VPW and the Snowstorm - What do you believe?

[Ham]

and filtered out the bad.

I tend to think more that he gave it a Boris Badenov kind of resuscitation- "out with the good, in with the bad, out with the good, in with the bad.."

filtered allright.. filtered out "evil" doctrines, like those forbidding adultery and fornication, drunkenness..

Edited January 12, 2009 by Ham

[Mike]

hi Mike, I don't have that quote....

I found it. Below is a dialog that took place here years ago (with my use of bold and color fonts):

***

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.

[GrouchoMarxJr]

I think what he claimed is that he "put it all together."

...meaning he collected from OTHER sources all the most necessary and useful items we needed,

and filtered out the bad. It was mostly on THIS point that he claimed unique guidance from God.

God guided him to plagiarize? Lift entire sections of other people's books...word for word...paragraph after paragraph?

I thought God was against stealing.

If he "worked the word" so much, why couldn't he formulate his own words to print? He even stole the names Johnny Jumpup, Maggie Muggins and Henry Baloko...

[Oakspear]

Man, it's deja vu all over again!

Yes, Wierwille did say,

“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.”

But he also said (someone with the books handy can supply the exact quotes) that he hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as his only handbook and source for truth and that he was teaching "The Word" like it hadn't been known since the First Century.

I'm sure that somebody can make these and other statements fit like a hand in a glove, but what it communicates to me was that the man was inconsistant about the image that he wanted to project. He was by turns self-aggrandizing or humble. Did he tell people that PFAL was somebody else's class that he tweaked and changed over the years? Did he tell us that he lifted teachings wholesale from other authors, sometimes virtually word-for-word in some sections? No, he put his name on the books as an author with no footnotes or other citation. He told us that he holed up in a hotel eating grapes and sprang forth with PFAL.

The above quote describes a man that carefully weighed and sifted the evidence and came to his own conclusions, unlike what Wierwille did, which was to sign his name to other people's work.

[Mark Clarke]

Sure, he said, "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work." But how many people knew what parts of his teachings were from which other sources? Since he rarely if ever gave credit or included sources or references, even in his writings which lifted whole paragraphs almost word for word, and knew that most of his followers wouldn't know what was whose, I would still call it "passing it off as his own." Just in such a slick way that you couldn't pin it down. Maybe he didn't say "this piece is mine" but if he didn't say whose it is, then it's a sin by omission.

Again, most of us didn't know what "real" research looked like so we didn't know better. But I have since read a number of theological writings, in which the author says, "Such and such a theologian has this opinion about the subject, and such and such has an opposing opinion. I am inclined to agree with the first one, and here's why." Something like this (including footnotes and references) would be honest research.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Mark Clarke

[oldiesman]

Sure, he said, "Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit -- that was the original work." But how many people knew what parts of his teachings were from which other sources? Since he rarely if ever gave credit or included sources or references, even in his writings which lifted whole paragraphs almost word for word, and knew that most of his followers wouldn't know what was whose, I would still call it "passing it off as his own."

I wouldn't. The very statement "lots of the stuff I teach is not original" disproves him "passing it off as his own" or at least portraying that his stuff was original. What stuff was or was not original does not matter; the very fact that he said lots of his stuff was not original means he is not hiding the fact that lots of his stuff IS NOT ORIGINAL.

Folks can believe what they want; I have written proof that satisfies me. At the very least his statement weakens your argument considerably.

Edited January 12, 2009 by oldiesman

[oldiesman]

But he also said (someone with the books handy can supply the exact quotes) that he hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as his only handbook and source for truth and that he was teaching "The Word" like it hadn't been known since the First Century.

This is simple for me to understand. There was a point in time early in his ministry when he threw away all his books and used only the bible. Years later, he "learned from men of God scattered across the continent". It is easy to see the difference when you look at the time periods involved. What he did NOT say was "I hauled over 3000 volumes to the city dump and used the bible as my only handbook and source for truth and never learned from anyone else". Obviously he did, and said so, when he said "lots of the stuff I teach is not original."

Edited January 12, 2009 by oldiesman

[Raf]

This is nitpicking, and it depends on how you define "passing it off as his own."

Wierwille most certainly did credit people for their ideas.

But he also plagiarized. The two ideas are not incompatible. In one chapter of Order My Steps in Thy Word, he spends several paragraphs plagiarizing Kenyon, then in the very same chapter providing an appropriately documented lengthy citation of Kenyon's work. The fact that he credited Kenyon with DEF doesn't change the fact that he plagiarized ABC.

Saying your stuff is not original is not a blank check that permits you to plagiarize other people's work.

