that B&B is owned and operated by a woman named Devonna Faith, which is kinda funny in light of the place's former life as a "seminary." funny, too, because it sounds like a fake name--just like vp's fake "Dr!"
I remember seeing a film clip of his graduation - there were several others wearing the hood - is there any alumni listing available or info on what some of his classmates went on to do?
Also - did accredidation mean back then what it means today? Would his creditentials be as scrutinized back in 1950-whatever or 1960-whatever as they would be today? Just curious...
PS-By the way, this wasn't the back of the house...this was the main entrance!
Gotta step in here.
That IS the back of the house.
How do I know?
I've been INSIDE the house.
And I believe that may be MY photo.
The photo you posted looks very similar to one of many Geek and I took on our honeymoon in 1978 and gave copies to vpw afterwards. Until then, no pics ever showed up of the place at wayworld. vp said these were the first he'd had.
On our honeymoon we found ourselves in the area and decided to visit the local library and look the place up. A very old librarian there knew of the school, told us where it was, and we took off to find it. Once we found it, we jumped out and began taking pictures and the owner of the home came out. At the time, the owner was a dentist who had bought the property several years earlier. He had heard the home once housed a seminary and invited us in for a look around.
We went inside and got the grand tour. He showed us an old framed photo of the house that was made when the house was being built, back in horse and buggy days. The photo was taken from across the valley and had been handed down from owner to owner. He took us out on the veranda so we could see the fantastic view from the front porch of the valley and opposing mountainside. We enjoyed lemonade and cookies with the dentist and his wife, thanked them for their hospitality, snapped lots of pics, and went on our way. We and gave copies to VPW when we returned and told him about our visit with the current owner. When we told vpw about the old photo, "doc"vic told us he remembered the photo and even described to us where in the house it had stood when he was there, so I know this is the place where he "went" to "school."
At any rate, we did see the front of the house, which is an old victorian with turrets and a beautiful wrap-around porch in front. The reason you might think that the pic shows the front of the house, is that the back of the house actually butts up to the street instead of the front. The reason, we are told, is because the house pre-exists the road. The original road was in front of the house. And it was the only house on that side of the hill at the time it was built, as seen in the old framed photo. Later on other people built houses in the area willy-nilly, and eventually necessitated cutting a road in behind the house instead of in front of it. Weird, I know, but that's the stow-ry.
"Note: The photo shows the entire "seminary," not just some kind of back house. The street address of Pike's Peak Seminary is 41 Lincoln. This picture is taken from Lincoln street. The other side of the house is perched on the side of a semi-wooded hill, and has no street access."
The photo in NO WAY shows the "entire" seminary. This is a huge victorian home that could not be photographed in it's entirety from that angle. This photo only shows the back door of the house which leads to a kitchen just inside that latticework around the back door. I know because I've been there, in front and in back, inside, and out.
Yep, Chas, that Peacock B&B is the real deal. On the website, you can actually see part of the veranda and the awesome view across the valley. I'm glad someone made it into a B&B, the home was absolutely beautiful back in 1978, and it looks like a decent restoration has since been done. I'll keep that in mind should I ever travel back out that direction.
But a "real" doctorate?
Nah. Not at all. If you want that title, you'd damned well be prepared to put the work in at an accredited institution, and refrain from plagiarism.
I've got no respect for the title he claims to have earned. It fails any test of academic rigor.
"Note: The photo shows the entire "seminary," not just some kind of back house. The street address of Pike's Peak Seminary is 41 Lincoln. This picture is taken from Lincoln street. The other side of the house is perched on the side of a semi-wooded hill, and has no street access."
The photo in NO WAY shows the "entire" seminary. This is a huge victorian home that could not be photographed in it's entirety from that angle. This photo only shows the back door of the house which leads to a kitchen just inside that latticework around the back door. I know because I've been there, in front and in back, inside, and out.
Thanks for the clarification on Pikes Peak Seminary here, but I highly doubt anyone from the Juedes site will make the correction that this is NOT the entire seminary. As I currently understand, the only reason VPW decided to attend Pikes Peak (after turning down the offer to do his doctoral work at Oxford University in England years earlier) was that he wanted to study under Dr. H. Ellis Lininger, who was president of Pikes Peak Bible Seminary and Burton College at the time.
Hmmm.... Oxford University or Pikes Peak ... Oxford or Pikes Peak? I really don't think VPW flipped a coin in making the decision on where he should go to get his doctorate - do you? If one wants to study along with the right people, more often than not this necessitates that one must absolutely go where they are located. For example: If one wants to study successful stock investing alongside those at the PHd level, one can't attend any university to do that simply because those people aren't there. One must go where they are. Obviously VPW considered studing under Dr. Lininger was more valuable than attending Oxford at the time. The question I believe one should ask about that would simply be - WHY?
