What's sad is that Wierwille probably could have attracted just as large an audience if he had been honest. If he had been straight up about where he got his information, if he had eschewed all the crap about hauling over 3000 volumes to the dump and using the bible as his exclusive handbook and textbook; if he had just told us that this part was from Stiles, this part was from Bullinger, this part was from Leonard, etc.
"Accurate" or not, most of us wouldn't have cared. Maybe this honesty would have sent a few folks looking for Leonard or Stiles, but I think that Wierwille's superior marketing of his "product" would have attracted the crowds of the young and hungry either way. It didn't seem to hurt his credibility with the bulk of wayferdom when he extensively footnoted Jesus Christ Our promised Seed; it didn't siphon off a bunch of people following Ernest martin, did it?
But no, he had to lie about it; he had to represent himself as the recpient of the greatest revelation since "The first century".
He did say he learned things from these other men. Interestingly, he often did not say precisely what he learned from which men. And never did he say "when you read question 8 in the common fears chapter of RTHST, you should know that those words aren't mine: I lifted them right out of Stiles. After all, I just about never use the term 'faith blasters.' I would have said 'believing blasters' if I had written it."
And there is a difference.
Everyone learns from other people. Not everyone plagiarizes and then slaps their name on it, calling themselves "authors" when they know it is not true.
This is a great thread and even though it's a lot of the same players as through the years, there are fresh and interesting points and illustrations.
Didn't one of the men vee pee stole from go back and put a copyright on his works in addition to including a statement on plaigarism that has been suspected of being printed especially in reference to vee pee and the original author's heartbreak over having his work stolen?
Isn't what he said an irrelevant tangent? I mean, someone buying one of his books and reading it with no knowledge or very limited knowledge of vee pee and TWI .... that person would be under the impression that vee pee wrote all this stuff himself from his own research and conversations with God. One can't "document" their written sources verbally... how what vee pee said even comes into the debate is beyond me. :blink:
Charges that "the Master teacher" V.P. Wierwille plagiarized large sections of other authors' books also occupy many conversations. This writer published the first examples in 1980, showing that in his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today Wierwille plagiarized sections of E.W. Bullinger's The Giver and His Gifts.[1]By 1987 Jay Valusek and I had also published excerpts showing Wierwille had plagiarized portions of The Gift of the Holy Spirit by J.E. Stiles, The Father and His Family by E.W. Kenyon, and Selected Writings, The Church Epistles, The Mystery, How to Enjoy the Bible, and Figures of Speech Used in the Bible by Bullinger.[2]
Recently, more examples have been uncovered, including (but not limited to) Wierwille's use of:
- Bullinger in his University of Life course on Thessalonians.
- B.G. Leonard's The Gifts of the Spirit in his Receiving the Holy Spirit Today and the Intermediate and Advanced Power for Abundant Living courses.
- Oral Roberts's The Red Thread in his Lifestyle of God's Word.
Many people follow Wierwille in part because they were impressed by his claim that he took over 3,000 books on theology to the city dump[3] and resolved to study the Bible alone without men's teachings.[4] Although Wierwille sometimes said he learned from others, he often explicitly claimed originality. He cultivated an image of being an original Bible researcher and his followers have seen him as such. It has now become apparent to many of them that Wierwille was instead an eclectic plagiarist.
Almost every one of Wierwille's teachings can be traced to other sources (see sidebar for descriptions of some of Wierwille's teachings). Wierwille's writings on the topics of interpreting the Bible, soul sleep, the distinction of impersonal holy spirit from the Holy Spirit, ultradispensationalism, gospel harmony, and "the mystery" are all drawn from Bullinger.
Are you basically just saying, "Yeah, so he stole, plagiarized, lied and pretended to be something he's not to profit, but so what?"
For those that don't lknow, there's a book available that documents the direct plaigarism of vee pee. Will The Real Author Please Stand Up? is available from PFO-Midwest for the cost of $2.00 (plus $1.00 postage).
When Wierwille published the third edition of the book in 1957, he added material from E.W. Bullinger's 1905 work, The Giver and His Gifts. Juedes published six pages of excerpts from the two books, showing that Wierwille imported Bullinger's content, structure, conclusions and even some wording into his own book (Douglas Morton and John Juedes, The Integrity and Accuracy of The Way's Word, Personal Freedom Outreach, 1980, pp. 43-48.) Wierwille never placed quotation marks around the sections he copied (often virtually word for word), nor did he ever cite a source, or even suggest that he used sources. In fact, he states in the preface that he did not use sources other than the Bible.