[oldiesman]

Ok, not legally; but he made sure that his students knew that lots of his stuff was not original, which admission I believe was most important.

[dmiller]

I found it. Below is a dialog that took place here years ago (with my use of bold and color fonts):

***

First dmiller wrote:

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

and passed it off as his own.

***

(snip)

A blast from the past. What I said back then, I stand by now.

[sirguessalot]

he DID teach us (by word and example) to dismiss the majority of over 2 thousand years of very very very (did i say "very?") diverse christian and jewish thought and experience AND PRACTICE

typical of many preachers of modern times...he villified (and taught us to villify and avoid) the values of MOST ALL tradition and lineage

...which was obvious, seeing how his life and theology and practices were contrary to most all of them

for example? did vpw ever teach anyone about the wisdom of "the desert fathers" of christianity?

and why did he go to india? had he ever honestly studied indian philosophies and theologies without prejudice before trying to convert them?

(most christians dont anyway...the names and words are too long or something...and they have more holy books to wade through anyway)

so vpws maps and models and concepts convinced a lot of people to stop being selfish and wasted and join his culture...

...what did vpw ever actually teach us TO DO for peace on earth and good will towards all?

"Jesus suffered and died for us so we dont have to" is not so clearly stated in the bible...and makes jesus a scapegoat

...not an example to imitate.

seems jesus himself was "a doormat for jesus"...as were most all the rest of the authors of the old and new testaments...

does anyone know how many buddhists have been killed for their faith in history? what does that prove?

Why didnt vpw teach us of the words and deeds of the hundreds and hudnreds of christian martyrs and saints and elders of history?

because they lived in a catholic culture? and spoke a catholic language? ...seems it was catholics who killed most of them anyway

perhaps because doing so would contradict his lifestyle, theology and pfal metaphysics.

besides, the full 2 millenia of christian history is way way way (did i say "way?") too diverse to be reduced to some monolithic condemnations, anyway.

was he aware (and if so...did he make us aware) of the 500 years of interfaith cooperation that created europe's first hospitals...where the dying themselves were treated as "guru"

was he aware (and if so...did he make us aware) of the very honest, practical and open way the quakers did fellowship and friendship? Where they excelled at developing forms of inquiry and community actual dialogue (as opposed to pfal version of tongues)

hemay have threw away 3000 books

but he also seemed to dismiss the other 3 billion as well

:blink:

Edited January 12, 2009 by sirguessalot

[RumRunner]

Oldiesman that is pathetic - really really pathetic.

You are as much as stating that it was OK for the Vic to BREAK THE LAW!

Whether he gave oral credit to someone or not is immaterial. In written work you are allowed, by law, to cite up to 200 words without the author's permission but you MUST indent (or otherwise set off) the text AND YOU MUST cite your reference in BOTH a footnote as well as a bibliography. Any quotes longer than 200 words must have the author's (or current rights owner) permission and should be acompanied by the words "reprinted with author's permission" and STILL must be footnoted and put in the bibliography.

I don't recall any bibliographies in Vic's pseudo work and as Raf noted I don't recall ANY credit given for paragraphs of lifted (read plagiarized) material.

But I suppose in your mind the breaking of the law is rationalized by the "greater good"

This is nitpicking, and it depends on how you define "passing it off as his own."

Wierwille most certainly did credit people for their ideas.

But he also plagiarized. The two ideas are not incompatible. In one chapter of Order My Steps in Thy Word, he spends several paragraphs plagiarizing Kenyon, then in the very same chapter providing an appropriately documented lengthy citation of Kenyon's work. The fact that he credited Kenyon with DEF doesn't change the fact that he plagiarized ABC.

Saying your stuff is not original is not a blank check that permits you to plagiarize other people's work.

Ok, not legally; but he made sure that his students knew that lots of his stuff was not original, which admission I believe was most important.

[Raf]

Look, boil it down to this:

"He did plagiarize, and it matters."

"He did plagiarize, and it doesn't matter."

"He didn't plagiarize."

If you hold to the first statement, I agree with you.

If you hold to the second tenet, I disagree with you, but I respect you for acknowledging the obvious.

If you hold to the third tenet, I cannot say anything to you without violating at least 14 Greasespot rules forbidding personal attacks on your reading comprehension skills, understanding of vocabulary and astonishing lack of intelligence.

[waysider]

"Lots of stuff I teach is not original."

Is this anything like saying, " My claim to knowledge that hadn't been known for 2,000 years is bogus."---- ???

[Tzaia]

Ok, not legally; but he made sure that his students knew that lots of his stuff was not original, which admission I believe was most important.

But he didn't make clear what stuff wasn't original thought and he didn't give credit for his unoriginal thought, as a scholar would do.

