I dunno. It's kinda like finding out your spouse has been cheating on you for years. Does that make YOU a bad person? I don't think so. It just means you put your trust in an unworthy dipstick. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
I dunno. It's kinda like finding out your spouse has been cheating on you for years. Does that make YOU a bad person? I don't think so. It just means you put your trust in an unworthy dipstick. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
Yah, I heard he got his degree from a diploma mill of some sort. You gotta give him some credit, he created quite a mythology for himself.
I have come to the conclusion over the years that he was a wolf in sheeps clothing, one masquerading as an angel of light.
When the "jesus movement" exploded in the '60s in CA, he went there with the intention of getting a piece of the action. He had a product to sell (the class) and just needed young men to move it for him. He managed through Heefner and Dopp to get a piece of the action.
People ask, how can he have been so nasty in his personal life, but seem so wonderful on stage or while teaching?
Simple, he stole another man's class (B.G. Leonard), called it his own, learned it and taught it.
The class didn't come from his heart, it came from another man's heart.
There was no love in VP 's heart for the "people." OH, sure, he liked individuals well enough, and if he thought you had leadership potential, would spend money on you so you could get your teeth fixed (he did that for one leader), or whatever would make you more presentable.
I think once he had his leadership in place, the mask slipped a little more.
Anyway, he hijacked others' ministries and claimed them for his own.
Many people knew.
If you didn't agree with him you were shut out, and kicked out - you were silenced.
But, it was Geer's Passing of the Patriarch that really opened peoples' eyes - and not in the sense I think CG had in mind. He was another VP idolitor. Instead of throwing our allegience to him, people saw how self-serving that writing and the author really were.
People turned away in disgust - it was the straw that broke the camel's back. People now had license to leave - and we did.
Yes, I think people felt betrayed. They gave their life, gave up their youth - for what?
VP was shown to be just another "man behind the curtain." Especially at the end - a whiny man - blaming everyone but himself for TWI's failings.
I have come to the conclusion over the years that he was a wolf in sheeps clothing, one masquerading as an angel of light.
When the "jesus movement" exploded in the '60s in CA, he went there with the intention of getting a piece of the action. He had a product to sell (the class) and just needed young men to move it for him. He managed through Heefner and Dopp to get a piece of the action.
People ask, how can he have been so nasty in his personal life, but seem so wonderful on stage or while teaching?
Simple, he stole another man's class (B.G. Leonard), called it his own, learned it and taught it.
The class didn't come from his heart, it came from another man's heart.
There was no love in VP 's heart for the "people." OH, sure, he liked individuals well enough, and if he thought you had leadership potential, would spend money on you so you could get your teeth fixed (he did that for one leader), or whatever would make you more presentable.
I think once he had his leadership in place, the mask slipped a little more.
Anyway, he hijacked others' ministries and claimed them for his own.
Many people knew.
If you didn't agree with him you were shut out, and kicked out - you were silenced.
But, it was Geer's Passing of the Patriarch that really opened peoples' eyes - and not in the sense I think CG had in mind. He was another VP idolitor. Instead of throwing our allegience to him, people saw how self-serving that writing and the author really were.
People turned away in disgust - it was the straw that broke the camel's back. People now had license to leave - and we did.
Yes, I think people felt betrayed. They gave their life, gave up their youth - for what?
VP was shown to be just another "man behind the curtain." Especially at the end - a whiny man - blaming everyone but himself for TWI's failings.
Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, details how young wierwille was nearly ready to quit the ministry after just one year in. While in his Paine and Van Wert pastorates, wierwille was searching far and wide for answers. In 1953, after sitting thru Rev. B.G. Leonard's class (twice) in Calgary, Alberta.....vpw rushed home and began signing people up for this "new class" that he, vpw, would teach in October 1953.
After taking Leonard's class....EVERYTHING CHANGED. Wierwille shifted to a class-based ministry, class registrations, teacher-student format, class materials, bookstore operations, subsequent classes, fnd/int/adv classes, etc. Years later, wierwille came up with the name "Power for Abundant Living" class (from J.E. Stiles ??).
Here at GS....thread after thread documents the plagairism that has surrounded wierwille thru the decades. The man's work was not original. Everything from his self-proclaimed "black snowstorm" to his India itinerary to his "law of believing" to his published works.....have been served a strong brew of reality here at The Cafe.
Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, details how young wierwille was nearly ready to quit the ministry after just one year in. While in his Paine and Van Wert pastorates, wierwille was searching far and wide for answers. In 1953, after sitting thru Rev. B.G. Leonard's class (twice) in Calgary, Alberta.....vpw rushed home and began signing people up for this "new class" that he, vpw, would teach in October 1953.
After taking Leonard's class....EVERYTHING CHANGED. Wierwille shifted to a class-based ministry, class registrations, teacher-student format, class materials, bookstore operations, subsequent classes, fnd/int/adv classes, etc. Years later, wierwille came up with the name "Power for Abundant Living" class (from J.E. Stiles ??).
Here at GS....thread after thread documents the plagairism that has surrounded wierwille thru the decades. The man's work was not original. Everything from his self-proclaimed "black snowstorm" to his India itinerary to his "law of believing" to his published works.....have been served a strong brew of reality here at The Cafe.
I wonder the class was B.G. Leonard, how much was E.W. Bullinger, and how much he pulled out of his tail
Curiously he was again ready to throw in the towel in 1951(?) just before his trip to Tulsa where he supposedly spoke in tongues for the first time.
p. 36 ... Born Again to Serve
"On the first Sunday in February 1943, a special collection was received in order to pay off the mortgage on the [Payne] parsonage. And on March 7 we held a special mortgage-burning service."
"After our move into the new parsonage, Rev. Wierwille found a room a block away from the church, formerly a dentist's office, which he rented and made into his office/study. Not a particularly patient young minister, he got pretty discouraged by not knowing how to handle various challenges within the congregation. At one time he told me that he was ready to quit the ministry if he didn't learn how to handle these seemingly helpless situations. Something seemed to be lacking in answer to prayers."
"I'd had the best education money could buy; but with all that I knew, I just could not help people. I was discouraged the first year in the ministry, 1941-42. I thought, 'Had my dad spent all that money to educate a fool?' I prayed a great deal about it. Even then I was discouraged with my life. The principles of the ministry bothered me. The shallowness bothered me."
According to Mrs. Wierwille's book, there is a long list of men and women who significantly taught and influenced her husband.....one of the most profound being Rev. B.G. Leonard.
Rev. B. G. Leonard
p. 90
"Ever since the Divine Healing Convention in Tulsa in December 1951, and since Rev. B.G. Leonard prayed with us for Mary's healing over the phone in December 1952, Dr. Wierwille's hunger for more knowledge about God's healing power was piqued. In late winter, February 1953, Dr. Wierwille felt the need to spend time with B.G. Leonard.....
"B.G. Leonard called his work in Calgary 'The Christian Training Centre.' Dr. Wierwille described his first impressions there: "I walked in and B.G. was in the middle of announcements. They must have lasted an hour and a half. Then he took his violin and played hymns for a while. When he finally started preaching, he taught his heart out for another hour and a half. Then everyone left and I sat there. He said, 'I thought I told you that you couldn't come.' And I said, 'Yeah, but I didn't hear you.' "
In June of 1953, four months after Dr. Wierwille's initial trip, our family traveled with two other carloads of our friends to Calgary to take B.G. Leonard's class which he called "The Gifts of the Spirit." At his Christian Training Centre, a large upstairs room over a pawnshop, our son Don and I were students in this class from June 28 to July 15. Dr. Wierwille was with us, but of course, he was not a new student, though he wanted to sit through the class again because what B.G. Leonard was teaching was so thrilling and powerful about the "gifts" of holy spirit and about spiritual healing."
p. 99...."In October 1953, Dr. Wierwille taught the first Power for Abundant Living class, which was held in the basement of St. Peter's Church. The first two classes were called "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today." The name was then changed to the broader title......"
*****
B.G. Leonard and his work were FOUNDATIONAL to wierwille's class setup and emphasis.
(clapping hands moronically) now do lcm, now do lcm
Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, details how young wierwille was nearly ready to quit the ministry after just one year in. While in his Paine and Van Wert pastorates, wierwille was searching far and wide for answers. In 1953, after sitting thru Rev. B.G. Leonard's class (twice) in Calgary, Alberta.....vpw rushed home and began signing people up for this "new class" that he, vpw, would teach in October 1953.
