When a writer "borrows" something from another writer and deceitfully claims it to be his own, that is what most people would call plagiarism. It's not only unethical, it's illegal.
When a writer "borrows" the works of another writer and claims it was given to him by divine revelation, or if said writer assembles works of several other writers and claims it was God who told him to assemble them in a prescribed manner, that's a spiritual travesty.
When a writer willfully does the things I listed in paragraph two and uses those works to sate his own lustful and deviant desires, it's a travesty of epic proportions.
BTW-- Thank you for putting forth the effort that it takes for you to post here.
I know it is not easy using the computers at the public library.
I've never been shy about any of this in public. I've mentioned that I'm usually hurting for friends and fellowship. Those two things seem much bigger than any insignificant inconvenience.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I'm considering other options, and I try never to rush to judgment. Even if an option is unpopular and I am too because of it, I still gotta call it the way that I see it.
If Dr. was right or wrong about it; it's allways been obvious to me that even if he directed people away from specific contributers of his, he was honest, generally, about the fact that he learned from several sources.
If I hear something that I consider to be true from any of you, I would be bound to consider that God was at work in you. That's how I think.
I also believe it's likely that Dr. didn't allways handle these issues perfectly, but then neither have I.
P.S. Is how I feel about the lust issue clear to you allready Waysider? I'll say it again if need be.
P.P.S. I'm going to have to leave here sometime soon, but I am most definitly looking forward to some feedback here.
That sounds like a credible and specific story to me bfh, and it causes me to sigh deeply.
I remember a teaching by Chris Geer where he castigates an unnamed Christian author for serving up undigested food (or some such thing) during a teaching. After I considered the matter I considered it likely that he attempted to reprove Dr Wierwille. How many Christian authors of note existed in TWI anyway?
If that is how it went down then I have to credit Rev. Geer with at least fighting for things to be better.
!984-85 was pretty late in Dr. Wierwille's life and he already knew that the ministry was going into the crapper. The cancer might have been already getting to him.
Your story all by itself isn't enough for me to wholeheartedly agree with you BFH, but I'm not fighting you either.
Plagiarism is practically a one way ticket out of any higher instution of learning. It's also practically a one way ticket out of any "real" job or profession. They don't really care to characterize motive as selfish, lazy, self-serving, or just a "simple" mistake..
I'm not picking on you Jeff, but find it odd that some can find a supposed valid reason for it when it comes to religion. Why do some think that context somehow changes the rules?
The same rules apply to those who use pfal as a source.. legally you must not only cite your source, but you also must cite your sources sources. That is perhaps the hardest part of avoiding plagiarism. Anybody who produces a whole book, or set of books without a single works cited page are not really doing a student or another writer a favor. I don't know how good a defense it would be to claim, "well, HE didn't cite Bullinger, or Kenyon, or Leonard, or Charles Welch, or.."
To do any SERIOUS, reputable bible "research", I think one would have to abandon these works which heavily relied on plagiarism.
I wonder how many offshoot teachers and writers really take this seriously.. the real originator of the work very well may only need to show a remarkable similarity to their own work..
"honestly officer, it wasn't mine.. I was just holding it, yeah, that was it.. I was just holding it, for a friend.."
Your questions are valid and important. I have seen early editions of Receiving the Holy Spirit and compared them with Stiles Book and paragraphs and pages are word for word. The same for PFAL with a Bullinger. Heck, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up are characters in Leonard's class!!!!
I found it a hard pill to swallow, but Wierwille stole a large portion of what we were taught. He could have just sold Stiles and Leonard's book and taught from them, that would have been the honest thing to do!
Dr. John Juedes has delved heavily into this matter and others. Check him out, you should get multiple points of view. I've spoken with a member of the Way's own research team that said he had copied many things
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR THE FEEDBACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!
Dear BFH, (What does BFH stand for anyway?)
I understand why it would strike you as sleazy and disingenuous on Dr. Wierwille's part to copy Fromm's teaching as you say. In my post I said that I need facts, and then would still consider the actions myself. I'm glad that you can share such a specific incident and I'm sure that I'll just take it all in as this thread developes.
I reserve to myself the right to consider for myself the heart behind the actions as concerning Dr. Wierwille just as I do for William Tyndale, the King James committee, or anybody else who has faced these issues. It is obvious and clear to me that Dr. developed a pattern of using other peoples' teachings allready. It's a matter of record as you and the other posts here point out.