Compare these excerpts from the two works:
Kenyon: I suppose I have lost faith in myself. You see I have wanted to be a Christian, I have wanted to have God's help in this fight of life. I have gone to the altar again and again, and received nothing. I've sought and cried after God so many times and failed. (FHF, pg. 229)
Wierwille (The Searcher): I suppose ... I have lost faith in myself. You see, I really wanted to be a Christian, to have God's ... help in life ... I went to the altar again and again and yet I received nothing. I have sought and cried after God so much and so many times that I feel that I am a complete failure. (NDC, pg. 1)
Kenyon: Did you ever realize that salvation is a gift, that it is not necessary that you go any place to get it? You can find it anywhere. Did you ever realize that it is not what you do, but what He did for you that counts? All there is to receiving Eternal Life, becoming a child of God is to receive something instead of giving something. You have tried to get it by earning it. (FHF, pg. 229)
Wierwille: Did you ever stop to think that salvation is a gift, that it is unnecessary for you to go anywhere to get it? You can find God anywhere ... . Do you realize that to receive salvation is not dependent upon what you do but what He did for you? Do you realize that to be a child of God, to receive Eternal Life ... is to receive something instead of giving something? You have missed the joy of His fellowship because you have tried to earn or work for it. (NDC, pg. 1)
Bullinger: The solemn circumstances under which the words were uttered marked the wonderful faith of the dying malefactor... (HEB, pg. 48)
Wierwille: The circumstances under which the words were uttered indicate the wonderful believing of the dying malefactor. (ADAN, pg. 80)
Bullinger:The word "verily" points us to the solemnity of the occasion, and to the importance of what is about to be said.(HEB, pg.48)
Wierwille: The answer Jesus gave was also very important. The word "verily" by Jesus points to the earnestness and gravity of the occasion. (ADAN, pg. 80)
Wierwille did not place quotation marks around sections he used, nor does he cite or imply that he used any other person's writings as his source. Since Bullinger died three years before Wierwille was born, it is apparent that Bullinger could not have drawn any ideas from Wierwille.
Bullinger: It is the very last thing that the natural man will admit He thinks he can direct his own way. (SW, pg. 60)
Wierwille: It is the very last thing the natural man or the carnal Christian wants to admit, for each man thinks he is right in his own eyes and each man thinks he can direct his own way. (BTMS, pg. 50)
Bullinger: So that, whether enemies abound, or days be dark, or Satan's assaults be many, or doubts and fears increase even then we shall be, and must be, "more than conquerors" through Him who loveth us. And the Lord the Spirit will ever direct our hearts into His love, and not into our infirmities; and we shall say... (Psalm 73:22-25 quoted). (SW, pg. 63)
Wierwille: So then whether enemies abound, Satan assaults, days be dark with doubts and fears increasing, even then we are "more than conquerors" through Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. It is the Lord God who must direct our hearts unto His love to the end that we will make the same confession as recorded in Psalms (Psalm 73:22-25 quoted).(BTMS, pg. 54)
Great thread, WordWolf – thanks for putting this stuff together. Great posts by other folks too! But I have to comment about OldiesMan saying in post # 3,
OldiesMan
I don't think there is any confusion about the pure definition of plagiarism. The debate exists when you apply it to VPW and add other facts in the mix. I know I know, let's not get confused with what he said at other times. It's besides the point.
I think YOUR confusion may come from ignoring ethical standards of honesty for the sake of believing a thief and a liar. I really don't trust anything the man said or wrote after finding out he lied about taking everything he could from the Moody Correspondence School – I posted a letter about that little FACT on WordWolf's thread The Way: Living in Wonderland, post # 500
…Also, I wanted to add something that I found while reading this thread. The following excerpts are from an article What is Plagiarism? by the History News Network Staff
"…The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry…
…Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others…"
Are you basically just saying, "Yeah, so he stole, plagiarized, lied and pretended to be something he's not to profit, but so what?"
I'll say this real slow again for the billionth time .
The discussion was about Stiles and his book not any other author my comments were directed at such not any other author.