I have about 2000 books, reading up to 4 a week. It took years. Hauling 3000 books to a dump would not be trivial.

I find it hard to believe he studied 3000 books and then threw them away.

[Ham]

I think this brings us to the crux of the matter..

vp was NOT a "scholar".

he didn't "research" like a scholar..

he didn't document sources like a scholar..

his sexual and alcoholic proclivities precluded any kind of legitimate claim to "scholarship"..

could he read, and understand at least part of what he read? Yes. Does, or did that make him a scholar? No.

Most of us have left the cornfield huckster light years behind us..

[waysider]

"God said He would teach me The Word like it hadn't been known since the first century if I would teach it."

We now know that didn't happen. Why? Because the same person who made that statement (VPW) also said, " Lots of stuff I teach is not original." If the stuff was not original, it follows suit that it was known after the first century by people other than VPW. Those two statements contradict each other. Either VPW lied or God lied. Take your pick.

[Ham]

and if I may add..

having two or three folks on staff, tutored by Dr. Voobus himself.. didn't make his "research" "ministry" an unquestionable source on the merits of ancient biblical languages, either..

[Ham]

and what was the *greatest* ancient language development.. the little IBM selectric typeball with Aramaic characters on it.. kinda archaic now, isn't it?

big stinking deal..

it's far less than a footnote to a footnote in the greater scheme of things..

kinda like having some guy reciting aramaic text, recorded on a betamax tape..

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

I think this brings us to the crux of the matter..

vp was NOT a "scholar".

he didn't "research" like a scholar..

he didn't document sources like a scholar..

his sexual and alcoholic proclivities precluded any kind of legitimate claim to "scholarship"..

could he read, and understand at least part of what he read? Yes. Does, or did that make him a scholar? No.

Most of us have left the cornfield huckster light years behind us..

If he had done homwork like this in high school, college, or seminary, not only would he flunk but proably in the later 2 cases would have been expelled immediately by both his professors and the institution.

[dmiller]

Just wondering if the *gas pumps* that he (docvic) saw the snow on looked anything like this:

[Mike]

I think this brings us to the crux of the matter..

vp was NOT a "scholar".

he didn't "research" like a scholar..

he didn't document sources like a scholar..

What if I showed you documentation where he claimed NOT to be a scholar?

That would mean all dashed expectations that he WERE a scholar must be based on lack of attention, right?

"God said He would teach me The Word like it hadn't been known since the first century if I would teach it."

We now know that didn't happen. Why? Because the same person who made that statement (VPW) also said, " Lots of stuff I teach is not original." If the stuff was not original, it follows suit that it was known after the first century by people other than VPW. Those two statements contradict each other. Either VPW lied or God lied. Take your pick.

No they DON'T contradict, you just WANT them to.

Here's my pick:

1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us.

2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material.

3. God showed him some few and much needed original things.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Now there's no contradiction.

Edited January 13, 2009 by Mike

[waysider]

What if I showed you documentation where he claimed NOT to be a scholar?

That would mean all dashed expectations that he WERE a scholar must be based on lack of attention, right?

No they DON'T contradict, you just WANT them to.

Here's my pick:

1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us.

2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material.

3. God showed him some few and much needed original things.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Now there's no contradiction.

If "a lot of the stuff"he taught was not original, the logical conclusion would be that someone knew it before him. It was not material that hadn't been known since the first century as he led us to believe. Spin that however you like, the contradiction is still there.

[skyrider]

If "a lot of the stuff"he taught was not original, the logical conclusion would be that someone knew it before him. It was not material that hadn't been known since the first century as he led us to believe. Spin that however you like, the contradiction is still there.

And further.......

Since "this stuff" was ALREADY known and taught......the "audible voice and promise" that wiewille heard is laced with falsehood and fabrication. Period.

[waterbuffalo]

No they DON'T contradict, you just WANT them to.

Here's my pick:

1. God showed him WHICH things were useful to us, and being THE OWNER of such, God told him to collect it for us.

2. God showed him which things were NOT useful to us, sometimes even from the same authors above, and to exclude that material.

3. God showed him some few and much needed original things.

4. The sum of the above was far more than any one author/teacher of VPW's ever had.

Now there's no contradiction.

Jesus died so that I could eat my own "food." Whether or not some of it tastes better or is more useful for my body than others, is not for someone else to decide. If the Word is food, then I can eat it all. Jesus didn't offer new life for certain people only and then tell them what was important making them the middle man between him and the important people that he sacrificed his life for. The Bible says all of the Word, or food, is useful for the Body, so there is the rub regarding your theory, Mike.