Plagarism !?

[socks]

"Shot himself in the foot" or "leavened the whole loaf"? I'm still chewing on the issues here.

Plagiarism is only one shade of a larger issue IMO, which is the "do the right thing" issue.

The right thing - by who, to who, for who?

For the original authors and influences? His audience? Himself?

I don't paint VPW with an "evil" swath in this topic because it's a known fact that for many years VPW offered books by most of the authors he used, in the Way bookstore. Bullinger, Kenyon, many others, all in the bookstore. He didn't offer them as a "here's where that came from" or anything like that, but clearly they were there as resources.

The fact books were available in the Way bookstore, doesn't fulfill crediting and recognition because the intent to do so isn't stated by having them there. They were offered however, and if you caught enough of his teachings you'd find out what he thought of the authors.

He also mentions some, but not nearly all, in PFAL. He encouraged people to read those books. I simply never sat down and compared the books page for page, and didn't think much about the timeline of his exposure to them and then his own work and then how he was doing business, carrying out what he called his research and teaching ministry. If I had, I would have had the same questions and conclusions then as I do now, I think, but with the benefit of his still being alive.

VPW didn't approach crediting sources through things like footnotes or appendices, or extended prologues, in the PFAL books and material, that's my point. It's not really a matter of debate, it's a fact. Bullinger to me is a good example - so much of Bullinger's material so closely resembles what's in PFAL, I'd have to conclude one thing - he was an avid student of Bullinger's material and presentation, and determined to re-present it in PFAL. He'd been teaching "PFAL" in various forms over the years and he brought it all together in "the class".

I would say that VPW allowed for the minimum amount of recognition for some of his source material, in PFAL. Only to the point that in Bullinger's instance, he references him, but only in relation to figures of speech. Other areas are simply not referenced and if I were to never buy the Companion bible or any other of Bullinger's work, I'd never know.

It's a topic that goes round and round. To some extent it's academic, any influence from these items is long gone, at least for me. I've thought it through for myself, as you have. Even if I changed my mind it wouldn't change what I've learned - try to determine what the right thing is, and do that. Do it as best as can be known at the time of the action. I don't think he did that.

It might be difficult but that's life, not always easy. VPW had a history filled with tumultuous relationships with people he'd worked with. Specific crediting could have presented some problems for him, as in the case of B. B. Leonard. I don't doubt he was conflicted on some of this stuff, and all I can look at now is the consistency of his actions, very much the same in regards to this topic over the years he was alive.

Edited April 11, 2008 by socks

[WordWolf]

This may be opening up a whole different can of worms, but it seems to me that William Tyndale believed that the dead are not alive also. As I read his 1534 new testement and his commentary it seems that it wasn't uncommon for him to refer to what he believed as it pertains to the issues he was dealing with in an indirect manner. The way that he handled the resurrection in his introduction leads me to draw that conclusion about what he believed.

Actually, it's easy to connect the dots if you have the right information in your hands.

In this case, it's the Bullinger books

"The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?" &

"Saul and the Witch at Endor: Did the Dead Rise at Her Bidding?"

vpw said (in TW:LiL) that he read ALL of Bullinger's books.

(Mrs W said the same in her book.)

Here's the former of those books.

http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/

(There's a link for its pdf and doc files there if you want.)

[Mike]

socks,

Thank you for your post #35 above. I thought it was quite well handled. I used bold fonts to highlight some of what I thought were the best parts and comment in red to some.

Plagiarism is only one shade of a larger issue IMO, which is the "do the right thing" issue.

The right thing - by who, to who, for who?

For the original authors and influences? His audience? Himself?

I don't paint VPW with an "evil" swath in this topic because it's a known fact that for many years VPW offered books by most of the authors he used, in the Way bookstore. Bullinger, Kenyon, many others, all in the bookstore. He didn't offer them as a "here's where that came from" or anything like that, but clearly they were there as resources.

The fact books were available in the Way bookstore, doesn't fulfill crediting and recognition because the intent to do so isn't stated by having them there. They were offered however, and if you caught enough of his teachings you'd find out what he thought of the authors.

Yes, the usual rules for academic crediting and recognition are usualy absent in Dr's books. I like that; less clutter. If Dr had been operating in the academic realm or in the marketplace, then those rules would be important to fulfill. But for the realm of God and His family, especially the new students, the clutter of academic crediting and recognition were not only unnecessary, they could be damagingly distractive.

He also mentions some, but not nearly all, in PFAL. He encouraged people to read those books. I simply never sat down and compared the books page for page, and didn't think much about the timeline of his exposure to them and then his own work and then how he was doing business, carrying out what he called his research and teaching ministry. If I had, I would have had the same questions and conclusions then as I do now, I think, but with the benefit of his still being alive.

VPW didn't approach crediting sources through things like footnotes or appendices, or extended prologues, in the PFAL books and material, that's my point. It's not really a matter of debate, it's a fact. Bullinger to me is a good example - so much of Bullinger's material so closely resembles what's in PFAL, I'd have to conclude one thing - he was an avid student of Bullinger's material and presentation, and determined to re-present it in PFAL. He'd been teaching "PFAL" in various forms over the years and he brought it all together in "the class".