As I said for the also about billionth time but apparently some cant read or don't wish to!
There are plenty of copyrighted books that one could use to make plagiarism arguments and that is a valid point .One that I have never disagreed with ,contrary to popular assumption from not reading what is written.
Moral issues are moral issues not crimes, What is free to have you can't steal.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess.
I would not be inclined to add Stiles in this group as I think it is possible that it was questionable. As I said
No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Regarding SO What? your point is unclear as to your meaning, but to me knowledge I never said So What in any of my posts so I would conclude that no that is not what I am saying or have said.
Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess.
That's like saying it's a guess whether there was serial murder in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Gee, killed one and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Hey, boss, I think I see a pattern here!
Maybe, but ONE of those killings may have been self defense, so we really can't be sure whether "serial murder" is the right term.
Please. Stop letting the ghost of this man's legacy insult your intelligence. That you're able to come up with these distortions at all establishes that you're intelligent: you should also be smart enough to see how ludicrous it is to believe it!
...Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess...
Intentional [from Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th Edition]: having to do with intention or purpose. Done purposely.
Unintentional [from above Webster's]: not done on purpose.
Alright – if you want to cut him some slack – I guess I'd call him the Accidental Plagiarist…Although we're getting into that same dumb argument of trying to figure out what were his intentions. If you must avoid the "P" word perhaps another word might do:
Negligence [from above Webster's]: habitual failure to do the required thing. Carelessness or indifference. Law - failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another.
A good illustration of how Wierwille in some instances put together stuff from other authors rather than coming up with the research himself us when he copies things while obviously not understanding them.
Wierwille & Bullinger had slightly different takes on the geneologies of Jesus in Matthew & Luke. Wierwille taught that Matthew was Mary's geneology and that it was the royal one, Bullinger taught that Matthew contained Joseph's geneology. Bullinger referes to this in his appendix on "The Lord's Brethren" where he discounts the theory that Jesus' named brothers are Joseph's from a previous wife. His reasoning is that older sons of Joseph would be ahead of Jesus in the royal line.
Wierwille, in his chapter in The Word's Way on "The Lord's Brethren", uses this same argument, and the same wording as Bullinger, even though Wierwille did not teach that the royal line came through Joseph. He copied, but did not really understand what he copied.
Accidental, negligent... terms that just don't apply here. A man with a master's degree from daffy duck university knows what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. He was neither accidental nor negligent (in my mind, you can't be intentionally negligent. But what T-bone wrote about indifference is more like what I have in mind).
If you're going to be charitable about it, the words to use are "unconcerned and unapologetic." That is, he simply didn't CARE about the plagiarism. He did it, such is life, get over it and what do you think of the CONTENT, never mind the origin. It's true or false based on what is on the page, not based on whose typewriter hit the letters first. When I refer to the "so what" argument, this is what I'm talking about.
YES, he plagiarized. Left and right, right up to and including Order My Steps In Thy Word.
Accidental, negligent... terms that just don't apply here. A man with a master's degree from daffy duck university knows what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. He was neither accidental nor negligent.
If you're going to be charitable about it, the words to use are "unconcerned and unapologetic." That is, he simply didn't CARE about the plagiarism...
Good points, Raf - understood - and thank you for the clarification.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted.
Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess.
I find it interesting that you can guess at Stiles' motives in supposedly injecting his book into the public domain ("...his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety."), yet in the face of clear evidence of habitual plagiarism, no one can make a guess on whether it was intentional or unintentional.
couple of things to remember:
1. no one knows without doing the requisite copyright search whether the book was public domain.
2. it apparently IS stealing to take the text of a public domain source and put your own name on it as author. it is owned by the public and is free for all to use, reprint, and distribute, so implying ownership is fraud according to the Copyright Act.
3. one of the main reasons a work was intentionally put in the public domain was so that it could be freely distributed (i.e. reprinted in whole with author's moral rights respected). it prevented the distribution of knowledge from being throttled.
I find it interesting that you can guess at Stiles' motives in supposedly injecting his book into the public domain ("...his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety."), yet in the face of clear evidence of habitual plagiarism, no one can make a guess on whether it was intentional or unintentional.
couple of things to remember:
1. no one knows without doing the requisite copyright search whether the book was public domain.
