Have you taken some time to seriously examine some of the materials that are here for the click of a mouse at GSC? If you are not sure where to start, I'm pretty sure someone will be along shortly to help give some focus and direction. Are you are receptive to considering it? It takes a bit of time to wade through some of it, but the end result might just surprise you.
Some people are still so brainwashed and awestruck by vic's personna that they still can't admit vic plagiarized, when presented whole sections of other people's material he bulk copied.
vic was guilty of plagiarism, even by the standards of the 1930's and 1940's, when he was in school.
The man had a valid master's degree.. you'd think that he would have known better.
Sure, if someone can lead The Way. There's so much info here, you can't really go and find what you need at the drop of hat. Some direction would be great.
While I was writing my research paper - required to graduate the Corps - I was fully aware that my research could be used without my consent. See, in many ways, VPW saw that everything we did or knew was at his command whim.
BTW - By the time I was graduating the 11th Corps we were required to strictly cite our sources. Funny how we had to do it - and VPW demanded it - but he was immune....
In all sincerity, please help me to understand why this is such an issue?
As far as I understand, it's a simple propaganda trick. We all heard from vpw and his ministry first. Then maybe Bullinger and Leonard get mentioned. It works in such a way so that Bullinger and Leonard and all are just backing up what vpw says to be so, and not vpw accepting their work.
This happens all the time. The recent "Borak" movie. Some guy claims his character was stolen for this movie. Even if true, he will never get the publicity, credit, or profit that the actor in the "Borak" movie got. It's wrong. Surely, someone did this to each of us on the playground in some way, and we didn't like it.
We were led to believe "Our Father in The Word" came up with this as God led him. Now, many of his teachings are questionable, possibly dangerous to the Body of Christ and the Christian, i.e. "The Law of Believing". Had vpw just sold B.G. Leonards works instead of publishing his own, that'd be different.
vpw made the Word fit by cutting and pasting. That doesn't mean it was truth. Plagerizing only makes his motives questionable and debases the ministry's integrity.
What of vpw's works was original? I hear it still at HQ, "We have the rightly divided Word", "Vpw brought it all together", "60+ years of biblical research and understanding, what a heritage we have"
In all sincerity, please help me to understand why this is such an issue?
If the guy was worried about being exposed as a plagiarist, why would he speak of B.G. Leonard and his class? Wouldn't he try to hide that so no one could compare the two? I realize there was some missing notes in the bibliography on some of his works. Some people who should have had a note mentioning them didn't get it, and I'm not sure why. There were plenty of people that he did mention. ...> snip>.....
......VPW never once claimed that he came up with all of this on his own. I heard a teaching from Emporia once where he spent the first 30 minutes or so just rattling off names of different people who shared and taught him different things.
Do you know how many times I have used other peoples lines when communicating the Word? So does the Lord not honor the Word I'm speaking to someone because I stole their lines and didn't give them credit for it?? Certainly not. God cares a lot less about where you learned your doctrine from and a lot more with saving people's lives.
Sheesh, even Jesus said "My doctrine is not mine" (John 7:16).
In the end, everyone "steals" from everybody else. Bullinger did not learn everything he did on his own. He went to school and learned what his teachers taught him and so on. In the end, it all comes from God. He is the Source. Anything anyone has to say regarding spiritual truth is just a rehashing of what God has already said generations ago.
Lone Wolf McQuade
man, how old are you??? Are you really this naive???? Your "reasons" for theft are abysmal, just not up to snuff for Christianity. How many books have you personally received monetary gain for proclaiming others' words as your own ??
You sound like a "Mike" disciple if I ever heard one....SSDD
Remind me not to leave my wallet around when you come visit....
Why did he mention Stiles and Leonard and even sell Bullinger's books? I have no idea whatsoever. But just because you or I can't come up with a reason doesn't mean it wasn't plagiarism.
In the case of How to Enjoy the Bible, many people did notice the similarity. The "company line" was that Wierwille came to the same conclusions independently. Maybe. I don't think so myself, but it's possible that he did come up with the similarities independently, I just don't think it is likely. The main reason I think that way is that there are several examples where Wierwille uses a concept from Bullinger to prove a point, except that it's a different point than the one that Bullinger was making.