I would say that VPW allowed for the minimum amount of recognition for some of his source material, in PFAL. Only to the point that in Bullinger's instance, he references him, but only in relation to figures of speech. Other areas are simply not referenced and if I were to never buy the Companion bible or any other of Bullinger's work, I'd never know.

Don't forget, though, class instructors were guided to pass around a Companion Bible to show the stone sculpture of 5 crosses found in Turkey or somewhere.

It's a topic that goes round and round. To some extent it's academic, any influence from these items is long gone, at least for me. I've thought it through for myself, as you have. Even if I changed my mind it wouldn't change what I've learned - try to determine what the right thing is, and do that. Do it as best as can be known at the time of the action. I don't think he did that.

It might be difficult but that's life, not always easy. VPW had a history filled with tumultuous relationships with people he'd worked with. Specific crediting could have presented some problems for him, as in the case of B. B. Leonard. I don't doubt he was conflicted on some of this stuff, and all I can look at now is the consistency of his actions, very much the same in regards to this topic over the years he was alive.

*******

Jeff,

I noticed that the quote of Dr’s that oldiesman found is

not prominently displayed here, so, expanding on one

of the items in sock's post, please allow me to present it.

(With my re-formatting and truncation

in re-presenting the following quotes)

First dmiller wrote:

Docvic (plain and simple) took from other's works,

and passed it off as his own.

Then oldiesman wrote:

dmiller,

sorry but I am going to have to disagree in part with you,

and I base my belief on the following:

“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.

Putting it all together so that it fit -- that

was the original work. I learned wherever

I could, and then I worked that with the

Scriptures. What was right on with the

Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”

Victor Paul Wierwille,

1972 The Way Living In Love

Elena Whiteside page 209

The previous statement by VP disproves that he “passed it off as his own.”

In 1972 he said it wasn't original; ... if you don't believe he said that,

there it is, right before your eyes.

He deserves credit for not passing it off as his own,

but rather saying “lots of the stuff I teach is not original.”

If he was trying to hide something, and pass off all of this as his own,

he would not have made the previous statement, nor have other authors' books,

from whence he learned, selling in the Way Bookstore for all to read.

So, if anyone says they think Dr stole it, I think they really mean that

they simply don’t like the manner in which he credited his helpers.

However, I like it and think it was the best FOR US his students.

*******

If Dr had credited all his sources, and in all the "required" ways, it would have been a huge distraction to us as new students. He credited some later, and some he kept hidden.

I am aware of several extreme "hooky pook" authors Dr used material from. The adversary is a leach and needs to have good truths working in his people, so I don’t doubt the veracity of the “borrowed” ideas. But those same good ideas are mixed in with tons of garbage in form it was taught to Dr. There's no way Dr could credit those "hooky pook" guys. He sheltered us from them.

And the Christian authors Dr brought in material from were EVEN WORSE than the hooky pook artists, because they wrote with greater sounding authority. They were able to mess with our minds even more because they had a BETTER counterfeit.

*******

Just in case some AC grads forgot it, Dr taught in older Advanced Classes that there is no such thing as originality; people either get it from other people or from one of two spirits. All good gifts are from God, and that includes all good writings. Bad spirits can steal it from the good, but God is still the owner; God gets the credit.

Anyone care to think on that one for a while? ...no such thing as ORIGINALITY

Why is this not a prominent item in this thread? Do people think there IS originality out there?

Edited April 14, 2008 by Mike

[socks]

We're not that far apart on this Mike, but the distance is uncrossable IMO.

B. G. Leonard - originality isn't the issue. The fact VPW revised Leonard's class on the holy spirit and still used pieces of his writing creates a conflict, literally one that only exists in VPW's handling of the material. Deceit would in the handling, not the source.

Bullinger's work is a no-brainer for me. It simply should have been clearly stated. His handling of the Companion Bible doesn't cover these points we're discussing. Where he references him, that's good. It wasn't enough for other things. Consistency is key, and there was a lack of it.

There's a "reasonable man" logic to determining if something's fair or right. Time and again, if this whole discussion is viewed in that light I feel that VPW's actions are questionable and bear further examination.

Within biblical precepts, the reasonable man logic exists, IMO. What would a reasonable man, reasoning with God under God's rule of Law, decide to do?

Love God.

Love others and treat them as you would be treated.

Doing the first compels us to do the second. In no way does loving and obeying God reduce the level of honesty or effort expended towards others. It does in fact require that anothers best interests be considered and served. It's a very reasonable view of life I feel.

Edited April 14, 2008 by socks

[Mike]

socks,

I held the best for last. Also, this part is what enrages many posters here, so to keep the peace (and my posting privileges) I’m holding back on this item. It’s my thesis. You know... everyone knows... after 5 years and 5000 posts I think they know...

IF my thesis is wrong, then my contribution to this thread is zilch.

BUT if my thesis is right, then my contribution ends this thread.

If my thesis is wrong, then socks, you have IMO the best take on this. But add in my thesis and things change a lot IF IT IS RIGHT. I’m not going to argue this thesis here (may need a separate website for that!), although I’m sure many will want to tear it apart on sight, giving rise to a lack of peace.

My thesis (as everyone knows so I won’t drag it out) is that the PFAL writings were God-breathed. I have posted over 22 places where Dr claims that the inspiration was of God. He was convinced (and so am I) that he was operating with revelation in producing the collaterals.