2. it apparently IS stealing to take the text of a public domain source and put your own name on it as author. it is owned by the public and is free for all to use, reprint, and distribute, so implying ownership is fraud according to the Copyright Act.
3. one of the main reasons a work was intentionally put in the public domain was so that it could be freely distributed (i.e. reprinted in whole with author's moral rights respected). it prevented the distribution of knowledge from being throttled.
I did not guess at anything once again you failed to read what is written. I said
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
The difference is I am willing to be open to the possibilities but then again I don't have a predisposed agenda that corrupts my decision. May is not absolute last I looked, you however seem to want to definitively guess with assurance in your presentation. You have no way of knowing his intent 100% just as I do not. Which is why I correctly said may and you incorrectly said he did.
I did not guess at anything once again you failed to read what is written.
I read it.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety.
you believe something based on what you call a "fact"... that his interest was only getting the material out. that may be so, but it is irrelevant to whether vpw stole the material and passied it off as his own. you also say he gave away printings. we have no idea if it was intentional, an inadvertent ommission of required notice, or an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. if he wanted his work in the public domain, we have no idea if he also intended others to pass his work of as their own, and I fail to see how this bears on the discussion at hand, which is whether or not vpw plagiarized.
And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
so? what does this have to do with plagiarism? vpw said all kinds of things that were... simply put... made up.
You have no way of knowing his intent 100% just as I do not. Which is why I correctly said may and you incorrectly said he did.
the pattern can only establish two things that I can think of right now. ignorance, or intent. the ignorance question has been addressed.
I wish we hadn't scared away David Anderson. Dave had stated that he had put PFAL into public domain circa 1968 because the purpose of the film was to "get the message out," and not to create a cash cow for vp.
Thanks also for the lovely memory: In the 5th grade, I needed to write a report on something. My mom is my favorite artist. I convinced her to draw some (really nice) pictures for my report. My cover page said, "Illustrated by my Mom." (I didn't even put her name, and she didn't say anything about it except it was "nice.")
I'll say this real slow again for the billionth time .
Say it as slow or as often as you like,
it will not BECOME true.
You spoke in error.
Works in the public domain must be cited when used.
They may be quoted in any amount, but MUST BE CITED WHEN USED.
Otherwise it is PLAGIARISM and a CRIME.
The discussion was about Stiles and his book not any other author my comments were directed at such not any other author.
As I said for the also about billionth time but apparently some cant read or don't wish to!
Moral issues are moral issues not crimes, What is free to have you can't steal.
The law still requires you cite your sources.
You don't have to pay royalties for something in the Public Domain,
you are not limited in how much you can quote,
BUT YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Not citing the source of a Public Domain work is A CRIME AND a moral issue.
If you haven't gotten this after the multiple mentions of this on page 1 of this thread,
then YOU apparently can't read or don't wish to!
I thought that on page 1 you were claiming incorrect information based
on bad sources-which is why you claimed a bad source for your definition.
I thought you had learned the difference, and wasn't going to belabour it.
However, apparently I gave you too much credit.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
So, we have the imaginary snowstorm and sourceless revelation to excuse an act of plagiarism.
Nice one.
Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess.
That's an IRONCLAD case for plagiarism. Side by side, some sections are identical, others have
cosmetic changes. vpw's exposure to and possession of the works of the other authors is easily
traceable, and blatant once seen. It is beyond guesswork or a REASONABLE doubt.
(An UNreasonable doubt, of course, can conjecture all sorts of possibilities like divine dictation
of vpw's books or other possibilities.)
I would not be inclined to add Stiles in this group as I think it is possible that it was questionable. As I said
No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Regarding SO What? your point is unclear as to your meaning, but to me knowledge I never said So What in any of my posts so I would conclude that no that is not what I am saying or have said.
Unless he cited his source-which any HONEST Christian would have done-
what we do know is that it was a CRIME.
That there was an attempt to conceal can be seen comparing the front of the different
additions. The anonymous Stiles drops out completely, and vpw becomes the sole
source of the books.
This was the 5th post on this thread.
Apparently, some of us need a brush-up on the contents.
Now then,
Some people are under the impression that there is an exemption to
plagiarism- that you can freely plagiarize works that are not protected by
copyright.
This is untrue, and either reflects an inadequate education on the subject
of plagiarism, copyright, or on PUBLIC DOMAIN, which is the term for
"Works that are no longer protected by copyright, or never have been, are considered "public domain." This means that you may freely borrow material from these works without fear of plagiarism,
provided you make proper attributions."