After taking Leonard's class....EVERYTHING CHANGED. Wierwille shifted to a class-based ministry, class registrations, teacher-student format, class materials, bookstore operations, subsequent classes, fnd/int/adv classes, etc. Years later, wierwille came up with the name "Power for Abundant Living" class (from J.E. Stiles ??).
Here at GS....thread after thread documents the plagairism that has surrounded wierwille thru the decades. The man's work was not original. Everything from his self-proclaimed "black snowstorm" to his India itinerary to his "law of believing" to his published works.....have been served a strong brew of reality here at The Cafe.
I've thought about this subject a whole lot, like many others here at GSC and I appreciate the documentation from Mrs. W's book on these topics. While I don't have the book, I know first-hand the rationale that went on in the Research Dept., even from Walt*r C*ummins, when he answered charges about VP's plagarism. His defense was that VP said he learned from many people, he did cite their names (yes, but only here and there but not as he should have). In Research we would be reminded that VP said he didn't do anything original, he just was able to "put together" knoweldge from many sources, making them "accurate." This is rationalizing at its best.
Okay, first of all, we need to remember VP thought (or flat out claimed and lied) that God told him he'd teach him the Word like it had not been known from the first century if he'd teach it to others. (see The Way Living in Love for his statements on this). Arguing with such a person is futile. He's already taken a position that's not possible to falsify. Who knows what VP heard? I doubt he heard that, but it's a claim and not possible to disprove with contrary evidence. But it is possible to show evidence of VP's poor, wrong, or stolen research that makes God look pretty stupid if indeed he was the one responsible for teaching VP.
Besides the fact that plagarism, in "normal" venues like universities, etc. will get you expelled, fired, etc. there is another aspect to this that occurred to me lately. It's this:
Based on VP's own statement that God was supposedly teaching VP himself, why would VP need to borrow, steal, use or take from other men's works? Did God tell him it was okay to do that? I DON"T THINK SO.
My impression of how Walt*r C*ummins and others rationalized VP's wrongdoing is they didn't get specific about it. Once I tried to pin down Walt*r C*ummins about Lamsa. Regarding Eli Eli being wrongly taught by VP, I asked, "What if Doctor was just misled by Lamsa?" I thought if I asked my question this way instead of attacking VP's error straight on, we could talk about it. Wrong. He said, "I believe Dr. Wierwille was more spiritual than any of us." End of conversation.
So if you're "more spiritual than any of us" it's okay to lie?
Exactly.
And.....along with the wierwille-doctrine deception, was/is an INNER CIRCLE OF ENABLERS....ie C*mmins, T*wnsend, Martindale, Geer, Rivenbark, etc who ran cover for the con.
The wierwille betrayal continues to this very day......in another generation of vipers.
Geeze, we were chastised for even suggesting we would like to have hobbies.
Wasting all that time and money that we could be giving to the "ministry", dontcha know?.
(Doing the worst werewolf impression he can muster) Hi, I'm VP, my hobbies are drinking, womanizing and misinterpreting the bible....
My impression of how Walt*r C*ummins and others rationalized VP's wrongdoing is they didn't get specific about it. Once I tried to pin down Walt*r C*ummins about Lamsa. Regarding Eli Eli being wrongly taught by VP, I asked, "What if Doctor was just misled by Lamsa?" I thought if I asked my question this way instead of attacking VP's error straight on, we could talk about it. Wrong. He said, "I believe Dr. Wierwille was more spiritual than any of us." End of conversation.
So if your more spiritual than any of us its okay to blow your nose in the 10 commandments, not to mention what we're instructed to do in the new testament.
Okay, first of all, we need to remember VP thought (or flat out claimed and lied) that God told him he'd teach him the Word like it had not been known from the first century if he'd teach it to others. (see The Way Living in Love for his statements on this). Arguing with such a person is futile. He's already taken a position that's not possible to falsify. Who knows what VP heard? I doubt he heard that, but it's a claim and not possible to disprove with contrary evidence. But it is possible to show evidence of VP's poor, wrong, or stolen research that makes God look pretty stupid if indeed he was the one responsible for teaching VP.
Besides the fact that plagarism, in "normal" venues like universities, etc. will get you expelled, fired, etc. there is another aspect to this that occurred to me lately. It's this:
Based on VP's own statement that God was supposedly teaching VP himself, why would VP need to borrow, steal, use or take from other men's works? Did God tell him it was okay to do that? I DON"T THINK SO.