For example:
Bullinger believed that the geneology in Matthew was Joseph's and that Jesus' claim to the throne of David was through his legal father, Joseph. Wierwille believed that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's (remember the teaching on the "mighty man", Joseph, the father of Mary?)
Bullinger makes a point in the Companion Bible dismissing the theory that "The Lord's Brethren" couldn't have been Joseph's sons by a previous marriage, because that would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David if there had been older brothers. Wierwille, in his chapter in The Word's Way called "The Lord's Brethren" makes the same point about the existance of Joseph's children from an earlier marriage invalidating Jesus' royal claim, even though Wierwille believed that Jesus' royal claim was through Mary. He was obviously copying concepts straight out of Bullinger's works without always understanding the point that Bullinger was making.
As far as Stiles and Leobard goes, there is enough documentation available, especially over at Juedes' site, that Wierwille copied them virtually word-for-word. Why he would do this and then mention them, opening himself up for plagiarism charges mystifies me. But its hard to argue that he didn't plagiarize when you see the words side by side like that
As far as Stiles and Leobard goes, there is enough documentation available, especially over at Juedes' site, that Wierwille copied them virtually word-for-word. Why he would do this and then mention them, opening himself up for plagiarism charges mystifies me. But its hard to argue that he didn't plagiarize when you see the words side by side like that
You make a good point.
Wierwille copied them virtually word-for-word. Why he would do this and then mention them, opening himself up for plagiarism charges mystifies me.
Me too. I guess that's where my confusion is.
Alfakat, your wallet is safe. I won't be stopping by any time soon.
The "company line" I recall was that Wierwille and Bullinger independently and totally unaware of each others' work, had arrived at "amazingly" similar conclusions. This was supposed to give credence to the truth of the work. Four crucified, for example, was supposed to be validated by the shear fact that someone else had, supposedly unbenownst to Wierwille, arrived at the same conclusion. Therefore, "it must be true".
Personally, I think he mentioned these guys because he was wily enough to realize that someone might just see through his facade. In other words, he was creating a convenient alibi in case he should ever need it.Of course, it kinda shoots holes in that idea that God showed it to him like it hadn't been seen in 2,000 years but that's another subject.(or is it?)
It's always smarter to obviate than it is to explain something after you've been caught.
The myth was certainly bigger if VPW could claim that he did't plagerize. Besides, if he had spoken up up front then he couldn't have claimed that God taught him. Giving credit where credit is due is honest but it opens the door for you to lose some followers to those other men who wrote their books and taught their own classes.
I know Leonard was a contemporary of VP - not sure if Bullinger was.
it kinda shoots holes in that idea that God showed it to him like it hadn't been seen in 2,000 years but that's another subject.(or is it?)
No, it's very relevant. I think when VPW said that, people assumed that God spoke to him personally and taught him all this stuff. Any halfway serious study of the scriptures, I feel, clearly shows that God doesn't work that Way. And I don't think VPW was ever trying to imply that.
In my own personal experience and study, personal revelation comes few and far between. God expects people to do the hard work of learning. Remember when VPW said he was working the Word for 10-12 hours a day for 18 years (I forget the exact numbers)? Well I'm sure he was reading Bullinger's works, Stiles', Leonard's, etc.
I always understood it as God placing the right people in his path who knew a little of this here, and a little of that there until finally, 18 years goes by and he puts together his PFAL class. At least, that's how I understood it.
Remember when VPW said he was working the Word for 10-12 hours a day for 18 years (I forget the exact numbers)? Well I'm sure he was reading Bullinger's works, Stiles', Leonard's, etc.
If memory serves me, this is in direct contradiction of what Wierwille claimed. Didn't he take all of his theological works to the "Gehenna" and dump them and then start "working The WURD"? Why, he'd had an ultimatum from The Almighty Hisself. Wierwille was to no longer "Read around THE WURD", but to study directly from it. Then GAWD showed him all sorts of magical principles that hadn't been known since the FIRST CENTURY!
