Raf

Dot, I know you're a good heart. And I know Oldiesman is too. So I did direct my "honey v. acid" comment at both of you. I wasn't trying to point fingers. Thanks for taking my comment as constructive, as it was intended to be. I refuse to believe you two can't resolve this, once you're both out of venom. :)-->

Wow. Say what you want, Dot, but I think Oldies has one heckuva open heart. He's far from blind. Try a little more honey and a little less acid (that goes for you too, Oldiesman). Please?

Pat, I wouldn't say "not to trust." I would say, "not to trust blindly," or "not to put faith in titles." But I think you got the gist.

The gift of the word of knowledge is the God-given ability to take unto yourself, at your own volition, a word of knowledge (that is, a revelation of facts concerning things about which it would be humanly impossible for you to know anything at all). B.G. Leonard.

The oddlist, Pat. Sorry for the derail, but I thought it would be cute. One good thing I got out of my (very limited) time in TWI was a skepticism for authority. Interestingly enough, because of the specific timing of my involvement (fall 1998 - summer 1989), I was able to learn firsthand not to trust anyone just because of their title. Came in handy a few years later when it seemes a bunch of people were ready to follow Chris Geer like the Pied Piper of Godknowsnuttin.

Pat, I think I've become more acutely aware of birthdays, when they are to be celebrated, and when happy ones are to be wished for on behalf of those going through one. Take you, for instance. Happy birthday. Raf

Danny, Positive Prayer, pp 25-26. I'm still trying to figure out some innocuous meaning behind what he said, but I just don't see how anyone can refer to Hitler as God's avenger gone too far. To be clear, Leonard never said Hitler should have stopped at 3 million. That was my snippy interpretation of what he DID say, which was, "the avenger went beyond his allotted task, defying the Almighty in doing so...cut off for doing so."

Seems to be working. Feel free to register and jump in anytime. Keep it clean.

Don't mind me, I'm just experimenting. Chat room

Of course, some nonsense should never be plagiarized... I guess Leonard believes Hitler should have stopped at 3 million Jews. I don't know. Hitler: God's Avenger. Sick.

"Officially," I was in for less than a year (the period between the time I took the class to the time I made for the door was 11 months). Unofficially, I studied for about two and a half years before bolting. From my first "twig" to the time I left was about 13 months. After that, was in an offshoot for about 9 years.

Linda Z, Your point should be made repeatedly. It's not one I've tried to ignore, but I'm always glad to hear it stated, and glad to state it: The issue of plagiarism being established, the real question becomes, "what does this do to the quality of that which is taught?" The accuracy (or inaccuracy) of what was taught exists independently of whether someone else deserves credit for the words, phrases or paragraphs. I could look at the phrase: "The Word of God is the Will of God," and approach it several ways. I could say, "that was a favorite expression of Wierwille's." I could say, "Wierwille copied that expression from Leonard." Or I could say "that's a true statement." None of those statements are wrong (in my opinion). I would be right, regardless of how I approached that phrase. But each approach serves a different purpose. And the purpose of appreciating the wisdom of the Bible is best served by the last approach, "that is a true statement." It is true regardless of the fact that Wierwille said it. It is true regardless of the fact that Leonard said it first. Thanks for the reminder. Raf

I think I knew you knew I knew that. Plagiarized, of course, from the Honeymooners.

So Dot, what you're saying is, VPW put something in the brownies. It would explain all the invisible snowstorms.

Don't tell me I have to start an Actual Errors in the works of BG Leonard thread. :P-->

Oldiesman, Take your time. I'm sure if you approach this with an open heart, you'll find that there's more bathwater than you anticipated, but by God's grace, there's plenty of baby too. Goey, Good point. I was referring, of course, to Wierwille's internal consistency, not to objective reality. I was only trying to come up with Wierwille's possible justification of plagiarism: "it's not plagiarism if I add a word, delete a word, or change a word." Yes it is.

You guys are missing the point here: If you change a Word of God's Word, then you no longer have God's Word, right? So by the same token, if you add a word, delete a word, or change a word of the word of man, you no longer have that man's word, right? So Oldiesman can look at the section I quoted and see no evidence of plagiarism because there are sufficient "differences," never mind the blatant similarities. That's why I challenge Oldiesman to re-think his definition of plagiarism, because (I believe) it is based on a false standard making plagiarism just about impossible to commit. Wierwille plagiarized Leonard. Period. It's not even arguable, unless your definition of plagiarism is so permissive that the only way it can be committed is with carbon paper and a typewriter.

I'll get to the rest tonight, unless Dot wants to post them now.

Don't you just love it? The only thing missing was an early October invisible snowstorm. Then later on, he hears God tell him, "Write." Riiiiiight. :)-->

It's my personal belief that even the much commented on "promise of 1942" was a variation on tale told by Leonard. I'll be happy to post the Leonard account later.

Oldies, Actually, this was the subject of our last conversation before your GS hiatus. It is NOT the existence of DISsimilarities that disprove plagiarism. It is the EXISTENCE of SIMILARITIES that proves it. Note that I said "If you see no evidence of plagiarism..." Do you honestly see no evidence of plagiarism? None? Then i have to disagree with you. I suggest you review your definition of plagiarism. For example, let's take your paragraph above: Now, I change it to the following: In my paragraph, I have changed quite a few important items compared to your paragraph. I have still committed plagiarism. If you still disagree, then our disagreement is simply over the definition of plagiarism. I'll just leave it at that.

Please compare to RTHST, pgs. 145-148. If you honestly see no evidence of plagiarism, then I submit you are in denial. More later. It's late, and I'm tired.

Ya-hoooooo! Happy birthday buddy!

For me, the question of whether VPW plagiarized was settled ages ago. Of course he did. The only question is, what do we do about it? What difference does it make? Why is it important? If we're evaluating the man and his ministry, it's relevant. If we're evaluating the content, then it's not. The answer to question 8 in the RTHST book doesn't become any more or less valid just because it was an obvious ripoff of JE Stiles. The difference between believing and mental assent exists independently of the fact that Wierwille quoted Kenyon on the subject without attribution. The content should be evaluated on its own merits; the source should only be evaluated when one considers the intellectual dishonesty of the person presenting it.

FYI, I have sent this review along to about three dozen people. I can't even say it with a straight face. "A craptacular crapfest of crappy crap!" Let's see them put THAT on a movie poster.