One thing about the teaching that Chris Geer did, and my take on the teaching does for me is it reminds me that there is a difference between commenting on a topic and fighting for things to be better while being right in the middle of the fight. I'm not putting anyone down either, but if I'm right about the intentions behind that teaching of his, then I believe that giving him due credit for it is o.k.
Dear Ham,
I don't think that you're picking on me. I brought the topic up, I can deal with the topic as this thread developes.
As far as citing PFAL goes, for me it's just a simple question of applying the same level of honesty that you criticize Dr. Wierwille for not having. Saying, "I LEARNED IT IN PFAL" is not something that I ever plan on feeling ashamed of. I do not believe saying that makes me in any way complicit in any kind of plagarism. If that opinion of mine changes, I'll be the first one to say so.
Dear Waysider,
Thank you for the links, even a quick reading makes it clear that Dr. Wierwille got some of the words and the concepts from E Stanley Jones. It suprised me to see that Rev. Jones had the same attitude about the church in India being independent of foreign oversight long before Dr. Wierwille published his piece on the dilemma of foreign missions in India.
Thank you, but I'm not taking any of this personally in terms of being offended, after all I am the one who asked for feedback. I've been thinking of one thing personally since I brought it up though. I've been thinking what it must have been like for Dr. Wierwille to have spent his life building a ministry then before he died he knew it was going into the crapper so to speak. I feel compassion for him. The Lord will judge our works too, the same standard will be applied to each of us. Dr. Wierwille's time is over for now and despite any mistakes he made I have no trouble feeling compassion knowing that he'll face the Lord next. After our work is done, so will we!
Dear Pawtucket,
Thanks for the feedback, I'll have to read some of Dr. Juedes' works.
The fact that Dr. Wierwille copied Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up stings a bit.
--------------- SOME THINGS THAT I'M STILL CONSIDERING----------------
I've shared with you all that I believe that the Grace of God Is at the root of what was TWI in the old days but then somehow got perverted into what it became by sometime between 1980 and the present. It seems obvious that I meant that the Grace of God dwealt in Dr. Wierwille but I haven't mentioned him specifically, I do say so now.
I am still considering the possible pressures and scenarios that led to it getting all screwed up. Some of them will involve mistakes by all involved including Dr. Wierwille for sure. But no matter what TWI became by 1980 or so, I still heard a lot of good in DR. Wierwille and TWI even then. I am going to take some convincing to think anything else. Even from far outside of the root locations it was easy to see back then that to be close to leadership was to be in a real pressure cooker type of situation. And I believe the mistakes were nasty and ugly before my time in TWI even happened, I'm just looking for more understanding.
It's very interesting to me that every one of your posts Includes that little blurb about the music industry. That is definitly an industry that knows its way around the plagarism issues and the laws too.
I've always heard that if song writers copy the great classics that are in the public domain already that they can't be successfully sued for copying other works that copy the same classics. I think that the same legalities cover the legal issues concerning biblical issues. Nobody can copyright the bible or biblical topics for instance.
It seems to me that the goodness of God would tend to require more consideration and kindness among Christian authors than what the law requires however. But in a litigious society I think that it's possible to hold someone to the legal standard, but that God's standard requires voluntary compliance.
Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.
Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation.
At the end of those 28 years, I had an option of renewing or allowing them to go into public domain.
I chose the latter.
Once they have gone into public domain they can not be copyrighted again by me or anyone else.
A specific 'arrangement' can be copyrighted but that's another issue.
Now, admittedly, I don't know much about how all this works with journalistic works but had these been public domain songs that he claimed to have written, he would have been in violation of the law pertaining to copyrighting a "PD" song.
Now, some stickler may argue that, since these were "arrangements" he could do so.
However, if you try to copyright a song exactly as it appeared in the original you are not really copyrighting an "arrangement".
Dr. Wierwille copied some of this material "word for word" and then proceeded to copyright it.
Illegal? That's beyond my scope of knowledge so I'll just label it dishonest and shady.
Weirwille worked around the materials that he used in such a way that the actual portions that were quoted verbatim and/or paraphrased weren't clearly credited at the time they were used. In other words, in PFAL for instance, he says "the man who's done the most work in this field of figures of speech is E. W. Bullinger", words to that effect. However in places where he uses the information and language of Bullinger in figures of speech, he doesn't cite the source. He treats Bullinger's work as one might treat a dictionary, where a definition of a word is given for instance, and the actual dictionary used isn't noted.