(snip)
I disagree. I believe the evidence at hand is able to either prove or disprove vpw's claim.
Consider the following statements as given:
A) God cannot be mistaken. (He may not tell you everything, but He will not discover later that He did not know the truth.)
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
B) God cannot lie.
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
Therefore, anything God Almighty says, that will be true and come to pass.
If it does not come to pass, God Almighty did not speak it.
BTW, in case you forgot, according to vpw, right in pfal, he said a prophet is "one who speaks for God",
and a prophecy is "anything that is foretold or forth-told."
If a man claims to speak for God and convey a message from God that foretells something,
then, to use vpw's own definition, that man could properly be referred to as a "prophet."
vpw claimed he heard from God, and conveyed that information to others.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century."
Now, first of all, vpw was unable TO KEEP HIS STORY STRAIGHT.
In the first account "The Way:Living in Love", the entire thing happens across 2 days and includes black snow.
In the second account in "Born Again to Serve", the entire thing happens in a few minutes and involves black snow.
Account 1:
"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless
there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I
came to the point by the next day where I said to myself-maybe it's true. So the next
day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me
yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that
I can really know, so that I can believe.'
The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early
autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a
sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I
opened them.
The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling
station on the corner not 75 feet away."
Account 2:
""I stood in my newly rented office and prayed to the Father. "Father, teach me the Word, teach me the Word."
He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century. And, of course, at that time I thought, "Now that's a dandy.
Boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody will listen to me. The whole church will be blessed; my denomination will grow
by leaps and bounds because we'll have the Word of God." And I thought that was terrific. But during the process of that revelation,
I said, "Father, how will I know that this is You and that You'll really teach it to me? Because I had worked the Word in commentaries
and the rest of it, and I couldn't understand it, couldn't get it to fit.
And the sun was shining brightly. It was in the fall of the year. Gorgeous. There wasn't a cloud in the sky.
And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, "Well, just say to the Father,
"Well, if it'll just snow right now, you'll just know that this is God talking to you.'"
Cause you see. I'd never had much experience with God's talking to me. And this business of His saying to me,
just as audibly as I am speaking to you, that He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, sort of shook me.
I'd been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn't heard that way before.
Oh, my ears were perhaps clogged up. Since that time I've heard a lot of things from Him.
And I said, "Lord, to know that this is true, I'd like to see it snow." And I opened my eyes, and it was pitch-black,
almost pitch-black outside, and the snow was falling so thick. I have never seen it fall that thick since that day."
So, first of all, the incident which supposedly transformed his life, it made so little impression that he
couldn't keep straight whether it was 2 days it happened or 1, and he saw heavy snow but couldn't keep straight
whether it was white snow or black snow. (Heavy, heavy WHITE snow makes everything look white- and produces
what is called a "white out." Therefore, for the snowstorm to look black, the snow had to look black.)
All right, ignoring the inconsistencies in vpw's own accounts, let's look at the claim.
"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
All right. We know vpw claimed God told him this. He told others God said this concerning the future.
Therefore, vpw prophesied this in the name of God, and either God told him exactly this,
or vpw spoke it presumptuously.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'
21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'
22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
Therefore, according to God, there's one way to tell if vpw, the plagiarizing rapist, spoke this presumptuously-
that is, lied about this entirely- or if God told him exactly thia.
Look at the results. If it didn't come to pass, or was untrue, then it wasn't from God Almighty,
but was a lie from the pit of vpw's corrupt heart.
Thus, we look at the claim itself, then at the results.
" He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
The parts of this claim:
1) God would teach vpw God's Word
2) God would teach vpw God's Word as it had not been known since the first century Church
3) vpw would have to teach all of that very same to others
Let's look at this one at a time.
1) "God would teach vpw God's Word."
This failed to come to pass. Virtually all of vpw's teachings can be traced back to the work of others, which he
plagiarized. We know he took BG Leonard's class and then immediately began teaching BF Leonard's word,
and he met JE Stiles, got his book, then began teaching JE Stiles' word,
and that someone brought him EW Bullinger's books, he read them, then began teaching Bullinger's word.
