Mike

Oldiesman, I respectfully disagree with you. I find DWBH's conduct to be unscriptural, and therefore negating any truth he may otherwise try to issue. Q.E.D. ;)

TheHighWay, I'm pretty sure that in Tom Hank's "Saving Private Ryan" I saw a reference to Wierwille, France printed on the screen as the first town liberated by the D-Day invasion. That's a fact this Jack doesn't have time to verify before posting, but my memory of it is pretty clear and recent.

John 1:35-46 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone. ¶The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

I was privileged to hang out with Harry Wierwille at times. He helped me find an apartment in St. Mary's when I was hired on staff, and he took me to auctions to show me how that operated. I got to know him a little. I was the first person to handle his book, as it was dictated onto cassette tapes and he asked me make the first copies for him. I once asked him about how well he got along with Dr during BOT meetings and he told me, "We sometimes fight like cats and dogs, but if Vic says anything like 'Thus saith the Lord,' then I shut up."

Bla! Da bdige is out. You’ll have to spend de night.

waysider, Let's let it sit at that on confabulation. I've said what I have to say on it and am content. I think I'm also done with plagiarism. I've said what has accumulated for years, I think. Oops! I think you're right here. I should have not used the word "thesis." In the past I've used the word "postulate" or "assumption."

This one sentence, buried deep within all the data you posted, is what I was talking about. The exact timing started in 1962, when Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." It caught on quick within science circles. This is what I meant by the relativity of definitions. Relative to scientists who knew this book back then, paradigm took on this new meaning, graduating from old rarely used literary pinnings up to modern scientific theoretical structures. By the time I met Thomas Kuhn (?1969-70?) it had caught on like wildfire, but still within science. My professor (a former student of Kuhn's) told me that it would catch on OUTSIDE of science, as she had already been seeing it happen in small but growing ways. It did. I'll bet all the times you ever heard "paradigm" it was NOT the old literary definition that was being used, but the new scientific one. Dictionary companies are slow in changing. They change AFTER the culture changes a word, which is has already happened. Ten years from now a Google search may show you this better. ******* I don't know what you mean here with "...HIDING your specifics...." I do know much of the way I "process the threads" is dealing with a huge amount of human animosity. This makes it difficult for me to get to my point at times, and generates a lot of side points that suddenly command attention. Sometimes I resort to humor to lighten the load for me and hopefully some posters and readers. But I am unaware of me hiding anything. It's early and I've only had half a cup of coffee. Maybe you’ll wake me up with something am hiding but can't remember right now. I was pretty baffled with your use of that phrase "HIDING your specifics." *** And, please, if you want to get personal, like how I am on the phone, could you please be thorough and not anecdotal. If we did a thorough poll here I think you might be surprised at how many posters I have a great relationship with by phone, e-mail, and PMs. Even the one (I'm only aware of one) that said let's cut off communications to me quickly softened and we later reconciled some on the board. Her cutting off communications came only when she finally realized after MANY hours on the phone and e-mail that she was NEVER going to change my mind. It had nothing to do with me being ugly with her in any way. She called me dozens of times. I thought it was pretty petty of you, WW, to bring that up, something that you had only scant information on. It reminds me of the SNL Church Lady, minus the laughter, when you behave like that. *** Now let me address this one last thing, because I can see you still don’t get it or don’t want to get it. It’s how plagiarism SHOULD evaporate from your mind IF my thesis right. To follow what I mean you have to strap yourself in with the word “IF.” You have to hold onto the “IF” and think it’s true FOR A SHORT TIME. After that you can relax, pop off your safety belt, and go back to denying it is true. I promise it won’t stick and keep you locked in with me forever. Ok, ready? IF my thesis is true, it starts with God giving Kenyon revelations. Some of them may have been direct, word-for-word dictations, or some could have been guidance toward some other teacher who provided the word-for-word. It doesn’t matter to me. Both are revelations from God and Kenyon can print them. Middle-men are ok with me if they are accurate. Let’s just say for argument sake that Kenyon got it word-for-word and then published it mixed in with a lot of pretty right on sense knowledge that Kenyon had worked. So who owns the rights to that part which is revelation? That depends on who’s point of view you take. From the US Government’s point of view, it’s who holds the copyright on file, Kenyon. From God’s point of view it’s God, Who gave the original revelation. Next step: Years pass and God guides VP towards Kenyon’s work. As Dr reads the passage God wanted distributed farther and in a different format than Kenyon’s book could take it, God tells him something like this: “That’s IT. I gave that passage to Kenyon, and now you take it. I want you to place that passage right after another passage that was given by revelation to Stiles and finish that latest collateral. Don’t worry about the human ownership. If Kenyon and Styles get bent out of shape I’ll have to try and guide them back into fellowship with Me. But in the meantime I’ll cover for you so that you don’t have to worry about the human laws. ” Ok, the ride’s over. I know that was difficult. Pop open you safety belts, and slowly stand up. Kinda like an amusement park ride, huh? So now that your getting your balance again, and no longer are willing to entertain my thesis, can you remember while you were on the Tilt-O-If Machine how it all COULD fit if my thesis were right? If God is the owner of those Kenyon and Stiles passages, then He has the right to give permission to anyone to use them. That last sentence was the Kiddy-O-If Ride. You still have to hold onto the “if” but adults can usually ride it without safety belts.