Emphasis mine.
(same source)
"When do I need to cite?
Whenever you borrow words or ideas, you need to acknowledge their source."
Seems to be misunderstanding or what Public Domain means.
"It must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely
the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used."
Neither of those means citations are required BECAUSE OF COPYRIGHT.
Copyright affects how much of the original source can be used,
and the author's ability to recover damages legally if the law is broken.
So,
how does one plagiarize something in the open domain?
Well,
it does not have protections against how much can be used.
It does not have the power for the author to recover monetary damages.
HOWEVER,
that does not mean the source is not LEGALLY REQUIRED to be cited.
That's a crime against society, and the government can sue on behalf
of the public, either as a misdemeanor or a FRAUD
(if the publication earned more than $2,500), and FRAUD IS A FELONY.
For those of you who will insist that there has to be an injured SPECIFIC
person for there to be a crime, I'd like to point out that the law does not
see it that way.
If a single man who makes lots of money hires a high-class prostitute
(call-girl) in the State of New York, he and she have committed a crime.
Society is deemed to be the victim, regardless of the consent of all parties.
we can see his INTENT was to deliberately conceal his sources.
Not that this would excuse his CRIME if he had a different intent...
What's sad is that Wierwille probably could have attracted just as large an audience if he had been honest. If he had been straight up about where he got his information, if he had eschewed all the crap about hauling over 3000 volumes to the dump and using the bible as his exclusive handbook and textbook; if he had just told us that this part was from Stiles, this part was from Bullinger, this part was from Leonard, etc... .
Oh – was that one of his botched attempts to cover up his sources? Man, that's a whole lotta Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard stuff he took to the dump!
Regarding J. Stiles leaving his book in Public Domain. According to the Copyright Office, there isn't any such thing as Public Domain until after the copyright has expired. According to their Webpage, all materals are copyrighted automaticlly. However you must register your copyright if you intend to make any type of claim of infringement.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted.
That is not and never was the issue. The issue is that Wierwille published Stiles’ work as his own, claiming authorship of and copyright to Stiles’ work. Your suggestion that Stiles might have agreed to that isn’t being “open to the possibilities,” because Stiles himself continued to claim authorship. Had Stiles agreed to allow Wierwille to claim authorship, he would have declared himself to be a fraud for having previously claimed authorship. Moreover, he would have branded himself to be a continual, non-repentant fraud by continuing to claim authorship. That sort of thing would not only be wrong on about every level one can imagine, it would have been insane.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
25
27
59
Popular Days
Jun 8
60
Jun 7
55
Jun 10
38
Jun 9
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 26 posts
WordWolf 25 posts
Ham 27 posts
Larry N Moore 59 posts
Popular Days
Jun 8 2007
60 posts
Jun 7 2007
55 posts
Jun 10 2007
38 posts
Jun 9 2007
18 posts
Oakspear
What's sad is that Wierwille probably could have attracted just as large an audience if he had been honest. If he had been straight up about where he got his information, if he had eschewed all the crap about hauling over 3000 volumes to the dump and using the bible as his exclusive handbook and textbook; if he had just told us that this part was from Stiles, this part was from Bullinger, this part was from Leonard, etc.
"Accurate" or not, most of us wouldn't have cared. Maybe this honesty would have sent a few folks looking for Leonard or Stiles, but I think that Wierwille's superior marketing of his "product" would have attracted the crowds of the young and hungry either way. It didn't seem to hurt his credibility with the bulk of wayferdom when he extensively footnoted Jesus Christ Our promised Seed; it didn't siphon off a bunch of people following Ernest martin, did it?
But no, he had to lie about it; he had to represent himself as the recpient of the greatest revelation since "The first century".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
He did say he learned things from these other men. Interestingly, he often did not say precisely what he learned from which men. And never did he say "when you read question 8 in the common fears chapter of RTHST, you should know that those words aren't mine: I lifted them right out of Stiles. After all, I just about never use the term 'faith blasters.' I would have said 'believing blasters' if I had written it."
And there is a difference.
Everyone learns from other people. Not everyone plagiarizes and then slaps their name on it, calling themselves "authors" when they know it is not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
This is a great thread and even though it's a lot of the same players as through the years, there are fresh and interesting points and illustrations.
