J.E. Stiles The Gift of the Holy Spirit book

[TheEvan]

johnj, you've put your finger on the source of much Way theology. VPW must have come to believe that his random musings were somehow imbued with an element of ex cathedra.

He'd come up with a thing, apparently off the cuff, then later assert that the Bible must support it. After that he'd entertain no word to the contrary, shouting down any thought that contradicted, much like he did in support of Martindale's ridiculous Athletes theology.

[WordWolf]

You're not reading the death certificate correctly, WordWolf. It cites "Metastatic Melanoma of the Liver" as the cause of death. To the right of that, it indicates that the liver cancer was diagnosed about 1 month prior to death. On the next line, it cites the ocular melanoma, and to the right of that indicates that it was diagnosed about 18 months prior to death.

*studies*

Ok, the writing is faint, but that's what it says, all right.

So, the likelihood is that what was diagnosed first is what was acquired first.

(It is possible his liver's warning signs went ignored until later.

I'll need to review the turnaround time for liver cancer- if it's very short,

then the eye is proven to have become cancerous first.)

I can easily find sources saying that alcohol is a risk factor for liver cancer, which is what killed him,

I think we all agree. (Seems to be what the Death Certificate says...)

So, the only things we're disagreeing on are:

A) whether the smoking increased his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically

B) whether the studio lights increads his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically, or just hurt a lot

[WordWolf]

VP "wrote" 3 kinds of books.

+ plagiarized (stolen) material-- examples are given above in my earlier post; LOTS of it

+ chapters ghost written by other people for VP (which means he didn't write it himself)- like Chap 1 of JCNG, JCOP, etc. The intro of JCNG actually mentions the author of Chap 1, which was a real shock, because VP didn't like to credit others

+ stuff he made up on the fly. Most of the peripherals, magazine articles, plus much of JCNG were VP speaking off the cuff and people transcribing it for him. Really shallow stuff. For example, JCNG started as a tape (I think #295 or 299). If you listen to the tape, it's obvious he didn't put any research into it and was talking off the top of his head. If you read JCNG closely, it's also clear there (at least if you have any background in reading competent theological books) that it's really shallow and slipshod. There are very important passages that he sloughs off with just a couple of sentences. But listening to the tape is a real eye-opener. The tone of voice, the content, and everything are like a grade school kid telling his mom what he saw in the back yard that day, which is transcribed and passed off as a biology text. The shallowness on such a serious topic is disgusting. It's easy to produce voluminous "books" if you teach or preach a few times a week (as most pastors do) and have somebody to transcribe your teachings, preachings and/or ramblings.

Almost nothing is footnoted, except for some of the stuff other people wrote for him. The stuff VP babbled and plagiarized (which is most of it) has almost zero footnotes.

On another topic- it's true that VP got eye cancer first, and it spread to the liver. The death certificate can be found at www.abouttheway.org (it used to be www.abouttheway.com ) A friend of VP signed the certificate. While that may call into question its veracity, I would assume it is accurate nonetheless. In PFAL VP said that illness is caused by one's own negative believing. If VP's teaching on negative believing is true, then VP himself was a very negative believer and caused his own illness and death. I would have liked to see TWI be honest and either publically say that VP caused his own death (as VP said a mother caused the death of her child by being worried that he would have an accident), or else reject VP's teaching on this. But public honesty and transparency was never a habit of the upper levels of TWI.

johnj, you've put your finger on the source of much Way theology. VPW must have come to believe that his random musings were somehow imbued with an element of ex cathedra.

He'd come up with a thing, apparently off the cuff, then later assert that the Bible must support it. After that he'd entertain no word to the contrary, shouting down any thought that contradicted, much like he did in support of Martindale's ridiculous Athletes theology.

