I guess we have a disagreement about how to consider or weigh what VPW did. See, I agree that his actions didn't always line up with scripture, nor do mine. But I think there's a profound difference, one that is Biblically appropriate to address. That being, while we are specifially told not to judge each other (a hyperbole, considering the full weight of what the Bible teaches on judging), we are also told to hold each other accountable and, more to the point, to hold ministers accountable.
So for me, it's not simply a matter of deciding who's the bigger sinner.
I've done some pretty terrible things in my life, but I've never killed someone and ate him. Jeffrey Dahmer did that.
I've never led a group of drug crazed hippies to come into the home of a pregnant movie star and kill her. Manson did that.
I've never taken a position as a "minister" and used it for personal gain and sexual lust. Many have done that, and Wierwille was among them. Yes, the Bible says not to judge, but the Bible also gives clear instructions on standards by which to hold ministers accountable. To me, there's nothing wrong with pointing out where a minister "failed" to live up to the standards set in scripture. In fact, failure seems the wrong word. It was more like a rebellious refusal to adhere to clear Biblical standards.
A bigger sinner than I am? I'll let God judge that.
Unworthy of the name "minister"? God gave us the standards and responsibility to judge that for ourselves.
... Maybe I’m wrong here, but doesn’t there have to be some intent to be plagiarism? Also, I’m somewhat ignorant here too; do you think the early books were intentionally plagiarized?
Hi ROW.
You question is a serious one and you know what, I don't think he had the intent to deceive people.
Others disagree but that's what I think.
I want to mention why I don't think he had INTENT...
Consider the following:
If Dr. Wierwille had INTENT to deceive and steal others' works for the INTENT of wanting everyone to believe that all his teachings came from him EXCLUSIVELY;
why then, did he state, and have published in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
why did he have published that he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"?
why would he on numerous multi- occasions, verbally, mention that he learned concepts from various men and women that he taught later on?
why would he have, for ALL TO SEE, most of the books that contain MAJOR TEACHINGS of his, in the WAY BOOKSTORE?
Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?
I would imagine that one of the greatest satisfactions of a thief, would be to steal the goods while simultaneously hiding "where he got the goods from", don't you think?
You know, no, there does not have to be intent for there to be plagiarism. But if you want to criticize someone for it, there does have to be intent. Let's look at Oldies' post...
If Dr. Wierwille had INTENT to deceive and steal others' works for the INTENT of wanting everyone to believe that all his teachings came from him EXCLUSIVELY;
why then, did he state, and have published in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
Frankly, one has nothing to do with the other. If you can't draw a distinction between teaching the same thing as someone else and passing someone else's work off as your own, I can't help you. You wouldn't know plagiarism if it slapped you in the face, and thus, your entire perspective on this is moot.
why did he have published that he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"?
Again, because it's beside the point. Learned from men scattered across the content is not the same thing as took their words and passed them off as your own.
why would he on numerous multi- occasions, verbally, mention that he learned concepts from various men and women that he taught later on?
All together now: Because it's not the point. Everyone learns from other people. not everyone plagiarizes. not by a longshot.
why would he have, for ALL TO SEE, most of the books that contain MAJOR TEACHINGS of his, in the WAY BOOKSTORE?
Bullcrap. Most of the books from which he plagiarized were NOT in the TWI bookstore.
Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is your intent?
Simple: it disarms the investigator. You're not even willing to see the deceptive intent of theft because he cleverly hid his sources, in some cases, in plain sight.
I would imagine that one of the greatest satisfactions of a thief, would be to steal the goods while simultaneously hiding where he "got the goods" from, don't you think?
And he probably would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those darned kids.
Take a look at one of the early chapters of order My Steps in Thy Word. I forget which chapter, but it contains an extensive quote from Kenyon. See the quote? Very good. You're disarmed, because he quoted his source. What do you not see in that book? That a significant portion of the remainder of that chapter consists of material lifted directly from Kenyon, even the VERY SAME CHAPTER from which he pulled the lengthy quote! But no one looks for it.
It's sloppy. It's lazy. It's unbecoming an honest man.
You question is a serious one and you know what, I don't think he had the intent to deceive people.
Others disagree but that's what I think.
I want to mention why I don't think he had INTENT...