Didn't one of the men vee pee stole from go back and put a copyright on his works in addition to including a statement on plaigarism that has been suspected of being printed especially in reference to vee pee and the original author's heartbreak over having his work stolen?
Isn't what he said an irrelevant tangent? I mean, someone buying one of his books and reading it with no knowledge or very limited knowledge of vee pee and TWI .... that person would be under the impression that vee pee wrote all this stuff himself from his own research and conversations with God. One can't "document" their written sources verbally... how what vee pee said even comes into the debate is beyond me. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Stiles aside, WD, how about all the others he stole from? Did they also allegedly give permission to steal and profit from their own hard work?
Source
Are you basically just saying, "Yeah, so he stole, plagiarized, lied and pretended to be something he's not to profit, but so what?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
For those that don't lknow, there's a book available that documents the direct plaigarism of vee pee. Will The Real Author Please Stand Up? is available from PFO-Midwest for the cost of $2.00 (plus $1.00 postage).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great thread, WordWolf – thanks for putting this stuff together. Great posts by other folks too! But I have to comment about OldiesMan saying in post # 3,
I think YOUR confusion may come from ignoring ethical standards of honesty for the sake of believing a thief and a liar. I really don't trust anything the man said or wrote after finding out he lied about taking everything he could from the Moody Correspondence School – I posted a letter about that little FACT on WordWolf's thread The Way: Living in Wonderland, post # 500
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=213920
…Also, I wanted to add something that I found while reading this thread. The following excerpts are from an article What is Plagiarism? by the History News Network Staff
http://hnn.us/articles/514.html
"…The word plagiarism derives from Latin roots: plagiarius, an abductor, and plagiare, to steal. The expropriation of another author's text, and the presentation of it as one's own, constitutes plagiarism and is a serious violation of the ethics of scholarship. It undermines the credibility of historical inquiry…
…Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another's language without quotation marks and citation. More subtle abuses include the appropriation of concepts, data, or notes all disguised in newly crafted sentences, or reference to a borrowed work in an early note and then extensive further use without attribution. All such tactics reflect an unworthy disregard for the contributions of others…"
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
The discussion was about Stiles and his book not any other author my comments were directed at such not any other author.
As I said for the also about billionth time but apparently some cant read or don't wish to!
Moral issues are moral issues not crimes, What is free to have you can't steal.
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Belle to answer your question using other books Bullinger,Kenyon,Leonard ect. there is a case for plagiarism. Whether it was intentional or unintentional I can't comment, nor do I think anyone else can. It's a guess.
I would not be inclined to add Stiles in this group as I think it is possible that it was questionable. As I said
No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
Regarding SO What? your point is unclear as to your meaning, but to me knowledge I never said So What in any of my posts so I would conclude that no that is not what I am saying or have said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Thanks, WD..........."It's a guess."
Too funny.........ROFL
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's a guess?!?!?!
That's like saying it's a guess whether there was serial murder in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer. Gee, killed one and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Killed another and ate him. Hey, boss, I think I see a pattern here!
Maybe, but ONE of those killings may have been self defense, so we really can't be sure whether "serial murder" is the right term.
Please. Stop letting the ghost of this man's legacy insult your intelligence. That you're able to come up with these distortions at all establishes that you're intelligent: you should also be smart enough to see how ludicrous it is to believe it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Intentional [from Webster's New World College Dictionary 4th Edition]: having to do with intention or purpose. Done purposely.
Unintentional [from above Webster's]: not done on purpose.
Alright – if you want to cut him some slack – I guess I'd call him the Accidental Plagiarist…Although we're getting into that same dumb argument of trying to figure out what were his intentions. If you must avoid the "P" word perhaps another word might do:
Negligence [from above Webster's]: habitual failure to do the required thing. Carelessness or indifference. Law - failure to use a reasonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
A good illustration of how Wierwille in some instances put together stuff from other authors rather than coming up with the research himself us when he copies things while obviously not understanding them.
Wierwille & Bullinger had slightly different takes on the geneologies of Jesus in Matthew & Luke. Wierwille taught that Matthew was Mary's geneology and that it was the royal one, Bullinger taught that Matthew contained Joseph's geneology. Bullinger referes to this in his appendix on "The Lord's Brethren" where he discounts the theory that Jesus' named brothers are Joseph's from a previous wife. His reasoning is that older sons of Joseph would be ahead of Jesus in the royal line.