[LG]

So, the only things we're disagreeing on are:

A) whether the smoking increased his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically

B) whether the studio lights increads his odds of getting eye cancer dramatically, or just hurt a lot

Hardly. We're not even talking about the same things. You're talking "eye cancer," "liver cancer," and all sorts of other generalities. I'm talking what Wierwille actually had, ocular melanoma, and later (read metastatic - you should know what that means) melanoma of the liver, which is what killed him. It is much more likely that smoking and drinking had nothing at all to do with Wierwille's death than that they contributed to it.

Edited January 2, 2007 by LG

[TheEvan]

FWIW, and attributing nothing to it except that the geezer/hoser said it, I heard Wierwille blame the lights for losing his eye. I can no longer remember if he was forthcoming about it being cancer, but if held to pattern, he didn't. Can anybody here remember? He was fairly open around HQ about losing his eye. On occasion he'd pop out the glass eye and pass it around a smaller group to show off its workmanship. "Peeepuhl, eesn't that bewteeeful?", accompanied by an under-the-breath wheezing chuckle and a half-dozen tears or so. :huh:

Weird cult, ours.

Edited January 2, 2007 by TheEvan

[potato]

metatastic melanoma of the liver means it spread from the primary location to the liver, so the liver cancer is what killed him (probably why it was listed first) but the source was melanoma in the eye.

[oldiesman]

Hardly. We're not even talking about the same things. You're talking "eye cancer," "liver cancer," and all sorts of other generalities. I'm talking what Wierwille actually had, ocular melanoma, and later (read metastatic - you should know what that means) melanoma of the liver, which is what killed him. It is much more likely that smoking and drinking had nothing at all to do with Wierwille's death than that they contributed to it.

Thanks for mentioning this LG. You and Linda have given reasonable facts supporting the conclusion that VP's ocular melanoma came from those original PFAL lights. Also heard what Evan said that VP said once that those strong lights cost him is eye.

[WhiteDove]

I dug out my copy of J.E. Stiles The Gift of the Holy Spirit it might be a first run - it has no other printings listed. Something interesting it has no copyright in it only the printer listed

The Church Press in Glendale CA. Other than that it only lists the order information

J.E. Stiles Route 2 Box 215-A Oakdale CA. The cost was $1.50 It looks like the book was never copyrighted material.

[oldiesman]

My book says it was copyright in 1985.

Gifts of the Spirit by B.G. Leonard was copyright-registered in 1966.

[TheEvan]

Thanks for mentioning this LG. You and Linda have given reasonable facts supporting the conclusion that VP's ocular melanoma came from those original PFAL lights. Also heard what Evan said that VP said once that those strong lights cost him is eye.

I don't think that's a conclusion at all, nor even a reasonable conclusion. It is a possible conclusion, though, given the facts.

How weird is it he would pop out that eye and pass it around?

[oldiesman]

Never thought about how wierd it is. You are not emotionally scarred are you? :)

[WhiteDove]

1985? so it was public domain up until then Oldies?

[oldiesman]

I think so.

[potato]

once a work is in the public domain it cannot be copyrighted, even by the original creator.

[Raf]

1. The absence of a copyright notice does not mean a work is not copyrighted. The notice simply makes it easier to establish legally.

2. This is more important: whether there was a copyright notice or not, whether it was in the public domain or not, it is immoral, unethical and dishonest to take someone else's work and claim it as your own. That's why you can't go into a bookstore today to purchase "Romeo and Juliet" by Rafael Olmeda. I didn't write it. "But it's public domain!" True, but I didn't write it. "But you wouldn't be breaking any laws!" True, but I didn't write it. Nothing that is said or done can change the fact that something dishonest and unjust was done through plagiarism, period. Illegal? Maybe. Maybe not. But once we're talking about whether the actions of VPW in the supposed authorship of his works was legal or not, we've accepted plagiarism as a fact and are merely moving onto the question of "so what?" which is where I think this conversation should be anyway.

Wierwille's plagiarism is an inescapable and undeniable fact. How one feels about it is individual.

[potato]

does anyone know what kind of lights were used for filming PFAL?

arc lighting was used from the 30s onward and the UV output was typically high.

when tungsten balanced color film was introduced in the early 50s, 10 kw incandescent lights became common. they had much lower UV output but were bright enough to cause eye damage.