Consider the following:
If Dr. Wierwille had INTENT to deceive and steal others' works for the INTENT of wanting everyone to believe that all his teachings came from him EXCLUSIVELY;
why then, did he state, and have published in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
why did he have published that he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"?
why would he on numerous multi- occasions, verbally, mention that he learned concepts from various men and women that he taught later on?
why would he have, for ALL TO SEE, most of the books that contain MAJOR TEACHINGS of his, in the WAY BOOKSTORE?
Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?
I would imagine that one of the greatest satisfactions of a thief, would be to steal the goods while simultaneously hiding "where he got the goods from", don't you think?
This is truly scary stuff!!!!How gullible are you? Do you fall for every scam out there? Let’s give the car thief you catch in the act the benefit of a doubt: “Oh I’m sorry – this is your car?!? Shoot, it looked so much like my car. Sorry about the busted window. Darn, I lose my keys have the time, don’t yah know – had to break into my own house twice this week.”
…Or try this one for believability: A thief explaining to the Joe’s Pawn Shop Clerk, “I swear I didn’t steal this Laptop! I found it by the curb…with the trash…yeah, that’s the ticket. Maybe someone thought it was broke and they threw it away…But it still works! See – the screen saver is running now….hhmmmmm…neat little marquee message thereGet Cash Fast at Joe’s Pawn Shop.”
How yah doin’ on the test so far? Let’s skip to category number 3. A plagiarist when confronted with the true source of his material responds: “Wow, it’s amazing how great minds think alike.”
How impressive you think you are right, this just that VPW tried to mentour you and you failed. Well I guess I can take some of the blame off of the memebers of GS. You were VPW's apprentice so to speak. While even being so close you couldn't figure it out. You can't figure it out to this day. You have no stand left in you, you are as weak as a dead tree. You have forsaken the power given to you, the fight is gone. The next thing you will say is "Goodbye cruel world I'm leaving you today, Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye".
To bad your resume of knowing the Wierwilles ended so badly, since they are almost all dead. We got Captain of knowledge on Wierwilles here, he is the best of the best of the best sir, with honors. Somewhere you must think to yourself do I believe the crap coming out of my HCW mouth. Let me grab some popcorn this is starting to get funny. Watch out Jay we got HCW on deck. Lets see here we got HCW as close to VPW as possible, then we se him fail like the Titanic, then the best thing he can do is come on here and tell is life's story. That my friend is priceless. Nothing like hearing about the good ol' days, from a expert. See if I were your mentour I would call you a waste of time, energy, and money, I would leave you in the dust and find someone who really wanted to learn. Because you are a gotta get something to give something kind of person. Well I will let you soak on that for awhile.
By the time you got a master's, even in the forties, you'd have at least a LITTLE experience in research and documentation, I would think.
But looking at his "work"- I'd say a high school english student does a better job at it.
If he knew better, if he was so smart- why in God's name didn't he do it right?
There aren't very many options to answer that question.
Perhaps people misunderstood what he meant when he said he was working on his doctorate. Maybe he meant he was copying someone else’s work and had to doctor-it up to look like his own.
...If Dr. Wierwille had INTENT to deceive and steal others' works for the INTENT of wanting everyone to believe that all his teachings came from him EXCLUSIVELY;
why then, did he state, and have published in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
why did he have published that he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"?
why would he on numerous multi- occasions, verbally, mention that he learned concepts from various men and women that he taught later on?
why would he have, for ALL TO SEE, most of the books that contain MAJOR TEACHINGS of his, in the WAY BOOKSTORE?
Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?
I would imagine that one of the greatest satisfactions of a thief, would be to steal the goods while simultaneously hiding "where he got the goods from", don't you think?
Ok, maybe we can agree that half were.
Kenyon & Bullinger was; Stiles & Leonard wasn't.
BUT, the only way I knew about Stiles & Leonard was thru Wierwille.
Do thieves usually volunteer the names of those they stole from?
INTENT....
INTENT....