Which - is....dicey, simply because - show of hands - how many of you had ever heard of and studied E.W. Bullinger's figures of speech appendixes in the Companion Bible, or How to Enjoy the Bible, or the Figure of Speech book itself, to the point that they were as commonly understood as a dictionary? Well no one, I'm going to bet.
Bullinger's just one example, but once you know VPW's history, and are exposed to the PFAL series - and follow Bullinger's work afterwards - you can see how much he owed to Bullinger. It's to the point where if it had been me, I'd have felt it just honest courtesy to the material and the students to put documentation in the film credits of PFAL to Bullinger. It wouldn't have been distracting, or taken away from the presentation because it would have been in the screen credits.
I deal with the legalities of language everyday, in my work. Someone said it already - I had a meeting with Legal where I work to go over some language being used and it wasn't a complex, ethically slippery slope of a discussion - as we figured out the correct language, the attorney said -
"It's very simple. Do the right thing. Make it clear. We don't need 50 words to say "Would you like to know more?" Just say, "Would you like to know more?" and if they respond "no", they don't want to know more, so don't contact them. It's simple".
No understanding of the motive is required when it comes to the VPster, IMO. The action speaks for itself. He cut corners and avoided these issues rather than deal with them. Plenty of fine minds disagree with that estimation. No problem, they're wrong, but that's fine. As long as they don't get caught doing it themselves today, it's academic.
To add: Jeff's words of wisdom -
but that God's standard requires voluntary compliance.
That's it. That's the ticket. Love says do it. Law says I may not need to in this situation, I don't need to. Love says think of the other person, don't do it because you have to, do it because it's the right thing. Do it because no one's watching, no one may ever know the good intentions you act upon, it may be completely transparent to everyone until someone realizes wow - you could have not done that and no one would have ever known. Yeah. But you would have.
... show of hands - how many of you had ever heard of and studied E.W. Bullinger's figures of speech appendixes in the Companion Bible, or How to Enjoy the Bible, or the Figure of Speech book itself, to the point that they were as commonly understood as a dictionary? Well no one, I'm going to bet.
Well actually, I found Bullinger's Bible to be a very valuable resource (back when I believed in PFAL) in my bible studies. What with using those little circles next to the words in the verses, going to the margin part of the page and where the verse is referenced by the circle, and then looking up the appropriate appendix that explained that word; very instructive and usefull.
Maybe Bullinger was right doctrinally, maybe he wasn't, ... but then again, nowadays I don't particularly care about those things.
And speaking of Bullinger - that reminds me of a whole other aspect of vp's plagiarism [which by the way, biblically falls into the categories of stealing and lying] - his incompetence is revealed. Like an impostor who picks up on the technical jargon of experts and tries to blend in - but when the actual work is in front of him that requires such expertise - he displays his ineptness.
Case in point: the difference between how Bullinger handled II Peter 1:20 [No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation] and how vp handled it. In How to Enjoy the Bible, pages 186 to 188, Bullinger says according to the CONTEXT II Peter 1:20 addresses the ORIGIN of prophecy and NOT a word about its interpretation - it is about its source...In PFAL, pages 145 to 147, vp puts the emphasis of II Peter 1:20being about its interpretation rather than its origin. After reading the entire chapter II Peter 1 [and even the entire book for that matter] - I think Bullinger had it right.
And I think it says a lot about one who was supposedly an expert on biblical research [vp] - that he didn't even practice what he preached - letting The Word "interpret itself" in the verse, CONTEXT, or previous usage as he put it on page 147 of PFAL. <_<
But far be it from me to tarnish TWI's favorite idol. The man was an "expert" - for when it came to the field of fraud - he was outstanding in his field!... And now you know the rest of the story...good day!
I know that this topic comes up here often, and many of you know more TWI history than I do, but I've been considering this matter for a long time and would like to bounce some of my thoughts off you all and see what you might give me for feedback.
At present I DO NOT CONSIDER DR. WIERWILLE A PLAGARIST as many of you do. But it is clear to me that at the very least he borrowed heavily from many people. (Bullinger, Leonard, Pillia, etc. etc.)
FOR ME TO CONSIDER SOMEONE TO BE A PLAGARIST I HAVE TO BE SURE OF SOMEONE'S MOTIVES.
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...
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3) to commit literary theft
4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."
Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words?
(same source)
"But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)."
What are some examples of plagiarism?
(same source)
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:
-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
-copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore?
(same source)
"Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized."