Thanks for the clarification on Pikes Peak Seminary here, but I highly doubt anyone from the Juedes site will make the correction that this is NOT the entire seminary. As I currently understand, the only reason VPW decided to attend Pikes Peak (after turning down the offer to do his doctoral work at Oxford University in England years earlier) was that he wanted to study under Dr. H. Ellis Lininger, who was president of Pikes Peak Bible Seminary and Burton College at the time.
I would interested too, if Jeudes is willing to upgrade and correct his information in light of these clarifications. Has anyone written him?
Hmmm.... Oxford University or Pikes Peak ... Oxford or Pikes Peak? I really don't think VPW flipped a coin in making the decision on where he should go to get his doctorate - do you? If one wants to study along with the right people, more often than not this necessitates that one must absolutely go where they are located. For example: If one wants to study successful stock investing alongside those at the PHd level, one can't attend any university to do that simply because those people aren't there. One must go where they are. Obviously VPW considered studing under Dr. Lininger was more valuable than attending Oxford at the time. The question I believe one should ask about that would simply be - WHY?
You have my attention. Do you know the reason why? Perhaps to sit at the feet of a successful "schoolmaster" in preparation and hopes of running his own school?
Yup -- I agree. Oldies tends to skip over a few things. ;)
The wikipedia biography skips over some details, yes, but at least it is accurate with what is there.
In contrast, the religious tolerance.org site dmiller referenced is inaccurate on at least one point, not a small one, that of twi's teaching on salvation.
Here's their quote:
... [according to twi]Once saved, the Christian cannot lose their salvation. "The only visible and audible proof that a man has been born again and filled with the gift from the Holy Spirit is 'always' that he speaks in a tongue or tongues."
This would imply that Christians who do not speak in tongues are not actually saved.
Virtually the entire 33 million membership of the Southern Baptist Convention, United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and Presbyterian Church (USA) are not saved because speaking in tongues is rarely seen on those denominations.
TWI implied nothing of the kind; they never taught that salvation is contingent upon speaking in tongues.
In their condemnation of twi, they are fudging and bullspitting. This is not historical accuracy.
The wikipedia biography skips over some details, yes, but at least it is accurate with what is there.
In contrast, the religious tolerance.org site dmiller referenced is inaccurate on at least one point, not a small one, that of twi's teaching on salvation.
Here's their quote:
[/b]
TWI implied nothing of the kind; they never taught that salvation is contingent upon speaking in tongues.
In their condemnation of twi, they are fudging and bullspitting. This is not historical accuracy.
Hmmm...really? I was under the impression that TWI taught that if you didnt SIT, you weren't saved. I ran many classes and that is what we were told. \\MC
Hmmm...really? I was under the impression that TWI taught that if you didnt SIT, you weren't saved. I ran many classes and that is what we were told. \\MC
Anyone who was around twi for any length of time (and is of sound mind) can't get twi's teaching on salvation wrong. You may disagree, but can't err on knowing what is something so simple.
Either that or, when one's mind gets so corrupted against twi, all matter of fantastic bullhockey enters in the trap door.
Ya can't get this one wrong and you're not fooling anyone.
Aren't there enough issues to condemn twi with without adding b.s.?
Hmmm...really? I was under the impression that TWI taught that if you didnt SIT, you weren't saved. I ran many classes and that is what we were told. \\MC
MCarroll, you are right...When I took the intermediate class we were all instructed to SIT. This was done in a small group at first and then as called upon. SIT was the proof that we were saved!!!!! Or should I say, "This is what I was taught."
The best reply I have ever heard was from this lady who was told to SIT and did not do as instructed. She told them that she did not have to SIT to prove she was saved and did not have to attend TWI to be a child of God. Her son was pretty much forced to make her attend these classes or he would have had to move out of her home. She attended because that was something to do to get her out of the house.
This lady's son told me that he didn't believe his mother was saved because she would not SIT.
Anyone who was around twi for any length of time (and is of sound mind) can't get twi's teaching on salvation wrong. You may disagree, but can't err on knowing what is something so simple.
Either that or, when one's mind gets so corrupted against twi, all matter of fantastic bullhockey enters in the trap door.
Ya can't get this one wrong and you're not fooling anyone.
Aren't there enough issues to condemn twi with without adding b.s.?
he he...you crack me up....you don't even know me and you are making insinuations about me? he he!!
I was in for a very long time...more than most....
If they never flat out taught that SIT is the physical evidence of salvation, they sure did insinuate it enough to have hundreds or maybe thousands of people to this day believe this is the case. I'm not making it up since so many think the same thing.