It was relevant to what I limited it to: were Dr's teachers harmed or befitted by his using their material? I do see much benefit to them, even beyond increased sales and respect. Outside of possible ego problems I can't see one bit of harm that came to them. Of course this idea wouldn't fly far in a human court, but that's because they can't see very well. But God can, and that's the limited relevance here. Did they suffer? I doubt it. And how could the wonderful BG Leonard ever have ego problems? And certainly not the pure Kenyon! And Saint Bullinger could never have a shred of ego. No, these men were perfect, as all here agree I'm sure. Never a sin to their name.... Oops! I forgot about BG throwing that man not only out of his class but also down the stairs! That was probably only a one time event.

You could use some information on the relativity of definitions. In the realm of West Coast brain scientists (it's a school of thought out here), confabulation is used differently than it is commonly used. They use it in place of the word lie because many of the "lairs" they study are severe brain damage victims. For this limited group of people that's the way they use that word. They have decided to use the word in that way in their professional circles. Sometimes a private definition of a word like this becomes so popular outside it original private setting that it gets "officially" entered into a dictionary or two. In 1969 I once sat in the office of a man who did this very thing. He actually invented a word for his professional discussions. I think I read once, or maybe he told me personally, that he used a term that had fallen out of use for many decades so he REDEFINED it the way he wanted to help him discuss the complex idea with which this new word was to be associated. That word was "paradigm" and I literally saw it being born. I think the same thing will soon happen to the word "confabulation," given the stature of the scientists that use it this way. It will soon mean an idea that includes normal evil lying, but also will include many more items that do not have that moral baggage. When I say "many" I mean hundreds, literally hundreds.

I am experimenting with this right now with a few grads. It's slow going, but it's going. As this gets up and running I am simultaneously downsizing the presentations of my thesis here. There are many other things to discuss here, but my passion is in what you have seen.

Have you ever wondered about the spies that Moses sent to check out the Promised Land? I have. It seems that God told them to lie, in a sense. A spy must lie to accomplish the goal, right? Their whole presence is a lie: it's covert. How many military operations of Holy Spirit guided ancient Israel involved lying to the enemy with strategically placed misinformation? *** Funny, my very first post here was on this. I think, socks, you may be misremembering my first post. It was on the incredible abundance of nuances attached with what might commonly be called lying. I spent 7 years studying and discussing the human brain with some of the world's top brain scientists. The subject of lying came up SO MUCH that they gave it a fancier name: confabulation. I can send a copy of that first post to anyone who want to see it, since it was lost in the days of pruning years ago. It's too long to post here. This is a MUCH deeper subject than you can imagine. Here's just one teaser: Is it an evil lie to have children believe in Santa Clause?