"If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source?
Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words."
So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."
What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize?
(same source)
"It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse."
As is commonly pointed out in some circles,
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention
of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car.
What's plagiarism like in the academic world?
(same source)
"Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material.
A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion."
What's plagiarism like in the professional world?
(same source)
"Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism."
What's plagiarism like under the law?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.
Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."
My pern't exactly Garth and T-Bone. Go back to one year Before PFAL - how familiar were you with Bullinger?
If you weren't, was PFAL what introduced him to you?
After PFAL, he was a valuable resource. Before, I'd never heard of him. Realizing how much his work benefitted VPW, and the use of it in PFAL itself, it would have been more normal to include him in credits to the material (as well as others) than it seems now, to not have.
Course his stuff was in the Wayness Bookstore, but it's suprirsing - even back in The Day, the Way redid his "How to Enjoy the Bible" into a taped class of it's own. Took it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
14
24
16
Popular Days
Apr 15
23
Apr 14
20
Apr 16
14
Apr 4
11
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 21 posts
Mike 14 posts
waysider 24 posts
JeffSjo 16 posts
Popular Days
Apr 15 2008
23 posts
Apr 14 2008
20 posts
Apr 16 2008
14 posts
Apr 4 2008
11 posts
waysider
Jeff
When a writer "borrows" something from another writer and deceitfully claims it to be his own, that is what most people would call plagiarism. It's not only unethical, it's illegal.
When a writer "borrows" the works of another writer and claims it was given to him by divine revelation, or if said writer assembles works of several other writers and claims it was God who told him to assemble them in a prescribed manner, that's a spiritual travesty.
When a writer willfully does the things I listed in paragraph two and uses those works to sate his own lustful and deviant desires, it's a travesty of epic proportions.
BTW-- Thank you for putting forth the effort that it takes for you to post here.
I know it is not easy using the computers at the public library.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
You are welcome Waysider,
I've never been shy about any of this in public. I've mentioned that I'm usually hurting for friends and fellowship. Those two things seem much bigger than any insignificant inconvenience.
I don't disagree with anything you've said, but I'm considering other options, and I try never to rush to judgment. Even if an option is unpopular and I am too because of it, I still gotta call it the way that I see it.
If Dr. was right or wrong about it; it's allways been obvious to me that even if he directed people away from specific contributers of his, he was honest, generally, about the fact that he learned from several sources.
If I hear something that I consider to be true from any of you, I would be bound to consider that God was at work in you. That's how I think.
I also believe it's likely that Dr. didn't allways handle these issues perfectly, but then neither have I.
P.S. Is how I feel about the lust issue clear to you allready Waysider? I'll say it again if need be.
P.P.S. I'm going to have to leave here sometime soon, but I am most definitly looking forward to some feedback here.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
In 1984-85, I was living with a woman who had just graduated from the 12th corps.
One day she handed me a piece of paper and said it was a copy (mimeo at that time) of a corps night teaching by VPW about Love,
you know, the love of god in the renewed mind in manifestation. She gave it to me because she was overwhelmed with VPW's heart for people,
and wanted to share it with me.
As I read down the page, it sounded familiar, but I couldn't quite place it.
So, I put the "Teaching on Love by VPW to the Way Corps" with my other TWI files.
After I escaped from TWI, I was clearing out some things that I had left at my parents
and came across a book by Eric Fromm, The Art of Loving. When I'd first read it years before,
it had a profound effect on me, so I was thumbing through it, reading excerpts randomly.
And shockingly, I came across a section that seemed to match up with VPW's teaching on Love.
I dug out the mimeo, placed them side by side, and VPW's teaching lined up exactly with Fromm's book - word for word.
This was a teaching on Love - LOVE - a central idea to the heart of not only Christianity, but especially to TWI.
And VPW had cribbed it word for word from Eric Fromm. Now, why didn't VPW give credit to Fromm?
Perhaps because Fromm (who died in 1980) was Jewish, a social psychologist, a psychoanalyst and a humanistic philosopher.
Or simply because VPW wanted to promote this as his own godly inspiration?
Regardless, VPW couldn't even come up with his own teaching on love.
That was the day I lost what little respect I had for VPW, and realized that he was an unethical lying thief.
I just watched Kite Runner, and I think the father in the movie sums it up well.
He states (I'm paraphrasing) that all the commandments from God are actually about stealing...When someone lies, they steal your right to the truth.