None of this was God teaching vpw. This was vpw photocopying the work of others- even making the same mistakes
they made (like Bullinger saying "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God" were different things)
and sometimes lifting nearly precise sentences from their works. He even copied their work when their claims
contradicted each other (like when he provided 2 different explanations for when "heteros" and "allos" were
used.) This reflects a lack of understanding of the material and only the most surface understanding-
like when someone just learns to recite back an answer without understanding what it means or why it's correct.
Therefore, God did not teach vpw. vpw got his work entirely through plagiarism.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
2) "God would teach vpw God's Word like it has not been known since the first century."
This claim fails on several counts.
First of all is the nebulous claim that some aspect of God's Word had been unknown from AD 99 to sometime after 1942.
God's Word as it REALLY was known in the first century was NOT an INTELLECTUAL, BOOK thing.
The New Testament hadn't even fully circulated! What the people knew was not a reading, text thing,
but a living reality of the power and love of God Almighty.
That's the type of thing that made the news at the House of Acts, but bore no resemblance to anything from vpw.
In fact, he did its exact opposite. The 1st century Christians were decentralized and ran things locally.
vpw dismantled that and DEMANDED a hierarchy. The 1st century Christians had all things in common. vpw insisted
on having the best stuff and-even when the ministry owned it- claimed it for himself.
"Keep your hands off my stuff." The 1st century Christians didn't care about money or possessions, but they
set aside arrangements for the widows and orphans- vpw used the excuse "the poor you have with you always"
and kept all the money at hq after having it all sent there.
The 1st century Christians would have been driven to tears if they saw vpw's work being touted as the same as theirs.
Finally, everything vpw taught was already known before he taught it- Bullinger knew some, Stiles knew some,
Leonard knew some, Kenyon knew some...it was not "unknown" before that. It was not public knowledge everywhere,
but it was accessible to the public, and was being taught and circulated before vpw heard of any of it.
Therefore, God didn't teach God's Word to vpw as it hasn't been known since the 1st century, and vpw didn't
teach it to others.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
3) I already incorporated the discussion of the third claim into the second discussion.
vpw taught others- but what he taught was the opposite of "God's Word as it has not been known since the first century."
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
I disagree. I believe the evidence at hand is able to either prove or disprove vpw's claim.
Consider the following statements as given:
A) God cannot be mistaken. (He may not tell you everything, but He will not discover later that He did not know the truth.)
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
B) God cannot lie.
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
Therefore, anything God Almighty says, that will be true and come to pass.
If it does not come to pass, God Almighty did not speak it.
BTW, in case you forgot, according to vpw, right in pfal, he said a prophet is "one who speaks for God",
and a prophecy is "anything that is foretold or forth-told."
If a man claims to speak for God and convey a message from God that foretells something,
then, to use vpw's own definition, that man could properly be referred to as a "prophet."
vpw claimed he heard from God, and conveyed that information to others.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century."
Now, first of all, vpw was unable TO KEEP HIS STORY STRAIGHT.
In the first account "The Way:Living in Love", the entire thing happens across 2 days and includes black snow.
In the second account in "Born Again to Serve", the entire thing happens in a few minutes and involves black snow.
Account 1:
"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless
there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I
came to the point by the next day where I said to myself-maybe it's true. So the next
day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me
yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that
I can really know, so that I can believe.'
The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early
autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a
sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I
opened them.
The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling
station on the corner not 75 feet away."
Account 2:
""I stood in my newly rented office and prayed to the Father. "Father, teach me the Word, teach me the Word."
He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century. And, of course, at that time I thought, "Now that's a dandy.
Boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody will listen to me. The whole church will be blessed; my denomination will grow
by leaps and bounds because we'll have the Word of God." And I thought that was terrific. But during the process of that revelation,
I said, "Father, how will I know that this is You and that You'll really teach it to me? Because I had worked the Word in commentaries
and the rest of it, and I couldn't understand it, couldn't get it to fit.
And the sun was shining brightly. It was in the fall of the year. Gorgeous. There wasn't a cloud in the sky.
And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, "Well, just say to the Father,
"Well, if it'll just snow right now, you'll just know that this is God talking to you.'"
Cause you see. I'd never had much experience with God's talking to me. And this business of His saying to me,
just as audibly as I am speaking to you, that He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, sort of shook me.