***

Now IF God is the originator of those ideas and words, then GOD owns them and can give permission to anyone He wants to use them.

I have posted a document (and I have the tape) where Dr credits his teachers for having received revelation at times.

Dr just put it all together, in the order God wanted and filtering out anything God didn't want served to us.

IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then the real author is God, not vpw, nor stiles, nor bullinger, nor leonard, nor...

IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then there is no plagiarism issue, none at all.

[waysider]

It all kind of reminds me of a verse to a song I wrote a long time ago.

Silk and satin in the night

cater to the fool's delight.

Sweet, enticing, vibrant sounds

Lure him to the circus grounds.

A hypocrite in all his might

So wrong in that he thinks he's right.

Still he hears not.

Still he sees not.

Will he?

Public Domain

Edited April 14, 2008 by waysider

[WordWolf]

[WordWolf responds in boldface and brackets.]

I noticed that the quote of Dr’s that oldiesman found is

not prominently displayed here, so, expanding on one

of the items in sock's post, please allow me to present it.

[Please allow me to explain how meaningless the quote is, especially for this discussion.]

“Lots of the stuff I teach is not original.

Putting it all together so that it fit -- that

was the original work. I learned wherever

I could, and then I worked that with the

Scriptures. What was right on with the

Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn't, I dropped.”

Victor Paul Wierwille,

1972 The Way Living In Love

Elena Whiteside page 209

[The subject is PLAGIARISM-the act of taking the words and works of others and saying "I wrote this."

If you flip open the Orange Book, if you flip open the Blue Book, if you flip open the White Book,

do you see any claims that the work was-as was the case-the works of others?

ADAN was entirely 2 of Bullinger's books- but neither of his books are named in it, not even once.

The Orange Book has NO reference of any other work-but it's Leonard's work where it's not Bullinger.

The White Book is Stiles where it's not Bullinger or Leonard.

Those books were cut-and-pastes of the work of others. The legality of doing so depends on the book, but

the need to cite sources out of legality and BASIC HONESTY- as he had been taught in high school, college,

and-supposedly- 2 grad schools- is easy to see.

Do those books even SUGGEST they're cut-and-pastes from other people?

No. They're copywritten by vpw, which means he's claiming "I wrote this" even while he violated the copyrights

of the other authors.

However, if you get a book a lot of twi'ers never read, and read 200 pages into it, you get what Mike

claims is vpw crediting his sources. This is nothing of the kind.

"I got some things from some people, and I worked on it and fixed what was wrong."

First of all, that's not even TRUE- a lot of what he printed was right from what others had printed,

and some of THAT had correctible mistakes.

Second of all, there's a difference between

"Bullinger, Stiles and Leonard knew all of this, and I'm combining their work to bring to you the

combination of the work of all three"

(which wouldn't absolve him of the need to cite sources right in the books he used them in,

and in the classes he used them in),

which would at least have been an attempt at honesty,

and "some people did some stuff, and I took it and improved on it",

which is really all he said.]

*******

If Dr had credited all his sources, and in all the "required" ways, it would have been a huge distraction to us as new students. He credited some later, and some he kept hidden.

[if vpw had credited all his sources, and in all the REQUIRED (by law and honesty) ways, it would have been no distraction at all.

Anyone with a copy of "Babylon Mystery Religion" should know this.

That book was a restating of a lot of the book "The Two Babylons", which was in the Public Domain.

That means it could be quoted as extensively as any author wanted.

So, Woodrow DID. There's endnotes and booknotes all through the book.

I wasn't even AWARE of most of them until I was looking for them.

That means they don't pose a distraction.

This "it would have been a distraction" thing is an excuse to attempt to justify-after the fact-

multiple criminal acts. Once they reached $2501 US per book, each was a FELONY, BTW.]

Just in case some AC grads forgot it, Dr taught in older Advanced Classes that there is no such thing as originality; people either get it from other people or from one of two spirits. All good gifts are from God, and that includes all good writings. Bad spirits can steal it from the good, but God is still the owner; God gets the credit.

[That depends entirely on what you mean.

Can any of us invent something on our own, write a book, complete a study,

without ever using the work of someone else?

OF COURSE WE CAN.

We would call that "ORIGINALITY."

VPW WAS WRONG- about THIS as well as many OTHER things he said and did, some of them justifying OTHER crimes he

committed.

Can some people take the works of others-inventions, studies of their own-

and make a NEW work that is something new and different?

OF COURSE WE CAN.

And any HONEST person would cite the works of the others that brought them there.

In print, it's required BY LAW-which vpw knew, which most people know, and which is excused

by a handful of people who all try to say it was ok for vpw to do it.

Note that it's WRONG for others to do it, but ok for vpw to do it.

He's ALWAYS some exception to all sorts of rules.

We don't require that people come up with something completely original.

That's nice when you can have it.

What we expect-and "we" includes the United States of America as well as all people of honesty,

of integrity, of honor, all of us who aspire to "love our neighbor as ourself"-

is that SOURCES are CITED in the LEGALLY-REQUIRED manner.

All high school students know this, all college students know this, all grad schools know this,

vpw knew this-and chose to break the law.]