VPW stole our right to the truth...about him, about TWI, about the Bible, and about God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
That sounds like a credible and specific story to me bfh, and it causes me to sigh deeply.
I remember a teaching by Chris Geer where he castigates an unnamed Christian author for serving up undigested food (or some such thing) during a teaching. After I considered the matter I considered it likely that he attempted to reprove Dr Wierwille. How many Christian authors of note existed in TWI anyway?
If that is how it went down then I have to credit Rev. Geer with at least fighting for things to be better.
!984-85 was pretty late in Dr. Wierwille's life and he already knew that the ministry was going into the crapper. The cancer might have been already getting to him.
Your story all by itself isn't enough for me to wholeheartedly agree with you BFH, but I'm not fighting you either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Jeffsjo:
This teaching would have taken place when the 12 corps woman was in-rez.
Her first year in-rez would have been 81-82, and her last year in-rez would have been 83-84.
I'm not sure when it was taught, but conceivably it could have been well before VPW was dealing with cancer.
My Dad battled and finally died due to cancer and it didn't change his character. He didn't use his disease as an excuse for bad behavior.
Personally, I'm not inclined to let VPW off the hook so easily, with such a convenient rationalization, especially when there was a
pattern of claiming someone else's work as his own.
I'm not sure if VPW taught this before 1981, but Fromm died in 1980.
I find this a striking coincidence since the copyright would be terminated upon his death if there were no heirs.
In which case, it would have been intentional on VPW's part.
And remember, Eric Fromm was Jewish, not Christian. He was also a secular humanist.
This whole thing strikes me as sleazy and disingenuous on VPW's part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Plagiarism is practically a one way ticket out of any higher instution of learning. It's also practically a one way ticket out of any "real" job or profession. They don't really care to characterize motive as selfish, lazy, self-serving, or just a "simple" mistake..
I'm not picking on you Jeff, but find it odd that some can find a supposed valid reason for it when it comes to religion. Why do some think that context somehow changes the rules?
The same rules apply to those who use pfal as a source.. legally you must not only cite your source, but you also must cite your sources sources. That is perhaps the hardest part of avoiding plagiarism. Anybody who produces a whole book, or set of books without a single works cited page are not really doing a student or another writer a favor. I don't know how good a defense it would be to claim, "well, HE didn't cite Bullinger, or Kenyon, or Leonard, or Charles Welch, or.."
To do any SERIOUS, reputable bible "research", I think one would have to abandon these works which heavily relied on plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille borrowed heavily from E. Stanley Jones.
Perhaps not always word for word but certainly in a conceptual sense.
Even the phrase "Fear is sand in the machinery of life" is a well known quotation that was originated by Jones.
Look closely at the titles of some of Jone's writings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Stanley_Jones
The Way Corps and Fellow Laborer programs were a bastardization of the ashrams of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashram
They were, in fact, a perverted version of the concept known as intentional communities or as they once were called---communes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_community
edited to add:
After having spent three years in a Way "commune", the parallels become quite easy to spot.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder how many offshoot teachers and writers really take this seriously.. the real originator of the work very well may only need to show a remarkable similarity to their own work..
"honestly officer, it wasn't mine.. I was just holding it, yeah, that was it.. I was just holding it, for a friend.."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
borrowing without permission equals stealing imo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Jeff
I truly hope you don't take any of this personally.
It's like a rude slap in the face when you first find out.
(Or at least it was for me.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Jeff,
Your questions are valid and important. I have seen early editions of Receiving the Holy Spirit and compared them with Stiles Book and paragraphs and pages are word for word. The same for PFAL with a Bullinger. Heck, Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up are characters in Leonard's class!!!!
I found it a hard pill to swallow, but Wierwille stole a large portion of what we were taught. He could have just sold Stiles and Leonard's book and taught from them, that would have been the honest thing to do!
Dr. John Juedes has delved heavily into this matter and others. Check him out, you should get multiple points of view. I've spoken with a member of the Way's own research team that said he had copied many things
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR THE FEEDBACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!
Dear BFH, (What does BFH stand for anyway?)
I understand why it would strike you as sleazy and disingenuous on Dr. Wierwille's part to copy Fromm's teaching as you say. In my post I said that I need facts, and then would still consider the actions myself. I'm glad that you can share such a specific incident and I'm sure that I'll just take it all in as this thread developes.