Wierwille, in his chapter in The Word's Way on "The Lord's Brethren", uses this same argument, and the same wording as Bullinger, even though Wierwille did not teach that the royal line came through Joseph. He copied, but did not really understand what he copied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Accidental, negligent... terms that just don't apply here. A man with a master's degree from daffy duck university knows what plagiarism is and how to avoid it. He was neither accidental nor negligent (in my mind, you can't be intentionally negligent. But what T-bone wrote about indifference is more like what I have in mind).
If you're going to be charitable about it, the words to use are "unconcerned and unapologetic." That is, he simply didn't CARE about the plagiarism. He did it, such is life, get over it and what do you think of the CONTENT, never mind the origin. It's true or false based on what is on the page, not based on whose typewriter hit the letters first. When I refer to the "so what" argument, this is what I'm talking about.
YES, he plagiarized. Left and right, right up to and including Order My Steps In Thy Word.
So what? What about the content?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good points, Raf - understood - and thank you for the clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I find it interesting that you can guess at Stiles' motives in supposedly injecting his book into the public domain ("...his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety."), yet in the face of clear evidence of habitual plagiarism, no one can make a guess on whether it was intentional or unintentional.
couple of things to remember:
1. no one knows without doing the requisite copyright search whether the book was public domain.
2. it apparently IS stealing to take the text of a public domain source and put your own name on it as author. it is owned by the public and is free for all to use, reprint, and distribute, so implying ownership is fraud according to the Copyright Act.
3. one of the main reasons a work was intentionally put in the public domain was so that it could be freely distributed (i.e. reprinted in whole with author's moral rights respected). it prevented the distribution of knowledge from being throttled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I did not guess at anything once again you failed to read what is written. I said
I still believe that there may have been a reason that J.E Stiles left his work in public domain or not copyrighted. Early on from record he gave away the first several printings. Which would seem to lend credence to the fact that his interest was getting his message out not money, or notoriety. And not to forget the VPW story (if true) ,was that J. E. said God told him to come to the conference in Tulsa because there would be a man to help receive so that he could help others. No one but the two involved will know what went on and said or agreed upon during that face to face meeting they had. and unfortunately it will lie in the grave at least for now.
The difference is I am willing to be open to the possibilities but then again I don't have a predisposed agenda that corrupts my decision. May is not absolute last I looked, you however seem to want to definitively guess with assurance in your presentation. You have no way of knowing his intent 100% just as I do not. Which is why I correctly said may and you incorrectly said he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
I wish we hadn't scared away David Anderson. Dave had stated that he had put PFAL into public domain circa 1968 because the purpose of the film was to "get the message out," and not to create a cash cow for vp.
Thanks also for the lovely memory: In the 5th grade, I needed to write a report on something. My mom is my favorite artist. I convinced her to draw some (really nice) pictures for my report. My cover page said, "Illustrated by my Mom." (I didn't even put her name, and she didn't say anything about it except it was "nice.")
Edited by Kit SoberLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Say it as slow or as often as you like,
it will not BECOME true.
You spoke in error.
Works in the public domain must be cited when used.
They may be quoted in any amount, but MUST BE CITED WHEN USED.
Otherwise it is PLAGIARISM and a CRIME.
The law still requires you cite your sources.
You don't have to pay royalties for something in the Public Domain,
you are not limited in how much you can quote,
BUT YOU ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO CITE YOUR SOURCES.
Not citing the source of a Public Domain work is A CRIME AND a moral issue.
If you haven't gotten this after the multiple mentions of this on page 1 of this thread,
then YOU apparently can't read or don't wish to!
I thought that on page 1 you were claiming incorrect information based
on bad sources-which is why you claimed a bad source for your definition.
I thought you had learned the difference, and wasn't going to belabour it.
However, apparently I gave you too much credit.
So, we have the imaginary snowstorm and sourceless revelation to excuse an act of plagiarism.Nice one.
That's an IRONCLAD case for plagiarism. Side by side, some sections are identical, others have
cosmetic changes. vpw's exposure to and possession of the works of the other authors is easily
traceable, and blatant once seen. It is beyond guesswork or a REASONABLE doubt.