I have no proof right now because I have thrown all my TWI books out but, I grew up in TWI and was very indoctrinated by their teachings. It was all I knew until I left. To find out that you do NOT need to SIT in order to be saved was a new concept for me. So how did I come about to think that if it wasnt because I was taught that since a very young age?
Oldies, Im not here to argue, just to give my point of view and do not appreciate being talked down to. Thanks. :)
SIT was the outward manafestation of an internal reality. Or something like that. Lots of folks were saved but didn't speak in tongues because they hadn't been led into it. VPW never said he wasn't saved until he was led into tongues.
Teaching that sit is the proof that one is saved, is entirely different than teaching that sit is a requirement for salvation or implying that one isn't saved if one doesn't speak in tongues.
Twi never taught that SIT is or was, a requirement for salvation.
This is not a debatable issue. You are wrong. Period.
If you won't admit your b.s. then there's nothing more to say other than you have zero credibility.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
5
6
6
Popular Days
Jun 22
16
Jun 17
11
Jun 21
9
Jun 16
7
Top Posters In This Topic
GrouchoMarxJr 5 posts
oldiesman 5 posts
ChasUFarley 6 posts
dmiller 6 posts
Popular Days
Jun 22 2006
16 posts
Jun 17 2006
11 posts
Jun 21 2006
9 posts
Jun 16 2006
7 posts
Posted Images
sprawled out
that B&B is owned and operated by a woman named Devonna Faith, which is kinda funny in light of the place's former life as a "seminary." funny, too, because it sounds like a fake name--just like vp's fake "Dr!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I remember seeing a film clip of his graduation - there were several others wearing the hood - is there any alumni listing available or info on what some of his classmates went on to do?
Also - did accredidation mean back then what it means today? Would his creditentials be as scrutinized back in 1950-whatever or 1960-whatever as they would be today? Just curious...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Seth R.
So the late Don Wierwille was the real Doctor in the family, right?
Seth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
AFAIK,
he got a Doctorate in Education.
(AFAIK,
your ABS money at work.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Victor Paul Wierwille
Not bad. Short and sweet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Gotta step in here.
That IS the back of the house.
How do I know?
I've been INSIDE the house.
And I believe that may be MY photo.
The photo you posted looks very similar to one of many Geek and I took on our honeymoon in 1978 and gave copies to vpw afterwards. Until then, no pics ever showed up of the place at wayworld. vp said these were the first he'd had.
On our honeymoon we found ourselves in the area and decided to visit the local library and look the place up. A very old librarian there knew of the school, told us where it was, and we took off to find it. Once we found it, we jumped out and began taking pictures and the owner of the home came out. At the time, the owner was a dentist who had bought the property several years earlier. He had heard the home once housed a seminary and invited us in for a look around.
We went inside and got the grand tour. He showed us an old framed photo of the house that was made when the house was being built, back in horse and buggy days. The photo was taken from across the valley and had been handed down from owner to owner. He took us out on the veranda so we could see the fantastic view from the front porch of the valley and opposing mountainside. We enjoyed lemonade and cookies with the dentist and his wife, thanked them for their hospitality, snapped lots of pics, and went on our way. We and gave copies to VPW when we returned and told him about our visit with the current owner. When we told vpw about the old photo, "doc"vic told us he remembered the photo and even described to us where in the house it had stood when he was there, so I know this is the place where he "went" to "school."
At any rate, we did see the front of the house, which is an old victorian with turrets and a beautiful wrap-around porch in front. The reason you might think that the pic shows the front of the house, is that the back of the house actually butts up to the street instead of the front. The reason, we are told, is because the house pre-exists the road. The original road was in front of the house. And it was the only house on that side of the hill at the time it was built, as seen in the old framed photo. Later on other people built houses in the area willy-nilly, and eventually necessitated cutting a road in behind the house instead of in front of it. Weird, I know, but that's the stow-ry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
From Juedes' site:
"Note: The photo shows the entire "seminary," not just some kind of back house. The street address of Pike's Peak Seminary is 41 Lincoln. This picture is taken from Lincoln street. The other side of the house is perched on the side of a semi-wooded hill, and has no street access."
The photo in NO WAY shows the "entire" seminary. This is a huge victorian home that could not be photographed in it's entirety from that angle. This photo only shows the back door of the house which leads to a kitchen just inside that latticework around the back door. I know because I've been there, in front and in back, inside, and out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Yep, Chas, that Peacock B&B is the real deal. On the website, you can actually see part of the veranda and the awesome view across the valley. I'm glad someone made it into a B&B, the home was absolutely beautiful back in 1978, and it looks like a decent restoration has since been done. I'll keep that in mind should I ever travel back out that direction.
But a "real" doctorate?
Nah. Not at all. If you want that title, you'd damned well be prepared to put the work in at an accredited institution, and refrain from plagiarism.