Geeze Pete, it was a simple scam fer Chrissake. Wierwille the conman sold a bunch of idealistic kids a big gob of snakeoil. It earned him a pretty good paycheck for a few years and the adulation of a small mass of credulous - if otherwise well-meaning - SUCKERS. It all came to nought, that should tell you something.
That's how we all understood it Lone Wolf...make no mistake, Wierwille was not stupid...he conned thousands of people for a long time.
When you take into consideration his personality and his obsessive desire to be the "man of God" it becomes easier to see his motivations for pulling this scam...
...and it was a scam. He was an extremely insecure man and craved the attention and the adoration of his followers. From all accounts he was an immoral man, a drunk, a womanizer and a liar...snow on the gas pumps?...he copied WORD FOR WORD other people's books...if you or I did that in school we would be expelled.
VPW never once claimed that he came up with all of this on his own. I heard a teaching from Emporia once where he spent the first 30 minutes or so just rattling off names of different people who shared and taught him different things.
Lone Wolf.........if you were around twi from 1991-2000 like you stated, then you should have bought Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again To Serve since it was basically a requirement for all "standing grads."
Mrs. Wierwille details the historical account of Victor Paul Wierwille from 1916-1961.....documenting family history, the wierwille heritage and farmstead, old man wierwille paying for victor's education and doctorate, and much more. From Mrs. Wierwille's viewpoint, I believe that she gives an HONEST and VERY DIFFERENT perspective of vpw's background and growing ministry.
Yes, vpw mentioned his learning from other spiritual men. Yes, he even publically noted many of these men throughout the years and has pictures of them in the Founder's Room in The Prevailing Word Auditorium........BUT mrs. wierwille's accounting of these men, their classes and seminars and the IMPACT on young wierwille is VERY REVEALING. IMO, she comes forth with a humble thankfulness for these men's ministries who help to guide and shape a young ohio preacher who quested for answers.
Like others, when I wrote my corps research paper......ALL SOURCES had to be footnoted and documented and the bibliography was just as important as the research paper itself. No exceptions. Funny, how twi didn't just let us VERBALLY cite our sources after the paper was written.
In hindsight, it is very apparent that wierwille was sloppy in research, careless in documenting his sources, deceptive in claiming Leonard's class material as "his own" and a host of other literary and editorial rules. Heck, none of us would have minded the footnotes to Leonard's work, and Stiles and Bullinger. But then......it doesn't build the image that we've heard a thousand times that "God told me that He would teach me The Word like it hadn't been known since the first century if I'd teach it to others."
LOTS and LOTS of this "Word" was known.......wierwille stole it from other men's ministries. His MOG-status claim is a big fat lie and leads me to think that he was puffed up with pride and chose to deceive.
I find it interesting that you viewed my post on "VPW was the real deal" today........and then started this thread.
Raf, Raf! If you are still perusing these message boards, could you come straighten McQuade out as to what constitutes plagarism please. You have given one of the best explanations of it I've seen yet.
It sure as hell cleared it up for me quite a few years ago.
Do you really want to know or are you merely trying to defend the man? If you really want to know the truth, then it will take a little bit of work on your part and a lot of time because there are so many examples of it.
The top right corner of the screen has a "search" option. Click on that, type in the word "plagiarism" and you'll be very surprised at what you find.
There are many, many, many side by side comparisons that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that vee pee stole the works of other men and put his name on it. Most of PFAL is plagiarized.
The parts vee pee did change he got totally wrong. If you still subscribe to much of PFAL and what you learned from the man you may want to look into that too.
If memory serves me, this is in direct contradiction of what Wierwille claimed. Didn't he take all of his theological works to the "Gehenna" and dump them and then start "working The WURD"? Why, he'd had an ultimatum from The Almighty Hisself. Wierwille was to no longer "Read around THE WURD", but to study directly from it. Then GAWD showed him all sorts of magical principles that hadn't been known since the FIRST CENTURY!