I don't think that kind of derailment would appreciated. It's really a totally different topic, and roughly 5000 posts have already been made by me on that. I will answer with this. Do you know of ANY modern God-breathed documents in the world that were originally given in English? Any candidate even? Are you content with dead language barriers, ancient customs barriers, missing originals, and wide variations in copied manuscripts, and fragmented manuscripts, all between you and ancient God-breathed documents? I see a great NEED for modern English-given God-breathed text for our guidance. I see a great WANT for this also... not in many here, but in some I know the WANT is great. If these needs and wants are parallel... balanced... coordinated... THEN what?

Not briefly.

The best I understand it, they are addressed TO US grads only. *** The point I was making was LIMITED to the ethics issue socks brought up. It seems no one wants to consider the fact that Dr did benefit those people. This one point I recently made has nothing to do with the God-breathed issue, it has nothing to do with the academics, it has nothing to do with the legalities. It's just the moral issue of whether they were harmed or benefited. I see only benefit going to them. *** It's easy to see why stealing in the marketplace is wrong. That would be the copyright issue. But can anyone tell me why plagiarism is wrong in the academic realm? I know it is wrong, and why. I'm asking if anyone else has though this one through? There is a strong reason, and it's stronger than the usual more trivial (by comparison) reason I have in mind. It's related to WHY the idea of copyrights came up in such a basic document as the US Constitution. I just like looking into the reasons WHY the rules are there, not merely the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's a lot looking into WHY there are sex rules. Most people just know the rules and never ask why. It's a useful mental exercise to inquire into the deeper reasons to these things, but most people, I find, are into the social issue of the specifics in the breaking or keeping of the rules. It's the making of the rules that I like to look into because it seems to enable me to not get bogged down in the specifics if they are myriad, like in this thread. *** Sorry, I just added a lot to this post in editing.

The question is: did vpw LATER claim that they are man-breathed BASIC KEYS or God-breathed BASIC KEYS? Documented are 22 of Dr's statements that they ARE God-breathed. I have found a total of 90. Claiming them to be God-breathed DOES NOT mean that they ARE God-breathed BASIC KEYS, though. But that's not the point here in this sub-topic of what did vpw say of his own works. *** In the broader topic of this whole thread, IF they truly are God-breathed BASIC KEYS, then the plagiarism issue evaporates. *** Now, stepping aside from my God-breathed thesis, I want to bring up another point that I think has not been made on this thread yet, although it has elsewhere. This is in line with socks posts on the ethics of doing the right thing. Has anyone calculated how much BENEFIT has accumulated to the estates or the families or the authors of later-to-be PFAL material from Dr's popularizing of their ministries? How many books has Kenyon sold DUE TO him being promoted by the ministry? How many extra students did B. G. Leonard get to teach due to the free advertising he got from the whole deal? How many people would even know about Bullinger if it weren't for him being so abundantly promoted by the ministry? How many people were blessed by their ministries since their exposure to us? I say most of them would be relatively unknown and would have completely faded into the background by now had the revelations God gave them not been collected by Dr and passed on to us?

This has been handled. Check out 22 statements by Dr that I posted on between these two pages: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=280 and http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=920 Please PM (Private Message) me sometime for more discussion. I'd like to minimize my use of the board. You need to turn on your PM settings. No one can PM you right now. It's set to "off" right now. OR e-mail me at mike7sd at cox dot net. I wrote it that way to confuse spambots.

skyrider, You wrote: "here at GS, we have Mike's version of wierwille's 'lost teachings and truths.'" Two points: (1) What GS has is me reminding everyone constantly that what they THINK is in the written forms of PFAL is often not there, or at least presented quite differently there. What I constantly point out is that the “lost teachings and truths” are only lost to those who refuse to re-open their books and see what’s in them. (2) Here at GS you may not have me much longer. So many people complain about my posting that I must either reel in my efforts here at GS or start another website just for getting my points out and available. It has been often suggested that I pack up and leave, and I may do that. ******* Having said that, I’d rather discuss any more of this in PMs than on the board. That’s all I have time for right now.