I think if movie set lighting caused eye cancer, we'd hear about it a lot more. after all, lots of newscasters, actors and actresses from back in the day were exposed over much longer periods than vpw to lights with high UV output. apparently, old-time filming spot lights lights would give people a sunburn with too much exposure.

vpw's eye burn wasn't necessarily a result of cancer causing UV. over-exposure to bright lights of other wave-lengths can cause eye burn:

http://ncr101.montana.edu/Light1994Conf/4_...iney%20Text.htm

this article suggests that sun exposure is a likely cause as well:

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/cont...ract/50/18/5773

maybe he pointed a lazer pointer in his eye (lots of people do). maybe he used a tanning bed without eye protection. maybe he spent a lot of time outdoors. I don't buy the "I sacrificed an eye for the Lord" spiel.

[WhiteDove]

Well that might be part of the issue but the other part is was it legal to use the work?

This comes into play when accusing someone of theft., which is as you pointed out a different issue than a moral one.

. .. In 1988 Congress passed the Berne Convention Implementation Act, which eliminated the notice requirement completely for all works first published after March 1, 1989. However, prior to that Act the copyright issue would be controlled by the Copyright Act of 1909 (the '1909 Act')." Under the 1909 Act and prior to March 1, 1989, the Copyright Act required that each copy of a work distributed to the public be marked with a copyright notice. Furthermore, "Failure to do so would inject the work into the public domain." Once a work has passed into the public domain as a result of failure to provide adequate notice of copyright, it may freely be copied." This indicia requirement in the Copyright Act was not amended until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, which became effective March 1, 1989. Id. It was not until the Berne Convention amendments that the copyright notice became optional rather than mandatory.

Perhaps the reason it was not copyrighted is that the author wanted it to be used in this case. If that is the case then I suppose we have no problem in this case.

[Linda Z]

Oldies, I assure you, if VP's cancer were traceable to the causes WordWolf would like to attribute it to, I'd be just as firm in my support of the facts. This isn't about "giving VP a break" or defending him. I really have neither a pro-VP nor an anti-VP agenda.

WW, something that might help you understand this is that primary liver cancer (as opposed to cancer that started elsewhere and spread to the liver) would not be a melanoma. Primary liver cancers include types of carcinoma and sarcoma, but never melanomas. The type of cancer one has, regardless of where it spreads secondarily, is the primary type. Also, cirrhosis of the liver, caused by alcohol abuse, leads to hepatocellular carcinoma, which is not what VP had. I don't dispute that he drank too much, but his cancer wasn't caused by that.

Potato, I also tried to figure out what kind of lighting was used, and I can only guess, based on the time frame. I don't know if mercury arc lighting was still being used, but it has a high UV output. Knowing that twi typically bought used equipment, especially back in the 60s when money was scarce, they could have bought some really old theatrical lights.

I did speak with Dave Anderson, who witnessed the severe burns to his eyes that VP experienced, and that type of trauma fits with the etiology of ocular cancer. Bright lights could certainly burn delicate eye tissue, as you said, regardless of their UV output.

By the way, I heard VP talk about his eye cancer more than once when I was on HQ staff, and I never heard him say he "sacrificed an eye for the Lord"--or for PFAL or for anything else. I know he was big on hyperbole and bravado in his healthier days, but I was around him during the last 4 years of his life and didn't see him in either of those modes near the end.

PS to Potato: I understand what you're saying about movie set lights. The difference, though, is that VP was the only person being filmed and he sat and stared into the cameras many hours per day with the lights beating down on him. That's not the typical exposure to the lights one would have when acting in a movie.

[Raf]

Perhaps the reason it was not copyrighted is that the author wanted it to be used in this case. If that is the case then I suppose we have no problem in this case.

Apologetic nonsense.

It may mean we have no LEGAL problem, but we have a problem of honesty and integrity.

Which means more in a man of God? That he followed the law? Or that he told the truth?