How do you know what VPW's intentions were? Intention is something in the mind – is it not? When you said: "Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?" You're confusing the issue – the way I see it stealing was the method – he intended to receive the credit for another person's work. Now if you want to draw any similarities – perhaps motive is closer to intent – not method. There has to be something in it for the perpetrator – what will they gain from their act…
VPW did NOT try to hide where he got his material…in the typical sense of when we think "hide" we think of it as putting something out of sight – that would have been dumb – would have drawn attention to the act, making himself look like he's doing something wrong - a good way to act innocent. He chose to "hide" it in plain view. "No evil intent here, folks, all my cards are on the table…yup…great minds think alike…this is really all public domain stuff – well, shucks it's all God's domain – and I work for him."
And when you speak of intent – there's a lot to that. A person sees something they want [motive]. Now what if this thing is beyond their reach – but they want it anyway – and they want it so bad they'll do anything to get it [unethical intent]. And while intent is self-centered it is not stupid! It could be a thief using stealth to get around a watchman or a hacker through "social engineering" tricking a person into trusting them and reveal passwords or weak spots in a system. Both take cunning, forethought, skills, etc…What you interpret as VPW being honest about his sources [like having their books around, naming them, etc.] I interpret it as that's what he wanted people to think, it's a good trick a con-man will do to win your trust.
What was his intention, what was his motive? We don't know. But the FACT remains – he plagiarized.
ck the more you post the more you show your colors or color yellow .you remind me of the great and wonderful wizard of oz a fake just like cornfield vic get meds!!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
21
24
33
Popular Days
Dec 22
31
Dec 23
20
Dec 21
19
Dec 2
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
T-Bone 21 posts
ckmkeon 24 posts
potato 33 posts
Popular Days
Dec 22 2006
31 posts
Dec 23 2006
20 posts
Dec 21 2006
19 posts
Dec 2 2006
18 posts
Raf
NP,
I guess we have a disagreement about how to consider or weigh what VPW did. See, I agree that his actions didn't always line up with scripture, nor do mine. But I think there's a profound difference, one that is Biblically appropriate to address. That being, while we are specifially told not to judge each other (a hyperbole, considering the full weight of what the Bible teaches on judging), we are also told to hold each other accountable and, more to the point, to hold ministers accountable.
So for me, it's not simply a matter of deciding who's the bigger sinner.
I've done some pretty terrible things in my life, but I've never killed someone and ate him. Jeffrey Dahmer did that.
I've never led a group of drug crazed hippies to come into the home of a pregnant movie star and kill her. Manson did that.
I've never taken a position as a "minister" and used it for personal gain and sexual lust. Many have done that, and Wierwille was among them. Yes, the Bible says not to judge, but the Bible also gives clear instructions on standards by which to hold ministers accountable. To me, there's nothing wrong with pointing out where a minister "failed" to live up to the standards set in scripture. In fact, failure seems the wrong word. It was more like a rebellious refusal to adhere to clear Biblical standards.
A bigger sinner than I am? I'll let God judge that.
Unworthy of the name "minister"? God gave us the standards and responsibility to judge that for ourselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Hi ROW.
You question is a serious one and you know what, I don't think he had the intent to deceive people.
Others disagree but that's what I think.
I want to mention why I don't think he had INTENT...
Consider the following:
If Dr. Wierwille had INTENT to deceive and steal others' works for the INTENT of wanting everyone to believe that all his teachings came from him EXCLUSIVELY;
why then, did he state, and have published in 1972 "lots of the stuff I teach is not original"?
why did he have published that he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent"?
why would he on numerous multi- occasions, verbally, mention that he learned concepts from various men and women that he taught later on?
why would he have, for ALL TO SEE, most of the books that contain MAJOR TEACHINGS of his, in the WAY BOOKSTORE?
Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?
I would imagine that one of the greatest satisfactions of a thief, would be to steal the goods while simultaneously hiding "where he got the goods from", don't you think?
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know, no, there does not have to be intent for there to be plagiarism. But if you want to criticize someone for it, there does have to be intent. Let's look at Oldies' post...
Frankly, one has nothing to do with the other. If you can't draw a distinction between teaching the same thing as someone else and passing someone else's work off as your own, I can't help you. You wouldn't know plagiarism if it slapped you in the face, and thus, your entire perspective on this is moot.Again, because it's beside the point. Learned from men scattered across the content is not the same thing as took their words and passed them off as your own.
All together now: Because it's not the point. Everyone learns from other people. not everyone plagiarizes. not by a longshot.Bullcrap. Most of the books from which he plagiarized were NOT in the TWI bookstore.
