinger's books. vpw takes Leonard's class. vpw then goes out and teaches "his" class that contains a compilation of Leonard's class, Bullinger's book and Stiles' book. There is nothing that can argue AGAINST this. It's not impossible to "IMAGINE" all sorts of things-like God giving him the books by dictation or Jesus teaching from the Orange Book. However, even you admit that it is irrefutable he learned from those men. What possible reason could we have that he learned from those men (they were "scattered across the continent?" They were together and something split them apart?) THEN to go out and learn this for the first time from God? The only CONFLICTING INFORMATION is a desire to claim there were things he did NOT learn from the original writers.

Actually, it contradicts his claim. Had vpw been prepared to give proper written acknowledgement to other mens' ideas AND WRITINGS in his books, he would have been HONEST, thus obeying the laws of the US, showing proper respect to other men of God, and shown respect to his audience by telling them the truth in a truthful way. HOWEVER, if he HAD done so, he would NOT have been able to say "only God and I knew all this because I'm special". He would have been able to put for that he was A teacher, but not that he was THE TEACHER.

Oh. My. God. You're ACTUALLY promulgating "the 1942 promise." That's the thing where vpw claimed to be sitting in his office... "And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first century if I would teach it to others." "Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I came to the point by the next day where I said to myself- maybe it's true. So the next day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that I really know, so that I can believe.' The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I opened them. The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling station on the corner not 75 feet away." So, supposedly, according to you, then, God gave vpw a snowstorm-either actual or a vision. Weather reports confirm there was no actual snowstorm. Supposedly, according to you, then, God taught vpw God's Word like it had not been known since the First Century AD, if vpw would teach it to others. vpw then taught it to others. In the first century AD, there were no printing presses, What was known was the spoken word and the Old Testament. There was no unified vision of things, as Acts clearly shows, and as the Epistles show. (Why rebuke division if there is no division?) So, "as it was known in the First Century" is a cute concept which is a convenient FICTION. In the first century AD, Christians were on the run. They made sure other Christians were not in financial straits, and spent time together where they could find it, eating together, etc. Where they found a haven, they stayed and taught. (Like a short time at the School of Tyrannus.) They were hardly an "organized" bunch, definitely not centralized. If they saw a need in another city's Christians, someone passed the hat around, and they sent money. Compare them to twi. Everything centrally organized. Everything centrally controlled. Everything STANDARDIZED-everyone took the same classes. All the money goes ONE WAY. Permanent locations. What the top leader says, goes-no questions. Organized meetings. Extensive study of Greek, but NO time for charity. The first-century Christian church would never RECOGNIZE twi. So, the idea that vpw's work in any way RESEMBLED the First-Century Christian church is a pipe-dream. Everything vpw taught was ALREADY being taught at the time he "learned" it. Supposedly, GOD would teach him "like it hadn't been known since..." but it was ALREADY KNOWN! So, THAT part was a fiction. vpw's "GOD" should have known better. vpw learned all this from other people's works, not by studying the Bible himself, and NOT from the utterance of God. So, the entire basis of this claim is false. So, the supposed basis of authority of twi was the supposed vision that the supposed man of God vpw claimed to receive. This vision was either completely made up by vpw, or was received from a source OTHER than God, who would know better. So, your own statement- that God taught him like nobody knew since the First Century by way of other people- contains an internal contradiction. If it was already known, the promise is a lie. If it was NOT already known, then there would be NO other people to learn this from. As it was, extensive evidence has shown that vpw read the works of other Christian writers, then supposedly claimed he learned them from God and nobody knew them.

We discussed this before, Shaz. :)--> vpw said Those of you who want the page numbers or a fuller quotation can look at my EARLIER posts in this same thread. (Nobody accuse me of leaving that out this time-I'm announcing that you can scroll up for that.) WordWolf (me!) said the following once on that same subject Shaz just brought up. Someone suggested that "professional academic journals are often rather thin. I think a thousand volumes of them can easily fit into a small closet." This would assume that the overwhelming majority of the 3000 books would be "professional academic journals". Someone also said "I've noticed that often people buy entire personal libraries at a time at auctions, or are given libraries of elderly or deceased scholars." This would assume that either A) vpw found one or more auctions of personal libraries of professional academic journals and purchased 3000 books at one or more auctions or B) one or more persons donated to vpw entire academic libraries of professional academic journals, 3000 books' worth of them, or almost 3,000- and yet a feat of philanthropy this remarkable was HIDDEN by vpw all these years, that he felt it was not worthy of mention by description, that the donor or source should remain entirely anonymous. Therefore, since vpw had the opportunity to do so, this means either: A) vpw acquired nearly 3000 books by auction or donation, and those sources had THOUSANDS of professional academic journals SPECIFICALLY on the Bible or Theology AND vpw decided to HIDE the specifics of this or B) vpw had access to storage space that exceeds the conventional views of time and space as understood by all Americans to this day, possibly by quantum tunnelling the books to some other planet AND he NEVER divulged a word of this to ANY of his students or anyone else, letting these wizard-like secrets vanish with his death AND never using them for anything else but books or C) vpw lied thru his teeth all his life about this. Occam's Razor would suggest that B) should be dismissed, and A) considered the longshot, and C) is correct- especially since he was a proven liar, such as about his miraculous Tulsa snowstorm (which never happened) and the angel-on-the-phone that kept him from leaving town- so he has a HISTORY of lying intentionally. In all fairness, I thought the opposing point of view should be mentioned, since it came up. As you can see, however, it was hardly an unassailable argument.