Geeze Pete, it was a simple scam fer Chrissake. Wierwille the conman sold a bunch of idealistic kids a big gob of snakeoil. It earned him a pretty good paycheck for a few years and the adulation of a small mass of credulous - if otherwise well-meaning - SUCKERS. It all came to nought, that should tell you something.
THIS bears repeating. slick vic claimed that he got all his knowledge from God. He chunked all his research material - some ridiculously exaggerated amount I can't remember right now - and that it was just him and gawd and the Bible coming up with all those volumes of teachings he sold us.
The man was a con. Heck, he even stole Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up from Leonard!
In all sincerity, please help me to understand why this is such an issue?
If the guy was worried about being exposed as a plagiarist, why would he speak of B.G. Leonard and his class? Wouldn't he try to hide that so no one could compare the two? I realize there was some missing notes in the bibliography on some of his works. Some people who should have had a note mentioning them didn't get it, and I'm not sure why. There were plenty of people that he did mention.
Same goes with Bullinger. How to Enjoy the Bible was required reading for the Way Corp. Don't you think people were going to read that and say, "Hey, that's exactly what VPW wrote!". VPW was always quoting Bullinger and spoke on many occasions about where he learned all of his information from. It's obvious he wasn't trying to hide anything otherwise having people read from the same books you "stole" your class from would be foolish indeed.
VPW never once claimed that he came up with all of this on his own. I heard a teaching from Emporia once where he spent the first 30 minutes or so just rattling off names of different people who shared and taught him different things.
Do you know how many times I have used other peoples lines when communicating the Word? So does the Lord not honor the Word I'm speaking to someone because I stole their lines and didn't give them credit for it?? Certainly not. God cares a lot less about where you learned your doctrine from and a lot more with saving people's lives.
Sheesh, even Jesus said "My doctrine is not mine" (John 7:16).
In the end, everyone "steals" from everybody else. Bullinger did not learn everything he did on his own. He went to school and learned what his teachers taught him and so on. In the end, it all comes from God. He is the Source. Anything anyone has to say regarding spiritual truth is just a rehashing of what God has already said generations ago.
Lone Wolf McQuade
There's a big difference between borrowing and using information learned from other sources and sitting behind a desk in the PFAL class claiming revelation from God saying that God would teach him the word like it hadn't been known since the first century and then to add the snowstorm as a sign of God talking to him to certify to us that this was the real deal that had been lost since the first century, but here he was handing it to us on a silver platter.
That is the problem. Well one of them anyway.
It had been know, it had been taught. It was a lie VP told in PFAL so basically VP's ministry was founded on lies and deceit in the name of God.
Sheesh, I remember going to a Corps open meeting in my area to check out entering the Corps and Loy was up there sharing experiences how he was in the men's bathroom and about to use someone else's toothpaste or deodorant and how an elder corps reproved him for STEALING. If you take without asking, the elder corps told him, IT'S STEALING.
To take someone else's work and rewrite it and put your name on it is stealing.
It's amazing how TWI had such a high standard for non issues like toothpaste and dedorant, but when it comes to the bread of life, it's a freaking free for all, finders keepers losers weepers.
It matters to me and it matters to many others about being lied to in the name of God. We don't think the end justifies the means but then that is an earmark of a cult to believe that way.
To take someone else's work and rewrite it and put your name on it is stealing.
It's amazing how TWI had such a high standard for non issues like toothpaste and dedorant, but when it comes to the bread of life, it's a freaking free for all, finders keepers losers weepers.
It matters to me and it matters to many others about being lied to in the name of God. We don't think the end justifies the means but then that is an earmark of a cult to believe that way.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
16
12
17
Popular Days
Apr 13
44
Apr 9
28
Apr 12
22
Apr 8
21
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 13 posts
Ham 16 posts
FullCircle 12 posts
Bolshevik 17 posts
Popular Days
Apr 13 2007
44 posts
Apr 9 2007
28 posts
Apr 12 2007
22 posts
Apr 8 2007
21 posts
doojable
How much weight do you think all that research gave Ole Doc Vic when he needed it? I'd say a ton.
If he wasn't intellectually honest then it speaks to his character (ir the lack thereof.)