Anyone care to think on that one for a while? ...no such thing as ORIGINALITY

Why is this not a prominent item in this thread? Do people think there IS originality out there?

[1) Sometimes there IS originality.

2) Whether or not there is originality is a NON-ISSUE.

It's a DISTRACTION from the legal requirements, which vpw knew and chose to break.]

[Mike]

...the legal requirements, which vpw knew and chose to break.

And THANK GOD he did so!

If he hadn't there would be thousands of grads trying to find God in churchianity, or some other even more obvious counterfeits.

There's no way I'd be loving God and His Son right now if it hadn't been for the extraordinary efforts of VPW. If you want ordinary, fine for you.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Mike

[waysider]

There's no way I'd be loving God and His Son right now if it hadn't been for the extraordinary efforts of VPW. If you want ordinary, fine for you.

Is your confidence in God's ability really that shallow?

If He really wants to "find" you, He doesn't need Wierwille or anyone else to show Him where you are.

[pond]

socks,

I held the best for last. Also, this part is what enrages many posters here, so to keep the peace (and my posting privileges) I’m holding back on this item. It’s my thesis. You know... everyone knows... after 5 years and 5000 posts I think they know...

IF my thesis is wrong, then my contribution to this thread is zilch.

BUT if my thesis is right, then my contribution ends this thread.

If my thesis is wrong, then socks, you have IMO the best take on this. But add in my thesis and things change a lot IF IT IS RIGHT. I’m not going to argue this thesis here (may need a separate website for that!), although I’m sure many will want to tear it apart on sight, giving rise to a lack of peace.

My thesis (as everyone knows so I won’t drag it out) is that the PFAL writings were God-breathed. I have posted over 22 places where Dr claims that the inspiration was of God. He was convinced (and so am I) that he was operating with revelation in producing the collaterals.

***

Now IF God is the originator of those ideas and words, then GOD owns them and can give permission to anyone He wants to use them.

I have posted a document (and I have the tape) where Dr credits his teachers for having received revelation at times.

Dr just put it all together, in the order God wanted and filtering out anything God didn't want served to us.

IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then the real author is God, not vpw, nor stiles, nor bullinger, nor leonard, nor...

IF the PFAL writings are God-breathed then there is no plagiarism issue, none at all.

Mike

God does not break the law of the land. Moses had to ASK to release Gods people. and was told NO. they were not ready to go UNTIL the leader of that land said they could go with MOSES. Moses was told by God to get the people out of Egypt. by revelation. hmmm

Jesus Christ gave us a direct order to Render thereforeunto Caesar the things which are Caesar andd the things unto God unto God. .

GIVING no offense in anything that the ministry be not blamed. 2 corithin 63

the bible is filled with the fact God has integrity and His people are also to have integrity with matters concering Him.

the ministry is NOT TWI it is the ministry of reconcilliation of winning souls to christ that the disciples spoke of.

He did not want christ to be critized by the actions of his disciples.

your wrong God is not a bully who rough shods over people and allows some to get hurt or lose financial gain or integrity or out right LIE about another to gain merit for His purpose.

What an evil evil thing to say about the Lord.

YOUR THSIS is exactly how Satan operates tho.. to make it appear as all good because God purpose will be done and no one gets hurts because YOU can decide for God because you know better than anyone eles and can just disobey the law of the land and do as YOU please without looking at the very LAWS God has in place to not defraud his neighbor .

So in your thesis VPW is allowed to break one of the ten commandments as well?

and the clear instructions over and over not to lie to one another in the bible?

good luck Mike

[pond]

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's (goods)

house or fields, nor his male or female slaves, nor his ox or foot, or anything that belongs to him.

[What The Hey]

[WordWolf responds in boldface and brackets.]

Can some people take the works of others-inventions, studies of their own- and make a NEW work that is something new and different?

OF COURSE WE CAN.

And any HONEST person would cite the works of the others that brought them there. In print, it's required BY LAW-which vpw knew, which most people know, and which is excused by a handful of people who all try to say it was ok for vpw to do it. Note that it's WRONG for others to do it, but ok for vpw to do it.

He's ALWAYS some exception to all sorts of rules. [WTH responds below.]

We don't require that people come up with something completely original. That's nice when you can have it. What we expect-and "we" includes the United States of America as well as all people of honesty, of integrity, of honor, all of us who aspire to "love our neighbor as ourself"- is that SOURCES are CITED in the LEGALLY-REQUIRED manner.

VPW is certainly no exception to any rule. But here's the rub and why this issue rubs people the wrong way. Copyright law has changed over the years as well as amendments (additions) have also been made to the law - i.e. to accomodate the WWW (internet) for example. The problem that writers often generally run into is with "citing sources", specifically what needs to be or should be cited, and what does not need to be cited. Typically speaking information and ideas that are not your own need to be cited.

That's right. Not everything has to be cited.

Information that is often refered to as "common knowledge" does not have to be cited. The problem that writers often encounter is defining exactly what constitutes "common knowledege". Common knowledge mainly consists of and is best determined by whom your work is addressed to - or the target audience. Common knowlege is also information that you knew about your subject without doing research. Of course, common knowlege can change depending on one's research and academic level. Something that is well known to a biologist might be new information to you. That is why information circulated among bioliogist's and medical professionals aren't cited, (unless it is new material) but when such information is addressed to someone like you - well, that's an entirely different story.