As posted previously, John Juedes wrote the following on this subject. Dr John Juedes, 2000.

Welcome, jkboehme. I'm sorry to say, your recommendations, useful though they may be for other threads on other topics, will NOT be particularly useful here. The subject here is PLAGIARISM, most specifically, plagiarism from Bullinger for ADAN. This is NOT a thread to discuss the accuracy of DOCTRINE-that would go in the DOCTRINAL forum. If you want to debate the accuracy of dispensationalism, that would be the forum to do so. (If you want to just declare it, there's no forum for that-all posts are subject to discussion within the bounds of good taste-and often beyond that.) I'm not saying this post made such a declaration, but that WAS the direction you were going. If you wish to keep going there, please use that forum. (All your recommendations were for books attacking dispensationalism.) Furthermore, I'd recommend anyone studying up on dispensationalism OR Darby to skip any books by MacPherson. MacPherson has a personal axe to gring on dispensationalism, and considers that doctrine to have been responsible for his father's firing from his job and his death. (No, I'm not exaggerating.) He's gone out of his way to use all tactics available to him-including outright lies-to support his attacks on dispensationalism- which he confines to attacks on Darby. I don't trust him as a reliable source on data. Finally, it is MUCH more relevant to this discussion-which you are welcome to continue to participate in-to review more obvious examples of vpw's plagiarism: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stolenrthst.htm http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/vp_stiles.htm are two good places to start.

Power for Abundant Living, Pages 119-120. "For years I did nothing but read around the Word of God. I used to read 2 or 3 theological works weekly for month after month and year after year. I knew what Professor so-and-so said, what Dr so-and-so and the Right Reverend so-and-so said, but I could not quote you The Word. I had not read it. One day I finally became so disgusted and tired of reading around The Word that I hauled over 3,000 volumes of theological works to the city dump. I decided to quit reading around The Word. Consequently, I have spent years studying The Word-its integrity, its meaning, its words. Why do we study? Because God expects us as workmen to know what His Word says." From The White Book's preface. "The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook. I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for, the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must fit like a hand in a glove." You can read the entire preface if you want, but that was the only part directly germane. The rest of it underscores this, as he claims that all the Christians he'd encountered in schools, seminaries, etc all lacked The Truth as he later found it once he eliminated all outside sources.