I know much more than I am at liberty to say.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Lone Wolf
Have you taken some time to seriously examine some of the materials that are here for the click of a mouse at GSC? If you are not sure where to start, I'm pretty sure someone will be along shortly to help give some focus and direction. Are you are receptive to considering it? It takes a bit of time to wade through some of it, but the end result might just surprise you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Here's one thread.
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...p;hl=plagiarism
Some people are still so brainwashed and awestruck by vic's personna that they still can't admit vic plagiarized, when presented whole sections of other people's material he bulk copied.
vic was guilty of plagiarism, even by the standards of the 1930's and 1940's, when he was in school.
The man had a valid master's degree.. you'd think that he would have known better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Sure, if someone can lead The Way. There's so much info here, you can't really go and find what you need at the drop of hat. Some direction would be great.
Thank you Mr. Hammeroni, I'm off to read.
Lone Wolf
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Should have been written on his tombstone, "I wish I was the plagiarizer that I knew to be" (concealed my sources better)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
While I was writing my research paper - required to graduate the Corps - I was fully aware that my research could be used without my consent. See, in many ways, VPW saw that everything we did or knew was at his command whim.
BTW - By the time I was graduating the 11th Corps we were required to strictly cite our sources. Funny how we had to do it - and VPW demanded it - but he was immune....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
As far as I understand, it's a simple propaganda trick. We all heard from vpw and his ministry first. Then maybe Bullinger and Leonard get mentioned. It works in such a way so that Bullinger and Leonard and all are just backing up what vpw says to be so, and not vpw accepting their work.
This happens all the time. The recent "Borak" movie. Some guy claims his character was stolen for this movie. Even if true, he will never get the publicity, credit, or profit that the actor in the "Borak" movie got. It's wrong. Surely, someone did this to each of us on the playground in some way, and we didn't like it.
We were led to believe "Our Father in The Word" came up with this as God led him. Now, many of his teachings are questionable, possibly dangerous to the Body of Christ and the Christian, i.e. "The Law of Believing". Had vpw just sold B.G. Leonards works instead of publishing his own, that'd be different.
vpw made the Word fit by cutting and pasting. That doesn't mean it was truth. Plagerizing only makes his motives questionable and debases the ministry's integrity.
What of vpw's works was original? I hear it still at HQ, "We have the rightly divided Word", "Vpw brought it all together", "60+ years of biblical research and understanding, what a heritage we have"
Propaganda Propaganda Propaganda
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
man, how old are you??? Are you really this naive???? Your "reasons" for theft are abysmal, just not up to snuff for Christianity. How many books have you personally received monetary gain for proclaiming others' words as your own ??
You sound like a "Mike" disciple if I ever heard one....SSDD
Remind me not to leave my wallet around when you come visit....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Will somebody please tell me McQuade isn't Smikeol's evil twin!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Why did he mention Stiles and Leonard and even sell Bullinger's books? I have no idea whatsoever. But just because you or I can't come up with a reason doesn't mean it wasn't plagiarism.
In the case of How to Enjoy the Bible, many people did notice the similarity. The "company line" was that Wierwille came to the same conclusions independently. Maybe. I don't think so myself, but it's possible that he did come up with the similarities independently, I just don't think it is likely. The main reason I think that way is that there are several examples where Wierwille uses a concept from Bullinger to prove a point, except that it's a different point than the one that Bullinger was making.
For example:
Bullinger believed that the geneology in Matthew was Joseph's and that Jesus' claim to the throne of David was through his legal father, Joseph. Wierwille believed that the geneology in Matthew was Mary's (remember the teaching on the "mighty man", Joseph, the father of Mary?)
Bullinger makes a point in the Companion Bible dismissing the theory that "The Lord's Brethren" couldn't have been Joseph's sons by a previous marriage, because that would have invalidated Jesus' claim to the throne of David if there had been older brothers. Wierwille, in his chapter in The Word's Way called "The Lord's Brethren" makes the same point about the existance of Joseph's children from an earlier marriage invalidating Jesus' royal claim, even though Wierwille believed that Jesus' royal claim was through Mary. He was obviously copying concepts straight out of Bullinger's works without always understanding the point that Bullinger was making.