Simple: it disarms the investigator. You're not even willing to see the deceptive intent of theft because he cleverly hid his sources, in some cases, in plain sight.And he probably would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those darned kids.
Take a look at one of the early chapters of order My Steps in Thy Word. I forget which chapter, but it contains an extensive quote from Kenyon. See the quote? Very good. You're disarmed, because he quoted his source. What do you not see in that book? That a significant portion of the remainder of that chapter consists of material lifted directly from Kenyon, even the VERY SAME CHAPTER from which he pulled the lengthy quote! But no one looks for it.
It's sloppy. It's lazy. It's unbecoming an honest man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Say what you will about his "Doctorate"..
He didn't have a real shabby master's degree.
By the time you got a master's, even in the forties, you'd have at least a LITTLE experience in research and documentation, I would think.
But looking at his "work"- I'd say a high school english student does a better job at it.
If he knew better, if he was so smart- why in God's name didn't he do it right?
There aren't very many options to answer that question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NewParadigm
Hi Raf,
I think we agree on the points you have made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for hearing me out, NP.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Yes folks.. another "koom-bye-yah" moment here at the GreaseSpotCafe!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
This is truly scary stuff!!!!How gullible are you? Do you fall for every scam out there? Let’s give the car thief you catch in the act the benefit of a doubt: “Oh I’m sorry – this is your car?!? Shoot, it looked so much like my car. Sorry about the busted window. Darn, I lose my keys have the time, don’t yah know – had to break into my own house twice this week.”
…Or try this one for believability: A thief explaining to the Joe’s Pawn Shop Clerk, “I swear I didn’t steal this Laptop! I found it by the curb…with the trash…yeah, that’s the ticket. Maybe someone thought it was broke and they threw it away…But it still works! See – the screen saver is running now….hhmmmmm…neat little marquee message there Get Cash Fast at Joe’s Pawn Shop.”
How yah doin’ on the test so far? Let’s skip to category number 3. A plagiarist when confronted with the true source of his material responds: “Wow, it’s amazing how great minds think alike.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ckmkeon
HCW
How impressive you think you are right, this just that VPW tried to mentour you and you failed. Well I guess I can take some of the blame off of the memebers of GS. You were VPW's apprentice so to speak. While even being so close you couldn't figure it out. You can't figure it out to this day. You have no stand left in you, you are as weak as a dead tree. You have forsaken the power given to you, the fight is gone. The next thing you will say is "Goodbye cruel world I'm leaving you today, Goodbye, Goodbye, Goodbye".
To bad your resume of knowing the Wierwilles ended so badly, since they are almost all dead. We got Captain of knowledge on Wierwilles here, he is the best of the best of the best sir, with honors. Somewhere you must think to yourself do I believe the crap coming out of my HCW mouth. Let me grab some popcorn this is starting to get funny. Watch out Jay we got HCW on deck. Lets see here we got HCW as close to VPW as possible, then we se him fail like the Titanic, then the best thing he can do is come on here and tell is life's story. That my friend is priceless. Nothing like hearing about the good ol' days, from a expert. See if I were your mentour I would call you a waste of time, energy, and money, I would leave you in the dust and find someone who really wanted to learn. Because you are a gotta get something to give something kind of person. Well I will let you soak on that for awhile.
CK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Perhaps people misunderstood what he meant when he said he was working on his doctorate. Maybe he meant he was copying someone else’s work and had to doctor-it up to look like his own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All that warmth and fuzziness!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Ok, maybe we can agree that half were.
Kenyon & Bullinger was; Stiles & Leonard wasn't.
BUT, the only way I knew about Stiles & Leonard was thru Wierwille.
Do thieves usually volunteer the names of those they stole from?
INTENT....
INTENT....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh please.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We can't agree that half were. All Kenyon's books were NOT.
All Bullinger's books were NOT. "Are the Dead Alive Now?" was from books like
""The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" and
"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?",
complete with the question format.
THOSE were SURELY known to vpw-he read ALL Bullinger's stuff.
But they were left out when he saw to it the Companion Bible was
in the bookstore.
Stiles: the casual references to him say NOTHING of the complete transfer
of the contents of Stiles' book into "vpw's book", which doesn't even
name him ONCE. Further, the early editions of "vpw's book" say a man
taught vpw, and later ones say he learned it all without a teacher.