The PFAL collaterals and books were a subset of the PFAL foundational class. They were made available only to those who had a "common knowledge" of the information presented to them - inside the PFAL class. The written "Power for Abundant Living" and "Studies in Abundant Living" books and materials were never made available to the general public - at least it was that way during my tenure with TWI. Those books and materials were NOT sold in the public marketplace. However if TWI is now selling and making the same PFAL books and study materials openly available in the general marketplace (which would be new news to me) they may very well be in violation of the copyright law.

That's right. One still can't go down to their neighborly "Barnes and Nobel" store and pick up and buy any of these books today: PFAL, ATDAN, JCOPS, JCOP, JCING, etc., etc., etc. Why do you think TWI still gets all bent out of shape when they find out these books and PFAL study materials are being sold on eBay, etc? It's not because they are violating any copyright laws. It's because they are still trying to KEEP INSIDE the law! --- (As badly messed up as they are today, at least I give them credit for still trying to do something right!)

It's those of you who insist on selling the PFAL materials in the public marketplace who are in violation of the copyright law. These materials were never INTENDED to be, and that is why they aren't cited in "academic fashion" (i.e. footnoted, etc.) that would require them to be - especially if these materials were intended for the public marketplace. So quit blaming TWI for your sins!

[waysider]

Begging your pardon, WTH

That's really a wheel barrow full of vegetable nutrients.

Plagiarism is not defined by whether or not you make any monetary gain.

A monetary gain is only relevant in determining whether or not punitive legal action is warranted.

One does not need to sell a high school term paper in the "marketplace", for example, for it to be considered plagiarism It only needs to satisfy the identifying criteria. Failure to make an improperly cited work available publicly does not absolve the writer of the impropriety.

The knowledge in PFAL was not "common" knowledge. In fact, Wierwille's contention was that it promised to reveal "the greatest secret in the World today". The knowledge in PFAL was so UN-common, said Wierwille, no one had even known about it for 2,000 years until it was revealed to him. And, he said, it was only given to him on the condition that he teach it to others. Do you need to "teach" people that which is considered common knowledge? I doubt that many writers have difficulty recognizing whether or not something they have written is common knowledge.

Another fallacy here is that Public Domain works are somehow "up for grabs'.

Some of my own copyrighted materials have gone into PD as a result of the amount of time that has elapsed.

You are free to use them. I can not control how you do that. BUT, you must cite them as Public Domain.

But the really big issue with PD here is that, once something goes into Public Domain, no one can copyright it again, not even the author. If these works were in PD when Wierwille secured copyrights, he had no right to do so.

Now, maybe some of these laws have changed over the years, I don't know.

But I doubt they would have changed in favor of plagiarism.

[JeffSjo]

Dear Wordwolf,

The case that you make is very compelling. What you have to say about the technicalities of the plagiarism issue seems sound to me, at the very least it is clear that you have a better handle on the issue than me. ESPECIALLY AS I'VE JUST FOUND OUT HOW TO CORRECTLY SPELL PLAGIARISM. :) lol :)

In another thread I said that criminal behavior deserves to be described as criminal behavior. It is a simple matter of integrity at that point, whether or not it's pleasant is another issue entirely.

Dear Mike,

I'd really LIKE to agree with you that the reason that Dr. Wierwille left out the references was good, but I cannot. I think it's likely that his intentions were good. (It takes a lot for me to be convinced of evil intentions) Even with good intentions on his part I believe some of these decisions were mistakes.

In my life people who were very convinced of their "spirituality" have done wicked things to me. They were so convinced that they were right that they were willing to completely ignore God's commandments as they are written in the church epistles.

Even to this day it worries me when I consider their potential for leading people down this self-deceptive path of their's.

For me, any claim of overriding wisdom on Dr.'s part that you claim to be true are overriden by the results that we see right before our very eyes for the most part.

That leaves your claim to all the damage that would have been done by proper citations on Dr.'s part as unsound (when compared to the many,MANY clear and obvious examples otherwise) and at the very least to be misleading.

Dear Pond,

Well said.

For me it's pretty simple. If we can be convinced to break God's Word, it proves that we are not walking with the Lord no matter how we try to justify it. If Dr. wierwille had handled this matter so that the ministry would not have to deal with even the very accusation, it would prove to me that his thinking was correct. The fruit of his thinking is that his works can be be shown to be plagarised. (Wordwolf and waysider are very convincing IMO)

Dear What The Hey,

IMO the scripture that Pond brings up trumps every one of the points that you make.

(edited to add to my comments to Wordwolf) (spelling too)

Edited April 14, 2008 by JeffSjo

[JeffSjo]

Personally, I cannot think of ANYTHING that I would have liked better (as it relates to this topic) than to have had Dr. Wierwille plainly and thoroughly credit his scources and then just as thoroughly explain his concerns about the scources.

What an awesome record of his thinking concerning these things that would have left us. It would have also left us no doubt as to his concerns or his intentions. And for me it seems (in hindsight) as the right way for Dr. to have handled it.

I would gladly take a good opportunity to show where I still agree with Dr. and work through the places where I've had to change some things for instance. Taking the opportunity to do so would be a good thing for me to do; and not leaving any doubt would be good too IMO.