As far as Stiles and Leobard goes, there is enough documentation available, especially over at Juedes' site, that Wierwille copied them virtually word-for-word. Why he would do this and then mention them, opening himself up for plagiarism charges mystifies me. But its hard to argue that he didn't plagiarize when you see the words side by side like that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Oakspear, you said...
You make a good point.Me too. I guess that's where my confusion is.
Alfakat, your wallet is safe. I won't be stopping by any time soon.
Lone Wolf
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oakspear
The "company line" I recall was that Wierwille and Bullinger independently and totally unaware of each others' work, had arrived at "amazingly" similar conclusions. This was supposed to give credence to the truth of the work. Four crucified, for example, was supposed to be validated by the shear fact that someone else had, supposedly unbenownst to Wierwille, arrived at the same conclusion. Therefore, "it must be true".
Personally, I think he mentioned these guys because he was wily enough to realize that someone might just see through his facade. In other words, he was creating a convenient alibi in case he should ever need it.Of course, it kinda shoots holes in that idea that God showed it to him like it hadn't been seen in 2,000 years but that's another subject.(or is it?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
It's always smarter to obviate than it is to explain something after you've been caught.
The myth was certainly bigger if VPW could claim that he did't plagerize. Besides, if he had spoken up up front then he couldn't have claimed that God taught him. Giving credit where credit is due is honest but it opens the door for you to lose some followers to those other men who wrote their books and taught their own classes.
I know Leonard was a contemporary of VP - not sure if Bullinger was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
Waysider, you said...
No, it's very relevant. I think when VPW said that, people assumed that God spoke to him personally and taught him all this stuff. Any halfway serious study of the scriptures, I feel, clearly shows that God doesn't work that Way. And I don't think VPW was ever trying to imply that.
In my own personal experience and study, personal revelation comes few and far between. God expects people to do the hard work of learning. Remember when VPW said he was working the Word for 10-12 hours a day for 18 years (I forget the exact numbers)? Well I'm sure he was reading Bullinger's works, Stiles', Leonard's, etc.
I always understood it as God placing the right people in his path who knew a little of this here, and a little of that there until finally, 18 years goes by and he puts together his PFAL class. At least, that's how I understood it.
Lone Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
What Alfakat said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
If memory serves me, this is in direct contradiction of what Wierwille claimed. Didn't he take all of his theological works to the "Gehenna" and dump them and then start "working The WURD"? Why, he'd had an ultimatum from The Almighty Hisself. Wierwille was to no longer "Read around THE WURD", but to study directly from it. Then GAWD showed him all sorts of magical principles that hadn't been known since the FIRST CENTURY!
Geeze Pete, it was a simple scam fer Chrissake. Wierwille the conman sold a bunch of idealistic kids a big gob of snakeoil. It earned him a pretty good paycheck for a few years and the adulation of a small mass of credulous - if otherwise well-meaning - SUCKERS. It all came to nought, that should tell you something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
That's how we all understood it Lone Wolf...make no mistake, Wierwille was not stupid...he conned thousands of people for a long time.
When you take into consideration his personality and his obsessive desire to be the "man of God" it becomes easier to see his motivations for pulling this scam...
...and it was a scam. He was an extremely insecure man and craved the attention and the adoration of his followers. From all accounts he was an immoral man, a drunk, a womanizer and a liar...snow on the gas pumps?...he copied WORD FOR WORD other people's books...if you or I did that in school we would be expelled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Lone Wolf.........if you were around twi from 1991-2000 like you stated, then you should have bought Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again To Serve since it was basically a requirement for all "standing grads."
Mrs. Wierwille details the historical account of Victor Paul Wierwille from 1916-1961.....documenting family history, the wierwille heritage and farmstead, old man wierwille paying for victor's education and doctorate, and much more. From Mrs. Wierwille's viewpoint, I believe that she gives an HONEST and VERY DIFFERENT perspective of vpw's background and growing ministry.