[Linda Z]

Raf is correct. Being free to quote or copy something that's in the public domain does not preclude the ethical requirement to credit the source. Printed government brochures and info on .gov Web sites, for example, are in the public domain from the get-go, but when I quote them in an article I'm writing, I certainly don't pretend I wrote what I'm quoting.

I'll concede that it could have been a case of naivete (both on the part of VP and his early editors) and sloppy scholarship, but that still doesn't make it right.

[potato]

Perhaps the reason it was not copyrighted is that the author wanted it to be used in this case. If that is the case then I suppose we have no problem in this case.

it is a problem. if the works weren't copyrighted, then legally twi could have published the works with Stiles' name on it and sold them, and never given Stiles a dime. it's still plagarism to take another's work and pass it off as your own regardless of copyright.

question... was the book published in Canada or the US without the copyright notice? if it was Canada, then US law doesn't apply.

[Raf]

I don't think it was naivette. The man had a master's at the least, and supposedly had a doctorate too. If people want us to accept the doctorate as genuine, they cannot use "naivette" as an excuse for his poor documentation.

Further, naivette makes it sound like he didn't know what he was doing. I submit that such a thesis simply CANNOT be true, on the grounds of the master's at least.

Edited January 3, 2007 by Raf

[Raf]

By the way, Linda, if it seems I'm being hard on you or overly antagonistic, I apologize. I actually respect that you write with logic and clear thinking, even when I don't agree with your conclusion. A tough argument deserves an uncompromising response. But I think you're great and I love to dialogue with you, even when we're not on the same side.

[potato]

Potato, I also tried to figure out what kind of lighting was used, and I can only guess, based on the time frame. I don't know if mercury arc lighting was still being used, but it has a high UV output. Knowing that twi typically bought used equipment, especially back in the 60s when money was scarce, they could have bought some really old theatrical lights.

my understanding was that the equipment was hired. maybe I'm not recalling the facts.

I did speak with Dave Anderson, who witnessed the severe burns to his eyes that VP experienced, and that type of trauma fits with the etiology of ocular cancer. Bright lights could certainly burn delicate eye tissue, as you said, regardless of their UV output.

does Dave recall if vpw sustained sunburn as well? that would have been a clear indicator that the lights were UV.

I did a bunch of reading and couldn't find anything that indicated ocular melanoma is caused by regular eye burns. do you have any info on that?

By the way, I heard VP talk about his eye cancer more than once when I was on HQ staff, and I never heard him say he "sacrificed an eye for the Lord"--or for PFAL or for anything else. I know he was big on hyperbole and bravado in his healthier days, but I was around him during the last 4 years of his life and didn't see him in either of those modes near the end.

PS to Potato: I understand what you're saying about movie set lights. The difference, though, is that VP was the only person being filmed and he sat and stared into the cameras many hours per day with the lights beating down on him. That's not the typical exposure to the lights one would have when acting in a movie.

it was something that I'd read somewhere, where he asked someone "I gave my eye to the ministry, what have you given?" or something along those lines. I do not remember where I read it, so it could be one of those urban legend things. however, it bothers me to assume that his eye cancer was caused by filming PFAL, when there is nothing to indicate that was the cause.

also, the lights weren't used just for movies, but also for tv filming. lots of people were exposed to the same kind of lights for much longer periods of time, and UV damage is cumulative.

[WhiteDove]

Apologetic nonsense.

It may mean we have no LEGAL problem, but we have a problem of honesty and integrity.

Which means more in a man of God? That he followed the law? Or that he told the truth?

Exactly Raf we have no case for any legal wrong. So what is left because we don't have a legal leg to stand on and still want to take issue is that we try to squeeze the moral issue into making the legal right. That is each to decide if it fits in their moral mode or not . Just to keep the facts straight. The judge follows the law he does not care if you personally think the law is moral or not. In this case VP had a perfect right to use the material, some may think he should have done this others maybe think he should have done that. It looks to me like he felt that it was free to use having no legal restrictions.