I reserve to myself the right to consider for myself the heart behind the actions as concerning Dr. Wierwille just as I do for William Tyndale, the King James committee, or anybody else who has faced these issues. It is obvious and clear to me that Dr. developed a pattern of using other peoples' teachings allready. It's a matter of record as you and the other posts here point out.
One thing about the teaching that Chris Geer did, and my take on the teaching does for me is it reminds me that there is a difference between commenting on a topic and fighting for things to be better while being right in the middle of the fight. I'm not putting anyone down either, but if I'm right about the intentions behind that teaching of his, then I believe that giving him due credit for it is o.k.
Dear Ham,
I don't think that you're picking on me. I brought the topic up, I can deal with the topic as this thread developes.
As far as citing PFAL goes, for me it's just a simple question of applying the same level of honesty that you criticize Dr. Wierwille for not having. Saying, "I LEARNED IT IN PFAL" is not something that I ever plan on feeling ashamed of. I do not believe saying that makes me in any way complicit in any kind of plagarism. If that opinion of mine changes, I'll be the first one to say so.
Dear Waysider,
Thank you for the links, even a quick reading makes it clear that Dr. Wierwille got some of the words and the concepts from E Stanley Jones. It suprised me to see that Rev. Jones had the same attitude about the church in India being independent of foreign oversight long before Dr. Wierwille published his piece on the dilemma of foreign missions in India.
Thank you, but I'm not taking any of this personally in terms of being offended, after all I am the one who asked for feedback. I've been thinking of one thing personally since I brought it up though. I've been thinking what it must have been like for Dr. Wierwille to have spent his life building a ministry then before he died he knew it was going into the crapper so to speak. I feel compassion for him. The Lord will judge our works too, the same standard will be applied to each of us. Dr. Wierwille's time is over for now and despite any mistakes he made I have no trouble feeling compassion knowing that he'll face the Lord next. After our work is done, so will we!
Dear Pawtucket,
Thanks for the feedback, I'll have to read some of Dr. Juedes' works.
The fact that Dr. Wierwille copied Maggie Muggins and Johnny Jump Up stings a bit.
--------------- SOME THINGS THAT I'M STILL CONSIDERING----------------
I've shared with you all that I believe that the Grace of God Is at the root of what was TWI in the old days but then somehow got perverted into what it became by sometime between 1980 and the present. It seems obvious that I meant that the Grace of God dwealt in Dr. Wierwille but I haven't mentioned him specifically, I do say so now.
I am still considering the possible pressures and scenarios that led to it getting all screwed up. Some of them will involve mistakes by all involved including Dr. Wierwille for sure. But no matter what TWI became by 1980 or so, I still heard a lot of good in DR. Wierwille and TWI even then. I am going to take some convincing to think anything else. Even from far outside of the root locations it was easy to see back then that to be close to leadership was to be in a real pressure cooker type of situation. And I believe the mistakes were nasty and ugly before my time in TWI even happened, I'm just looking for more understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Jeff:
I'm glad that you want to continue this discussion.
I know that you use a computer at the library and so are not online as much as you would like.
So, now that I know you would indeed like to continue the dialogue -
I'll take some time to gather my thoughts and then post some more.
Just wanted to say though that it's nice to actually be able to have a discussion
with someone who is willing to consider all sides and then make up their mind.
And I totally respect your position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ditto here as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Thanks BFH, I'll look forward to your posts.
P.S. Waysider,
It's very interesting to me that every one of your posts Includes that little blurb about the music industry. That is definitly an industry that knows its way around the plagarism issues and the laws too.
I've always heard that if song writers copy the great classics that are in the public domain already that they can't be successfully sued for copying other works that copy the same classics. I think that the same legalities cover the legal issues concerning biblical issues. Nobody can copyright the bible or biblical topics for instance.
It seems to me that the goodness of God would tend to require more consideration and kindness among Christian authors than what the law requires however. But in a litigious society I think that it's possible to hold someone to the legal standard, but that God's standard requires voluntary compliance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Jeff:
In order to have a legal case for plagiarism, the work, whether a book, a scholarly article, a song, must be copyrighted.
I believe that most copyrights are issued for 25 years, and if, after that, the copyright is not renewed, the work becomes part of the public domain.
I don't think that most, if any, of the "borrowed material" that VPW used comes under the rubric of plagiarism, as defined in a legal sense .
I believe that the legal department at TWI made sure that the copying of materials was not actionable.
But to use another's work and claim it as your own, or as Waysider pointed out as "given to him by divine revelation",
even though no legal action can be taken, strikes me as extremely dishonest and downright sleazy.