Yes, vpw mentioned his learning from other spiritual men. Yes, he even publically noted many of these men throughout the years and has pictures of them in the Founder's Room in The Prevailing Word Auditorium........BUT mrs. wierwille's accounting of these men, their classes and seminars and the IMPACT on young wierwille is VERY REVEALING. IMO, she comes forth with a humble thankfulness for these men's ministries who help to guide and shape a young ohio preacher who quested for answers.
Like others, when I wrote my corps research paper......ALL SOURCES had to be footnoted and documented and the bibliography was just as important as the research paper itself. No exceptions. Funny, how twi didn't just let us VERBALLY cite our sources after the paper was written.
In hindsight, it is very apparent that wierwille was sloppy in research, careless in documenting his sources, deceptive in claiming Leonard's class material as "his own" and a host of other literary and editorial rules. Heck, none of us would have minded the footnotes to Leonard's work, and Stiles and Bullinger. But then......it doesn't build the image that we've heard a thousand times that "God told me that He would teach me The Word like it hadn't been known since the first century if I'd teach it to others."
LOTS and LOTS of this "Word" was known.......wierwille stole it from other men's ministries. His MOG-status claim is a big fat lie and leads me to think that he was puffed up with pride and chose to deceive.
I find it interesting that you viewed my post on "VPW was the real deal" today........and then started this thread.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Raf, Raf! If you are still perusing these message boards, could you come straighten McQuade out as to what constitutes plagarism please. You have given one of the best explanations of it I've seen yet.
It sure as hell cleared it up for me quite a few years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Lone Wolf McQuade,
Are you at HQ? Are you from N.Y. or Fla?
Are you stealing our ideas?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Do you really want to know or are you merely trying to defend the man? If you really want to know the truth, then it will take a little bit of work on your part and a lot of time because there are so many examples of it.
The top right corner of the screen has a "search" option. Click on that, type in the word "plagiarism" and you'll be very surprised at what you find.
Here is just a little to get you started:
The Integrity of Your Word
John Juedes Site
Plagiarism 101
One Stop Shopping
ADAN
JE Stiles
JCING
JCOP, JCING
VP and his sources
No Hands but Our Hands
There are many, many, many side by side comparisons that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that vee pee stole the works of other men and put his name on it. Most of PFAL is plagiarized.
The parts vee pee did change he got totally wrong. If you still subscribe to much of PFAL and what you learned from the man you may want to look into that too.
Actual Errors in PFAL
RG's list of doctrinal errors
PFAL Review
And then there's the things he just plain lied about in addition to the plagiarism he committed.
The Way: Living in Wonderland
VP and Me in Wonderland
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
THIS bears repeating. slick vic claimed that he got all his knowledge from God. He chunked all his research material - some ridiculously exaggerated amount I can't remember right now - and that it was just him and gawd and the Bible coming up with all those volumes of teachings he sold us.
The man was a con. Heck, he even stole Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up from Leonard!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FullCircle
There's a big difference between borrowing and using information learned from other sources and sitting behind a desk in the PFAL class claiming revelation from God saying that God would teach him the word like it hadn't been known since the first century and then to add the snowstorm as a sign of God talking to him to certify to us that this was the real deal that had been lost since the first century, but here he was handing it to us on a silver platter.
That is the problem. Well one of them anyway.
It had been know, it had been taught. It was a lie VP told in PFAL so basically VP's ministry was founded on lies and deceit in the name of God.
Sheesh, I remember going to a Corps open meeting in my area to check out entering the Corps and Loy was up there sharing experiences how he was in the men's bathroom and about to use someone else's toothpaste or deodorant and how an elder corps reproved him for STEALING. If you take without asking, the elder corps told him, IT'S STEALING.
To take someone else's work and rewrite it and put your name on it is stealing.
It's amazing how TWI had such a high standard for non issues like toothpaste and dedorant, but when it comes to the bread of life, it's a freaking free for all, finders keepers losers weepers.
It matters to me and it matters to many others about being lied to in the name of God. We don't think the end justifies the means but then that is an earmark of a cult to believe that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
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.