I just wish I could be sure of why Dr. did not do this. He left too much room for doubt on everyone's part.

(added in editing)

And another thing, I wish that if any of Doctor Wierwille's contemporaries felt they were plagiarized that they would have said so. Maybe they did, I'd certainly like to see it. If they were aware of it, they would have done everyone a huge service to simply say so as a matter of record. IMO this would be a situation where the value of the truth overrides any "decorum" type issues.

I have a vague recollection of Dr. Wierwille mentioning B.G. Leonard. If I recall correctly, he mentioned asking B.G. if he could use his class material. It seemed to me that (looking back with a vague memory) that B.G. Leonard might have been obliged to say that he gave Dr. permission to do so if what Dr. Wierwille said is correct.

Still, I believe that Dr. Wierwille should have credited B.G. Leonard better, especially in the written material.

Edited April 14, 2008 by JeffSjo

[WordWolf]

VPW is certainly no exception to any rule. But here's the rub and why this issue rubs people the wrong way. Copyright law has changed over the years as well as amendments (additions) have also been made to the law - i.e. to accomodate the WWW (internet) for example. The problem that writers often generally run into is with "citing sources", specifically what needs to be or should be cited, and what does not need to be cited. Typically speaking information and ideas that are not your own need to be cited.

That's right. Not everything has to be cited.

Information that is often refered to as "common knowledge" does not have to be cited. The problem that writers often encounter is defining exactly what constitutes "common knowledege".

http://library.csusm.edu/plagiarism/howtoa...void_common.htm

"The two criteria that are most commonly used in deciding whether or not something is common knowledge relate to quantity: the fact can be found in numerous places and ubiquity: it is likely to be known by a lot of people. Ideally both conditions are true. A third criteria that is sometimes used is whether the information can be easily found in a general reference source."

What does it mean?

It means we don't need to cite sources when explaining what "gravity" is, who "William Shakespeare" is, or who the current

President of the US of A.

Ever hear someone say "It's my pleasure to introduce someone who needs no introduction..."?

They're making a claim that who the person is, is common knowledge.

(snip)

The PFAL collaterals and books were a subset of the PFAL foundational class. They were made available only to those who had a "common knowledge" of the information presented to them - inside the PFAL class. The written "Power for Abundant Living" and "Studies in Abundant Living" books and materials were never made available to the general public - at least it was that way during my tenure with TWI. Those books and materials were NOT sold in the public marketplace. However if TWI is now selling and making the same PFAL books and study materials openly available in the general marketplace (which would be new news to me) they may very well be in violation of the copyright law.

That is a complete misrepresentation of both what all students learn in school, and how copyright law works.

Even if you write a single paper for school that you show know one and shove it onto a shelf,

you still need to cite your sources, or you broke the law.

Please note that most people won't PROSECUTE you on the law you BROKE if you're not passing it around,

but it's still broken law.

The explanation of "common knowledge" here is also false. These were the textbook of the pfal class, and related books.

In each case, to be legal, sources had to be cited. That vpw understood that copyright bore protections can be seen

by his making sure each of "his" books had a copyright on it.

That's right. One still can't go down to their neighborly "Barnes and Nobel" store and pick up and buy any of these books today: PFAL, ATDAN, JCOPS, JCOP, JCING, etc., etc., etc. Why do you think TWI still gets all bent out of shape when they find out these books and PFAL study materials are being sold on eBay, etc? It's not because they are violating any copyright laws.It's because they are still trying to KEEP INSIDE the law! --- (As badly messed up as they are today, at least I give them credit for still trying to do something right!)

It's those of you who insist on selling the PFAL materials in the public marketplace who are in violation of the copyright law. These materials were never INTENDED to be, and that is why they aren't cited in "academic fashion" (i.e. footnoted, etc.) that would require them to be - especially if these materials were intended for the public marketplace. So quit blaming TWI for your sins!

This is also completely false.

twi is interested in claiming they have unique information-so they hold that information close.

BG Leonard wasn't interested in claiming he had unique information- so he recommended church leaders take

his classes and go back to their local churches- to enhance the local churches, not to get applause for him.

His books, BTW, were perfectly legal.

The same books by twi STILL break copyright laws in their printing.

The extra little jab at people who sell individual copies of books the acquired legally is also false. It's one reason so

many people buy and sell books of every kind online at places like E-Bay and others.

I know it's one goal of a few to say

"vpw never broke the law-it's everyone who CRITICIZE him who's wrong, vpw was a great guy", but the facts and

the law do not support such a claim.

[WordWolf]

Personally, I cannot think of ANYTHING that I would have liked better (as it relates to this topic) than to have had Dr. Wierwille plainly and thoroughly credit his scources and then just as thoroughly explain his concerns about the scources.

What an awesome record of his thinking concerning these things that would have left us. It would have also left us no doubt as to his concerns or his intentions. And for me it seems (in hindsight) as the right way for Dr. to have handled it.

I would gladly take a good opportunity to show where I still agree with Dr. and work through the places where I've had to change some things for instance. Taking the opportunity to do so would be a good thing for me to do; and not leaving any doubt would be good too IMO.

I just wish I could be sure of why Dr. did not do this. He left too much room for doubt on everyone's part.