It just plain Wrong.
Consider this:
When I was in grad school, one of my professors wanted to use a portion of a paper that I had written
for her class in an article she was writing for publication. Kelly made a point of asking me to meet with her,
and asking me if she could use my work in her paper.
Kelly was a full professor and I was a lowly grad student. She didn't have to ask me for me for my permission,
my paper wasn't copyrighted by any means, it was merely a paper that I had written for her class, but she did the right thing.
She did the right thing.
Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, hold VPW to a lesser standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Wikipedia on Plagiarism
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe this is off topic, I'm not sure.
Many years ago, I copyrighted several songs.
The copyright at that time was 28 years.
(It has since been extended to lifetime.)
At the end of those 28 years, I had an option of renewing or allowing them to go into public domain.
I chose the latter.
Once they have gone into public domain they can not be copyrighted again by me or anyone else.
A specific 'arrangement' can be copyrighted but that's another issue.
Now, admittedly, I don't know much about how all this works with journalistic works but had these been public domain songs that he claimed to have written, he would have been in violation of the law pertaining to copyrighting a "PD" song.
Now, some stickler may argue that, since these were "arrangements" he could do so.
However, if you try to copyright a song exactly as it appeared in the original you are not really copyrighting an "arrangement".
Dr. Wierwille copied some of this material "word for word" and then proceeded to copyright it.
Illegal? That's beyond my scope of knowledge so I'll just label it dishonest and shady.
(And that's a generously kind assessment.)
edited for spelling error.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Weirwille worked around the materials that he used in such a way that the actual portions that were quoted verbatim and/or paraphrased weren't clearly credited at the time they were used. In other words, in PFAL for instance, he says "the man who's done the most work in this field of figures of speech is E. W. Bullinger", words to that effect. However in places where he uses the information and language of Bullinger in figures of speech, he doesn't cite the source. He treats Bullinger's work as one might treat a dictionary, where a definition of a word is given for instance, and the actual dictionary used isn't noted.
Which - is....dicey, simply because - show of hands - how many of you had ever heard of and studied E.W. Bullinger's figures of speech appendixes in the Companion Bible, or How to Enjoy the Bible, or the Figure of Speech book itself, to the point that they were as commonly understood as a dictionary? Well no one, I'm going to bet.
Bullinger's just one example, but once you know VPW's history, and are exposed to the PFAL series - and follow Bullinger's work afterwards - you can see how much he owed to Bullinger. It's to the point where if it had been me, I'd have felt it just honest courtesy to the material and the students to put documentation in the film credits of PFAL to Bullinger. It wouldn't have been distracting, or taken away from the presentation because it would have been in the screen credits.
I deal with the legalities of language everyday, in my work. Someone said it already - I had a meeting with Legal where I work to go over some language being used and it wasn't a complex, ethically slippery slope of a discussion - as we figured out the correct language, the attorney said -
"It's very simple. Do the right thing. Make it clear. We don't need 50 words to say "Would you like to know more?" Just say, "Would you like to know more?" and if they respond "no", they don't want to know more, so don't contact them. It's simple".
No understanding of the motive is required when it comes to the VPster, IMO. The action speaks for itself. He cut corners and avoided these issues rather than deal with them. Plenty of fine minds disagree with that estimation. No problem, they're wrong, but that's fine. As long as they don't get caught doing it themselves today, it's academic.
To add: Jeff's words of wisdom -
but that God's standard requires voluntary compliance.
That's it. That's the ticket. Love says do it. Law says I may not need to in this situation, I don't need to. Love says think of the other person, don't do it because you have to, do it because it's the right thing. Do it because no one's watching, no one may ever know the good intentions you act upon, it may be completely transparent to everyone until someone realizes wow - you could have not done that and no one would have ever known. Yeah. But you would have.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Well actually, I found Bullinger's Bible to be a very valuable resource (back when I believed in PFAL) in my bible studies. What with using those little circles next to the words in the verses, going to the margin part of the page and where the verse is referenced by the circle, and then looking up the appropriate appendix that explained that word; very instructive and usefull.
Maybe Bullinger was right doctrinally, maybe he wasn't, ... but then again, nowadays I don't particularly care about those things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And speaking of Bullinger - that reminds me of a whole other aspect of vp's plagiarism [which by the way, biblically falls into the categories of stealing and lying] - his incompetence is revealed. Like an impostor who picks up on the technical jargon of experts and tries to blend in - but when the actual work is in front of him that requires such expertise - he displays his ineptness.