The "dogma and methods" that produced the bad results were largely due to the rising influence TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) coupled with the declining influence of the written doctrines. Different results are seen when the TVTs are stripped away and careful study of what is written is adhered to. It's pretty simple.

And THANK GOD he did so! If he hadn't there would be thousands of grads trying to find God in churchianity, or some other even more obvious counterfeits. There's no way I'd be loving God and His Son right now if it hadn't been for the extraordinary efforts of VPW. If you want ordinary, fine for you.

socks, I held the best for last. Also, this part is what enrages many posters here, so to keep the peace (and my posting privileges) I’m holding back on this item. It’s my thesis. You know... everyone knows... after 5 years and 5000 posts I think they know... IF my thesis is wrong, then my contribution to this thread is zilch. BUT if my thesis is right, then my contribution ends this thread. If my thesis is wrong, then socks, you have IMO the best take on this. But add in my thesis and things change a lot IF IT IS RIGHT. I’m not going to argue this thesis here (may need a separate website for that!), although I’m sure many will want to tear it apart on sight, giving rise to a lack of peace. My thesis (as everyone knows so I won’t drag it out) is that the PFAL writings were God-breathed. I have posted over 22 places where Dr claims that the inspiration was of God. He was convinced (and so am I) that he was operating with revelation in producing the collaterals. *** Now IF God is the originator of those ideas and words, then GOD owns them and can give permission to anyone He wants to use them. I have posted a document (and I have the tape) where Dr credits his teachers for having received revelation at times. Dr just put it all together, in the order God wanted and filtering out anything God didn't want served to us. IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then the real author is God, not vpw, nor stiles, nor bullinger, nor leonard, nor... IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then there is no plagiarism issue, none at all.

socks, Thank you for your post #35 above. I thought it was quite well handled. I used bold fonts to highlight some of what I thought were the best parts and comment in red to some. ******* Jeff, I noticed that the quote of Dr’s that oldiesman found is not prominently displayed here, so, expanding on one of the items in sock's post, please allow me to present it. (With my re-formatting and truncation in re-presenting the following quotes) First dmiller wrote: Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works, and passed it off as his own. Then oldiesman wrote: dmiller, sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you, and I base my belief on the following: “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.” Victor Paul Wierwille, 1972 The Way Living In Love Elena Whiteside page 209 The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.” In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that, there it is, right before your eyes. He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own, but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.” If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own, he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books, from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read. So, if anyone says they think Dr stole it, I think they really mean that they simply don’t like the manner in which he credited his helpers. However, I like it and think it was the best FOR US his students. ******* If Dr had credited all his sources, and in all the "required" ways, it would have been a huge distraction to us as new students. He credited some later, and some he kept hidden. I am aware of several extreme "hooky pook" authors Dr used material from. The adversary is a leach and needs to have good truths working in his people, so I don’t doubt the veracity of the “borrowed” ideas. But those same good ideas are mixed in with tons of garbage in form it was taught to Dr. There's no way Dr could credit those "hooky pook" guys. He sheltered us from them. And the Christian authors Dr brought in material from were EVEN WORSE than the hooky pook artists, because they wrote with greater sounding authority. They were able to mess with our minds even more because they had a BETTER counterfeit. ******* Just in case some AC grads forgot it, Dr taught in older Advanced Classes that there is no such thing as originality; people either get it from other people or from one of two spirits. All good gifts are from God, and that includes all good writings. Bad spirits can steal it from the good, but God is still the owner; God gets the credit. Anyone care to think on that one for a while? ...no such thing as ORIGINALITY Why is this not a prominent item in this thread? Do people think there IS originality out there?

When it's the most difficult that the most learning CAN take place.

I've been here many a night; just different antagonists involved. Yes. I've seen an exponential decline in ten years, but a tail end still lingers.

This deserves repetition. :)