Personally,

I think that each incidence of hiding his sources says something.

When he removed even the nameless references to Stiles in the White Book, that said something.

Even though the base book was Stiles' and Bullinger's book was the 385 usages of holy spirit vpw sometimes mentioned

without ever connecting Bullinger to them.

And another thing, I wish that if any of Doctor Wierwille's contemporaries felt they were plagiarized that they would have said so. Maybe they did, I'd certainly like to see it. If they were aware of it, they would have done everyone a huge service to simply say so as a matter of record. IMO this would be a situation where the value of the truth overrides any "decorum" type issues.

I have a vague recollection of Dr. Wierwille mentioning B.G. Leonard. If I recall correctly, he mentioned asking B.G. if he could use his class material. It seemed to me that (looking back with a vague memory) that B.G. Leonard might have been obliged to say that he gave Dr. permission to do so if what Dr. Wierwille said is correct.

Still, I believe that Dr. Wierwille should have credited B.G. Leonard better, especially in the written material.

You missed some special posts. We've had posters who met Leonard.

One looked through Leonard's photo album, and found the SAME photo he was told was the photo of the

first pfal class. He asked about it.

Leonard HIMSELF gave the details, which match what Mrs W said in HER book.

Leonard said that, a few months after vpw sat through his entire class, vpw approached him and said he wanted

to run Leonard's class once locally for his congregation. Leonard, being unconcerned with name recognition or money,

approved the request. vpw sent him a photo of the class for his photo album, and Leonard was told that this was

the end of it, and didn't give it another thought at the time.

What Leonard was NOT told was that the students of that class were told that the class they were taking were vpw's

class, period. Leonard's name was never mentioned.

Was it the same class? As Mrs W herself noted in her book, the few people in vpw's congregation that had taken

Leonard's class a few months before were AUTOMATICALLY considered to be GRADS of vpw's class.

Therefore, vpw considered the classes to be identical.

Years later, Leonard found out that vpw had CONTINUED to teach Leonard's class instead of stopping after the

one time Leonard approved. Leonard had the choice to sue, but he elected to NOT bring another Christian to court.

HOWEVER, he DID add ELABORATE notes in his books about plagiarism.

(He added a PAGE to each book.)

Some people can speculate that the reluctant-seeming publicity of Leonard's work in later years was the result

of having been burned by vpw years before. Without Leonard to ask, we will not know.

I think it's certainly a possibility.

[JeffSjo]

THANK YOU WORDWOLF.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THESE INSTANCES CERTAINLY SAY SOMETHING. I am still considering exactly what they are saying however. I'd rather not jump to conclusions in the mean time, especially jumping to anyone elses so to speak.

Dear MIKE,

I still believe in the Grace of God being at the root of PFAL and consequently at the origin of TWI.

I DO HAVE ISSUES WITH YOUR THESIS HOWEVER. I do not believe that the PFAL class and the words of the PFAL are God breathed. I take issue with your thesis on many levels.

I hold "God Breathed" to be the infallible standard that only applies to scripture or speach of equal worth. Even Dr. Wierwille stated often that he wouldn't guarantee that everything he said was "God breathed". I do not understand why you choose to take a stand concerning Dr. Wierwille's works that even he didn't take.

Not only did Dr. Wierwille not take the same stand concerning his works, but HE OFTEN SAID MANY THINGS TO KEEP FOLKS FROM BELIEVING WHAT YOU CLAIM AS YOUR THESIS. That is how I remember it, so I conclude that your thesis is incorrect.

AT LEAST WHEN I CLAIM SCRIPTURE TO BE GOD BREATHED I AGREE WITH WHAT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS OF ITSELF.

WHAT YOU SAY OF DR. WIERWILLE'S WORKS SHOULD NOT EXCEED WHAT HE SAID OF HIS OWN WORKS IMO.

I am not in any way aggravated at you either.

Dear What The Hey,

IMO both Pond's scripture references and Wordwolf's precise information outweigh your points.

Edited April 14, 2008 by JeffSjo

[WordWolf]

And another thing, I wish that if any of Doctor Wierwille's contemporaries felt they were plagiarized that they would have said so. Maybe they did, I'd certainly like to see it. If they were aware of it, they would have done everyone a huge service to simply say so as a matter of record. IMO this would be a situation where the value of the truth overrides any "decorum" type issues.

I have a vague recollection of Dr. Wierwille mentioning B.G. Leonard. If I recall correctly, he mentioned asking B.G. if he could use his class material. It seemed to me that (looking back with a vague memory) that B.G. Leonard might have been obliged to say that he gave Dr. permission to do so if what Dr. Wierwille said is correct.

Still, I believe that Dr. Wierwille should have credited B.G. Leonard better, especially in the written material.

I only mentioned Leonard.

However, please note that most of the people vpw plagiarized were NOT contemporaries- Bullinger was dead, the others

were a generation older than him (including Leonard.)

As WTH pointed out on another thread, twi never did a public release of the books. WTH claims this is because they

were doing this for some noble purpose.

I think it's AT LEAST a strong possibility that twi held the books close to minimize the risk vpw'd get caught plagiarizing,

while the most likely possibility was that the intent was to use the exclusivity of the books as a club to hold over

the heads of the participants-

"follow the company line, or we'll cut you off from the truths hidden for nearly 2000 years" and so on.