(An UNreasonable doubt, of course, can conjecture all sorts of possibilities like divine dictation
of vpw's books or other possibilities.)
Unless he cited his source-which any HONEST Christian would have done-
what we do know is that it was a CRIME.
That there was an attempt to conceal can be seen comparing the front of the different
additions. The anonymous Stiles drops out completely, and vpw becomes the sole
source of the books.
This was the 5th post on this thread.
Apparently, some of us need a brush-up on the contents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So,
one might ask,
"Did wierwille know he what he was doing was plagiarism?"
In high school, college, and grad school, this was brought up.
By the time he was finished with college-unless it was a useless college-
he had a lot of experience with citations, sources, etc.
Princeton Theological Seminary is a respectable institution.
It has ALWAYS taught that plagiarism is wrong,
the same as all grad schools worthy of the name.
So, he knew plagiarism was wrong, and what he was doing WAS
plagiarism.
One might ask,
"What was his intent in committing a crime?"
This is barely relevant,
since no intent can excuse this CRIME.
However,
his intent was to set himself up as the sole source for these books.
This can be seen as follows:
Compare the Preface to the White Book, 7th Edition,
with the Preface in the 2nd edition.
=====
Here's how one paragraph ORIGINALLY read in
the 2nd edition, (pg-8):
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
I had been taught and start anew with the Bible as my
handbook as well as my textbook. It took me seven years to
find a man of God schooled in the Holy Spirit, a man who knew
the Scripture on the Holy Spirit, and could fit it together so that
I dod not have to omit, deny or change any one passage.
He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a glove,
and when you can do that, you can be assured of having
truth."
========
Here's the corresponding paragraph in the 7th Edition,
the one most of us got to read:
======
"The Word of God is truth. I prayed that I might put aside all
that I had heard and thought out myself, and I started anew
with the Bible as my handbook as well as my textbook.
I did not want to omit, deny, or change any passage for,
the Word of God being the will of God, the Scripture must
fit like a hand in a glove."
======
Interesting how the other man just VANISHES from the picture,
no? It's as if vpw later wants to take exclusive credit
("I started anew with the Bible as my handbook as well
as my textbook") for something that was exclusively
the result of Stiles-the UNNAMED Christian-working for
God ("...He made the Scripture fit like a hand fits into a
glove...")
To any FAIR observer, this would demonstrate an intent
to conceal the existence of Stiles, the anonymous Christian
who wasn't even NAMED in the early editions.
So,
even if intent affected his CRIME
(which became a FELONY when $2500 was exceeded),
we can see his INTENT was to deliberately conceal his sources.
Not that this would excuse his CRIME if he had a different intent...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Oh – was that one of his botched attempts to cover up his sources? Man, that's a whole lotta Stiles, Bullinger, and Leonard stuff he took to the dump!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Here's another difference which SHOULD be obvious, which I'll include anyway.
If "Are the Dead Alive Now" had numbers and endnotes in the book that referenced
Bullinger's 2 books, then ADAN would have been perfectly legal.
"Babylon Mystery Religion" did, and nobody claims that book was ruined by the
presence of the legally-mandated endnotes existing.
Since neither of Bullinger's (public domain) books were cited, it was a crime.
So long as they were cited all the way thru, vpw could legally have rewritten
Bullinger's books into ADAN, and been completely within the bounds of the law.
He could even have printed a run of the 2 Bullinger books bound together as a
single volume and made a profit off of them-so long as they were properly
credited as being Bullinger's books.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Keith
Regarding J. Stiles leaving his book in Public Domain. According to the Copyright Office, there isn't any such thing as Public Domain until after the copyright has expired. According to their Webpage, all materals are copyrighted automaticlly. However you must register your copyright if you intend to make any type of claim of infringement.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
That is not and never was the issue. The issue is that Wierwille published Stiles’ work as his own, claiming authorship of and copyright to Stiles’ work. Your suggestion that Stiles might have agreed to that isn’t being “open to the possibilities,” because Stiles himself continued to claim authorship. Had Stiles agreed to allow Wierwille to claim authorship, he would have declared himself to be a fraud for having previously claimed authorship. Moreover, he would have branded himself to be a continual, non-repentant fraud by continuing to claim authorship. That sort of thing would not only be wrong on about every level one can imagine, it would have been insane.
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.