Finally, the ONLY reference vpw made to LEONARD was buried in one book and
said the man was "not good with The Word", which is a GUARANTEE that twi
people will have no interest in him. This was a deliberate lie, as Mrs W later
pointed out that he taught them plenty of "Word", and that the "original pfal"
class was Leonard's class with vpw's name on it, NEVER MENTIONING LEONARD.
Why take Stiles' name off Stiles' book and put your own instead?
Why bind 2 books of Bullinger together, strip his name, and put your own instead?
Why take Leonard's name off Leonard's class, and put your own instead?
INTENT....
INTENT....
(edited to correct the name "Leonard".)
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
CK, your meds aren't working, dear. go spend some quality time with your therapist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
How do you know what VPW's intentions were? Intention is something in the mind – is it not? When you said: "Even giving a person's name where he learned from is poor thievery. Why even mention them, if stealing is one's INTENT?" You're confusing the issue – the way I see it stealing was the method – he intended to receive the credit for another person's work. Now if you want to draw any similarities – perhaps motive is closer to intent – not method. There has to be something in it for the perpetrator – what will they gain from their act…
VPW did NOT try to hide where he got his material…in the typical sense of when we think "hide" we think of it as putting something out of sight – that would have been dumb – would have drawn attention to the act, making himself look like he's doing something wrong - a good way to act innocent. He chose to "hide" it in plain view. "No evil intent here, folks, all my cards are on the table…yup…great minds think alike…this is really all public domain stuff – well, shucks it's all God's domain – and I work for him."
And when you speak of intent – there's a lot to that. A person sees something they want [motive]. Now what if this thing is beyond their reach – but they want it anyway – and they want it so bad they'll do anything to get it [unethical intent]. And while intent is self-centered it is not stupid! It could be a thief using stealth to get around a watchman or a hacker through "social engineering" tricking a person into trusting them and reveal passwords or weak spots in a system. Both take cunning, forethought, skills, etc…What you interpret as VPW being honest about his sources [like having their books around, naming them, etc.] I interpret it as that's what he wanted people to think, it's a good trick a con-man will do to win your trust.
What was his intention, what was his motive? We don't know. But the FACT remains – he plagiarized.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Ckm, who made you God?
Who made you judge, jury and executioner?
Do you know HCW?
He gave you the respect and dignity of sharing his heart and life and you s.... all over him.
How dare you mock him?
I hope HCW never throws his pearls before swine again so you can trample them.
Do you feel like a big man now?
You say he failed
You say he's dumb (in nice words of course), he couldn't figure it out
You say he's so dumb he still can't figure it out to this day
You say he's going to commit suicide (with joy and glee on your part)
You say he's a waste of time and energy
You say you would never mentor him
Nice accusations there.
Who are you really working for?
Your hatred and arrogance are shameful.
Who do you think you are?
Did you say you were a Christian?
Edited by SunesisLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
CK is most decidedly not Christian. his arrogance makes him sound almost exactly like a less educated version of LCM.
HCW, I appreciate you sharing your life and perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
ck the more you post the more you show your colors or color yellow .you remind me of the great and wonderful wizard of oz a fake just like cornfield vic get meds!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
HCW --- I'd like to say thanks as well.
It's not often we/ I hear an eloquent perspective such as that.
ckm -- I'm NOT commenting on the rest ot the quote above.
I promised to be nice --- remember? ;)
(edited to add [/size])
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I didn't promise to be nice
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Potato -- Ck and I have had a few disagreements here and there..
He accused me of being/ saying things that weren't acceptable to me.
But (looking at what he posted), I made a decision.
I decided NOT to antagonize Mr. Ck. anymore. :)
So -- for what it is worth ---
I-DON'T-GIVE-A-RATZ-BEHIND what he posts.
I made a promise, and I intend to keep it. :)
ckm --I promised to be nice --- remember?
This here isn't a *slam*. ;)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
washingtonweather
I think readers of ck or participants on the same thread as ck can use the ignore button
HCW - I know you to be a genuine person...ignre ck...i know - I don't have to tell you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I can't quite bring myself to use the ignore button yet, there's still some entertainment value there.
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.