Since this question was raised, I'd like to address it. I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and here's the conclusions I've drawn..... It's fairly easy to illustrate that there is something fundamentally wrong with plagiarism. Suppose, for argument's sake, that you saw a book on E-bay. The title is "The Ability to Live Abundantly", and the author goes by the pen-name WordWolf. In reading the excerpts, you see that its opening prominently quotes John 10:10. It follows this with "This verse literally changed my life. In my years in the Christian ministry, I've never manifested an abundant life. It seemed unbelievers were manifesting a more abundant life than Christians. Yet Jesus Christ said he came that we might have life and that we might have it more it more abundantly. Why are Christians failing to manifest even an abundant life?" The remainder of the book lays out keys for how to understand the Bible. There's a chapter on how to receive anything from God, including an anecdote about "fire-engine-red" curtains. Another chapter is called "The Battle of the Senses." You would easily recognize that "my" book was little more than a retyping of the Orange Book. If I were to take that book, slap a new title on it, change a few words around so that the quotes are not exact, could I really call myself an author (especially if I fail to give Wierwille credit for his work?) Could I, in good conscience, sell my book and take the profits? Victor Paul Wierwille was a serial plagiarist. He took the research of other men and passed it off as his own. He took their words and put his name on them. What should Wierwille have done? To be truthful, he should have cited Kenyon and Bullinger and anyone else he used as a source in compiling his teachings, classes and books. Wierwille joked that he had forgotten more about the subject of "holy spirit" than some of his critics would ever know. Apparently, one of the things Wierwille forgot was to give credit where credit is due. Wierwille implies books like Recieving the Holy Spirit Today, Power For Abundant Living, and Are the Dead Alive Now? were strictly the result of his personal research into the Bible. It was not. He claimed to throw away all his other texts and use the Bible as his only textbook and guide. This was dishonest. This was demonstrably false. It was a lie. Plagiarism is LYING. It is lying about the amount of work you put into your written project. When the plagiarist claims to be a uniquely-qualified man of God, the lie becomes magnified. Why? Because a minister is, by definition, in a position of TRUST in the church community. No one expects a minister to be superhuman, but it is NOT unreasonable to expect honesty and integrity. It is not unreasonable, when you read an article that says "by WordWolf" to expect that WordWolf wrote it. It is not unreasonable, when you read a book that says "by Victor Paul Wierwille" to expect that Victor Paul Wierwille wrote it. Victor Paul Wierwille used other people's work to prop up his own "research ability," his own wisdom and understanding of God's Word. He used other people's work to exalt himself as The Teacher, The Man of God, Our Father in The Word. He did so knowing that the words "by Victor Paul Wierwille" were a lie. Plagiarism reflects on the character of the plagiarist. The plagiarist is a liar, a thief, an arrogant, lazy, self-important person who dismisses the hard work of other people and disrespects the intelligence of his readers-by presuming the readers will never learn of the infraction. Plagiarism hurts people. It hurts people by stealing from them. It hurts people by misrepresenting the accomplishments of the plagiarist. The Bible teaches that love does not "puff itself up". But what is plagiarism if it's not pretending to do something you did not do? We don't accept it from high school students. We don't accept it from college students. We don't accept it from news reporters, columnists, nor authors. We don't accept it from historians and researchers. Those are "the world's" professions. How can we accept a lower standard of integrity from men who profess to stand for God? And, one last question: Don't you get bugged when you see someone plagiarizing-attempting to pass off someone else's work as their own? Doesn't that dishonesty bother you?

Wayne's World Mike Myers Austin Powers: Goldmember

I imagine everyone here, like myself, expected that "Are the Dead Alive Now?", "written by victor paul wierwille", which he sometimes claimed was the most important book "he" had "written", was plagiarized from another writer or writers. He plagiarized everything ELSE, so it is only typical that he would have plagiarized THAT book, small though it is. So, I came across another of Bullinger's books the other day, "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?". It addresses that account better than vpw does, and covers the other references, including the Old Testament ones. (I forget if vpw covered the witch at Endor. THIS book by Bullinger skips that, but Bullinger wrote a different book JUST on that.) I figured you'd all like to know that. Carry on, everyone.

Sam Rockwell Galaxy Quest Tony Shaloub

Alien John Hurt From the Hip (Been a while since I got to sneak that movie in here. I was thinking of listing "Goblet of Fire" but I don't know if he's going to actually be IN the movie.)

You'll need to confirm the veracity of those. I know, for example, Beethoven was never totally deaf when he composed ANY of his works- that's a myth. Here's one link on what some people say about Lincoln's "failures": http://www.snopes.com/glurge/lincoln.htm ==== None of that negates the value of hard work and persistence. It's a well-known saying in the music business that it takes seven years of hard work to become "an overnight success". JK Rowling HAS mentioned that many publishers turned down her manuscript for Harry Potter. Here's one link on her website. The last 3 paragraphs are relevant. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/biography.cfm Here's a page that gives better examples: http://lbarker.orcon.net.nz/rejection.html

This grossly under-represents the people who left in the 80s. :D--> We had Region Coordinators (like D*b*fsk*) walk. That was the mid-80s, with vpw's death, the pop paper, and Schoenheit's Adultery paper being labelled possessed for saying adultery is wrong. A number of high muck-a-mucks left then, and it was enough of an event for Christianity Today to note the exits. ("Infighting trims branches at the Way International".) ======= In '89 when lcm demanded his oath of allegiance, 80% of the people PRESENTLY involved (not counting the previous exodus) all walked. That's 4 out of every 5 people. That includes Limb leaders and so on. In the case of NY state, more than 80% left, so I suppose more than 20% stayed in some other places. That also doesn't count 1990, when a number of people who stayed thru 1989 and just drifted off after that. From 1989 on, the group's overall numbers have continued to drop, as they experience "negative population growth." That means every year, some people get fed up and leave, and there are more of them than there are people who arrive and want what they have to offer. So, the group is dying a slow death. My main regret is the slowness.

I hope the next Sleeper quote would have been "Don't move-or the nose gets it" or "It's tobacco! It's one of the healthiest things you can put in your body!" :D--> ===== Wild guess on the current one: "Little Shop of Horrors"?