Case in point: the difference between how Bullinger handled II Peter 1:20 [No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation] and how vp handled it. In How to Enjoy the Bible, pages 186 to 188, Bullinger says according to the CONTEXT II Peter 1:20 addresses the ORIGIN of prophecy and NOT a word about its interpretation - it is about its source...In PFAL, pages 145 to 147, vp puts the emphasis of II Peter 1:20 being about its interpretation rather than its origin. After reading the entire chapter II Peter 1 [and even the entire book for that matter] - I think Bullinger had it right.
And I think it says a lot about one who was supposedly an expert on biblical research [vp] - that he didn't even practice what he preached - letting The Word "interpret itself" in the verse, CONTEXT, or previous usage as he put it on page 147 of PFAL. <_<
But far be it from me to tarnish TWI's favorite idol. The man was an "expert" - for when it came to the field of fraud - he was outstanding in his field!... And now you know the rest of the story...good day!
[edited in order to plagiarize from Paul Harvey
]
Edited by T-BoneLink 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
WordWolf
What is plagiarism?
http://www.turnitin.com/research_site/e_wh...plagiarism.html
"What is plagiarism?
Many people think of plagiarism as copying another's work, or borrowing someone else's original ideas. But terms like "copying" and "borrowing" can disguise the seriousness of the offense:
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, to "plagiarize" means
1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2) to use (another's production) without crediting the source
3) to commit literary theft
4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward."
Can it really be theft if it's ideas and words? How do you steal ideas and words?
(same source)
"But can words and ideas really be stolen?
According to U.S. law, the answer is yes. The expression of original ideas is considered intellectual property, and is protected by copyright laws, just like original inventions. Almost all forms of expression fall under copyright protection as long as they are recorded in some way (such as a book or a computer file)."
What are some examples of plagiarism?
(same source)
"All of the following are considered plagiarism:
-turning in someone else's work as your own
-copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
-failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
-giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
-changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
-copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not"
What if I change some words around and it's not an exact quote anymore?
(same source)
"Changing the words of an original source is not sufficient to prevent plagiarism. If you have retained the essential idea of an original source, and have not cited it, then no matter how drastically you may have altered its context or presentation, you have still plagiarized."
"If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source?
Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words."
So, can I use the words of others at all without plagiarizing?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism."
What if I didn't MEAN to plagiarize?
(same source)
"It doesn't matter if you intend to plagiarize or not! In the eyes of the law, and most publishers and academic institutions, any form of plagiarism is an offense that demands punitive action. Ignorance is never an excuse."
As is commonly pointed out in some circles,
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Further, ACCIDENTALLY killing someone with your car is still a crime, even if you had no intention
of hitting THEM or ANYONE with your car.
What's plagiarism like in the academic world?
(same source)
"Most colleges and universities have zero tolerance for plagiarists. In fact, academic standards of intellectual honesty are often more demanding than governmental copyright laws. If you have plagiarized a paper whose copyright has run out, for example, you are less likely to be treated with any more leniency than if you had plagiarized copyrighted material.
A plagiarized paper almost always results in failure for the assignment, frequently in failure for the course, and sometimes in expulsion."
What's plagiarism like in the professional world?
(same source)
"Most corporations and institutions will not tolerate any form of plagiarism. There have been a significant number of cases around the world where people have lost their jobs or been denied positions as a result of plagiarism."
What's plagiarism like under the law?
(same source)
"Most cases of plagiarism are considered misdemeanors, punishable by fines of anywhere between $100 and $50,000 -- and up to one year in jail.
Plagiarism can also be considered a FELONY under certain state and federal laws. For example, if a plagiarist copies and earns more than $2,500 from copyrighted material, he or she may face up to $250,000 in fines and up to ten years in jail."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
My pern't exactly Garth and T-Bone. Go back to one year Before PFAL - how familiar were you with Bullinger?
If you weren't, was PFAL what introduced him to you?
After PFAL, he was a valuable resource. Before, I'd never heard of him. Realizing how much his work benefitted VPW, and the use of it in PFAL itself, it would have been more normal to include him in credits to the material (as well as others) than it seems now, to not have.
Course his stuff was in the Wayness Bookstore, but it's suprirsing - even back in The Day, the Way redid his "How to Enjoy the Bible" into a taped class of it's own. Took it.
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.