I've got no respect for the title he claims to have earned. It fails any test of academic rigor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Catcup to the rescue --- AGAIN!! :D
Thanks! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmmm. THIS IS SHORT AND *SWEET* TOO. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
Now that gives a more thorough picture-for people interested in historical accuracy, that is. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i enjoyed this thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup -- I agree. Oldies tends to skip over a few things. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Thanks for the clarification on Pikes Peak Seminary here, but I highly doubt anyone from the Juedes site will make the correction that this is NOT the entire seminary. As I currently understand, the only reason VPW decided to attend Pikes Peak (after turning down the offer to do his doctoral work at Oxford University in England years earlier) was that he wanted to study under Dr. H. Ellis Lininger, who was president of Pikes Peak Bible Seminary and Burton College at the time.
Hmmm.... Oxford University or Pikes Peak ... Oxford or Pikes Peak? I really don't think VPW flipped a coin in making the decision on where he should go to get his doctorate - do you? If one wants to study along with the right people, more often than not this necessitates that one must absolutely go where they are located. For example: If one wants to study successful stock investing alongside those at the PHd level, one can't attend any university to do that simply because those people aren't there. One must go where they are. Obviously VPW considered studing under Dr. Lininger was more valuable than attending Oxford at the time. The question I believe one should ask about that would simply be - WHY?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Of course WTH... that's just your assumption as to why veepee "attended" Pikes Peak...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
I would interested too, if Jeudes is willing to upgrade and correct his information in light of these clarifications. Has anyone written him?
You have my attention. Do you know the reason why? Perhaps to sit at the feet of a successful "schoolmaster" in preparation and hopes of running his own school?
(had to be something other than the free beer).
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
I'd also like to know how he came by the photograph he shows on the website. I just might still have the negatives somewhere.
The only person I ever gave them to was vpw.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
The wikipedia biography skips over some details, yes, but at least it is accurate with what is there.
In contrast, the religious tolerance.org site dmiller referenced is inaccurate on at least one point, not a small one, that of twi's teaching on salvation.
Here's their quote:
TWI implied nothing of the kind; they never taught that salvation is contingent upon speaking in tongues.
In their condemnation of twi, they are fudging and bullspitting. This is not historical accuracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCarroll
Hmmm...really? I was under the impression that TWI taught that if you didnt SIT, you weren't saved. I ran many classes and that is what we were told. \\MC
Edited by MCarrollLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Anyone who was around twi for any length of time (and is of sound mind) can't get twi's teaching on salvation wrong. You may disagree, but can't err on knowing what is something so simple.
Either that or, when one's mind gets so corrupted against twi, all matter of fantastic bullhockey enters in the trap door.
Ya can't get this one wrong and you're not fooling anyone.
Aren't there enough issues to condemn twi with without adding b.s.?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skipC
MCarroll, you are right...When I took the intermediate class we were all instructed to SIT. This was done in a small group at first and then as called upon. SIT was the proof that we were saved!!!!! Or should I say, "This is what I was taught."
The best reply I have ever heard was from this lady who was told to SIT and did not do as instructed. She told them that she did not have to SIT to prove she was saved and did not have to attend TWI to be a child of God. Her son was pretty much forced to make her attend these classes or he would have had to move out of her home. She attended because that was something to do to get her out of the house.
This lady's son told me that he didn't believe his mother was saved because she would not SIT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MCarroll
he he...you crack me up....you don't even know me and you are making insinuations about me? he he!!
I was in for a very long time...more than most....
If they never flat out taught that SIT is the physical evidence of salvation, they sure did insinuate it enough to have hundreds or maybe thousands of people to this day believe this is the case. I'm not making it up since so many think the same thing.
I have no proof right now because I have thrown all my TWI books out but, I grew up in TWI and was very indoctrinated by their teachings. It was all I knew until I left. To find out that you do NOT need to SIT in order to be saved was a new concept for me. So how did I come about to think that if it wasnt because I was taught that since a very young age?
Oldies, Im not here to argue, just to give my point of view and do not appreciate being talked down to. Thanks. :)
MC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Oldiesman is right here, guys.
SIT was the outward manafestation of an internal reality. Or something like that. Lots of folks were saved but didn't speak in tongues because they hadn't been led into it. VPW never said he wasn't saved until he was led into tongues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Teaching that sit is the proof that one is saved, is entirely different than teaching that sit is a requirement for salvation or implying that one isn't saved if one doesn't speak in tongues.
Twi never taught that SIT is or was, a requirement for salvation.
This is not a debatable issue. You are wrong. Period.
If you won't admit your b.s. then there's nothing more to say other than you have zero credibility.
Thanks Sudo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.