Edited April 14, 2008 by WordWolf

[waysider]

I could be mistaken on this but it seems to me that I bought a replacement "Orange Book" or two directly from the TWI bookstore in the mid to late 1970's. Sale was limited to "grads only".

[JeffSjo]

Thank you again Wordwolf,

In spite of these awkward postings back and forth that remind me of a bad game of phone tag I seem to be able to track with you o.k.

Just so you know, I added comments to my previous thank you while you did your last posting. I want to bring that to your attention because it felt awkward to me when after I added my comments I saw you last post.

A lot about what TWI became sure angers me however.

(edited to correct a minor error that may also have been a minor freudian slip)

Edited April 14, 2008 by JeffSjo

[WordWolf]

Thanks for the kind words.

Feel free to consider everything over time and at great length.

It's only fair- most of us did the same. I certainly did.

Everything I post may sound like I picked it all up in an afternoon, but it's referencing

posts from across most of a decade, not to mention what people learned off the GSC.

I think having time to consider will only strengthen a good "argument", not weaken it.

[Oakspear]

When I first heard in PFAL about Wierwille dragging all of his commentaries (3000?) to the city dump I believed him. I may have thought that he exaggerated the number of volumes (I couldn't imagine there being 3000 volumes of biblical commentary in the whole world) but believed him when he said that he put aside all other sources and used the bible as his handbook and textbook. If there was any similarity between what Wierwille and another author said, then it was coincidence, they had independently come to the same conclusion.

A few years later, when I read that statement in TW:LIL where Wierwille says that his work wasn't original, but that he was the one who put it together so that it fit, I tried to reconcile it with what I had read earlier: that he had based his research solely on the bible. If he had thrown out all of his books and his work wasn't original, how do you reconcile those two apparent opposites? My take on the statement in TW:LIL was that Wierwille was being humble, not bragging about his great feats, recognizing that others had uncovered bits of the truth before him, but that he was the first to hit the research jackpot in all categories! In other words, I took "not original" to mean, "not the first", that Wierwille had independently, using only his research skills and his bible, come to correct conclusions in a multitude of areas, while others had stumbled upon only a few. I didn't take it as Wierwille was saying that he built his work on those that came before him, but independently. His references to B.G. Leonard bear this out. Leonard is credited with teaching about the holy spirit, but Wierwille says that he taught from experience, while Wierwille worked the Word on the subject and came up with biblically accurate answers.

Still later I read How to Enjoy the Bible by Bullinger and was surprised at how similar it was to many sections of PFAL. I bought the company line that Wierwille had come to the same conclusions as Bullinger independently of Bullinger.

Years later I was made aware of the points of obvious plagiarism and stopped trying to reconcile the contradictions.

Wierwille claimed to be taught by God things that hadn't been known since the First Century, yet an identifiable portion are copied straight from other authors. B.G. Leonard is belittled as teaching from experience and not the bible, Wierwille claims that he had never heard of Bullinger before devloping his teachings, J.E. Stiles is never mentioned except as the guy who led ierwille into tongues, yet the words of all three make it into Wierwille's books.

Thanks to WordWolf for continuing to educate us on exactly what plagiarism is.

[Mike]

WHAT YOU SAY OF DR. WIERWILLE'S WORKS SHOULD NOT EXCEED WHAT HE SAID OF HIS OWN WORKS IMO.

This has been handled. Check out 22 statements by Dr that I posted on between these two pages:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=280

and

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=920

Please PM (Private Message) me sometime for more discussion. I'd like to minimize my use of the board. You need to turn on your PM settings. No one can PM you right now. It's set to "off" right now. OR e-mail me at mike7sd at cox dot net. I wrote it that way to confuse spambots.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Mike

[WordWolf]

This has been handled. Check out 22 statements by Dr that I posted on between these two pages:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=280

and

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...9131&st=920

Please note that you'll have to look, and you may note that he never actually takes even TWO statements,

let alone 22, and say "this is how vpw said pfal is God-breathed."

He insists you do all the interpreting yourself, and if you come to conclusions other than his,

there's something wrong with you.

But, go ahead, follow his links. You've been warned.

BTW, here's a direct quote from the beginning of the Orange Book:

"This is a book containing Biblical KEYS.

The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to

Revelation 22:21;

RATHER,

it is designed to set before the reader

the BASIC KEYS in the Word of God so that the abundant life

which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident

to those who want to appropriate God's abundance to their lives."

Mike says this is a book replacing the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

vpw said they are BASIC KEYS to understanding Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

Mike says that vpw says this is a book replacing the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.

You can see the difference, I'm sure.

Please PM (Private Message) me sometime for more discussion. I'd like to minimize my use of the board. You need to turn on your PM settings. No one can PM you right now. It's set to "off" right now. OR e-mail me at mike7sd at cox dot net. I wrote it that way to confuse spambots.

Feel free to do so, if you want.

HOWEVER,

please note that a number of posters who opened communication with Mike by phone, by email, by pm

have gone on to post publickly, some demanding Mike never contact him privately ever again,

and some DEMANDING that Mike stop posting things they confided privately to him.

If you care to run the risk of agreeing with them, go right ahead and communicate privately with Mike.