I'd been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn't heard that way before.
Oh, my ears were perhaps clogged up. Since that time I've heard a lot of things from Him.
And I said, "Lord, to know that this is true, I'd like to see it snow." And I opened my eyes, and it was pitch-black,
almost pitch-black outside, and the snow was falling so thick. I have never seen it fall that thick since that day."
So, first of all, the incident which supposedly transformed his life, it made so little impression that he
couldn't keep straight whether it was 2 days it happened or 1, and he saw heavy snow but couldn't keep straight
whether it was white snow or black snow. (Heavy, heavy WHITE snow makes everything look white- and produces
what is called a "white out." Therefore, for the snowstorm to look black, the snow had to look black.)
All right, ignoring the inconsistencies in vpw's own accounts, let's look at the claim.
"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
All right. We know vpw claimed God told him this. He told others God said this concerning the future.
Therefore, vpw prophesied this in the name of God, and either God told him exactly this,
or vpw spoke it presumptuously.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'
21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'
22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
Therefore, according to God, there's one way to tell if vpw, the plagiarizing rapist, spoke this presumptuously-
that is, lied about this entirely- or if God told him exactly thia.
Look at the results. If it didn't come to pass, or was untrue, then it wasn't from God Almighty,
but was a lie from the pit of vpw's corrupt heart.
Thus, we look at the claim itself, then at the results.
" He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
The parts of this claim:
1) God would teach vpw God's Word
2) God would teach vpw God's Word as it had not been known since the first century Church
3) vpw would have to teach all of that very same to others
Let's look at this one at a time.
1) "God would teach vpw God's Word."
This failed to come to pass. Virtually all of vpw's teachings can be traced back to the work of others, which he
plagiarized. We know he took BG Leonard's class and then immediately began teaching BF Leonard's word,
and he met JE Stiles, got his book, then began teaching JE Stiles' word,
and that someone brought him EW Bullinger's books, he read them, then began teaching Bullinger's word.
None of this was God teaching vpw. This was vpw photocopying the work of others- even making the same mistakes
they made (like Bullinger saying "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God" were different things)
and sometimes lifting nearly precise sentences from their works. He even copied their work when their claims
contradicted each other (like when he provided 2 different explanations for when "heteros" and "allos" were
used.) This reflects a lack of understanding of the material and only the most surface understanding-
like when someone just learns to recite back an answer without understanding what it means or why it's correct.
Therefore, God did not teach vpw. vpw got his work entirely through plagiarism.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
2) "God would teach vpw God's Word like it has not been known since the first century."
This claim fails on several counts.
First of all is the nebulous claim that some aspect of God's Word had been unknown from AD 99 to sometime after 1942.
God's Word as it REALLY was known in the first century was NOT an INTELLECTUAL, BOOK thing.
The New Testament hadn't even fully circulated! What the people knew was not a reading, text thing,
but a living reality of the power and love of God Almighty.
That's the type of thing that made the news at the House of Acts, but bore no resemblance to anything from vpw.
In fact, he did its exact opposite. The 1st century Christians were decentralized and ran things locally.
vpw dismantled that and DEMANDED a hierarchy. The 1st century Christians had all things in common. vpw insisted
on having the best stuff and-even when the ministry owned it- claimed it for himself.
"Keep your hands off my stuff." The 1st century Christians didn't care about money or possessions, but they
set aside arrangements for the widows and orphans- vpw used the excuse "the poor you have with you always"
and kept all the money at hq after having it all sent there.
The 1st century Christians would have been driven to tears if they saw vpw's work being touted as the same as theirs.
Finally, everything vpw taught was already known before he taught it- Bullinger knew some, Stiles knew some,
Leonard knew some, Kenyon knew some...it was not "unknown" before that. It was not public knowledge everywhere,
but it was accessible to the public, and was being taught and circulated before vpw heard of any of it.
Therefore, God didn't teach God's Word to vpw as it hasn't been known since the 1st century, and vpw didn't
teach it to others.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
3) I already incorporated the discussion of the third claim into the second discussion.
vpw taught others- but what he taught was the opposite of "God's Word as it has not been known since the first century."
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
Wow. Thanks for all this. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Obviously, I didn't make myself very well understood. First, as I said, I doubt VP heard such a revelation from God. If I thought he had, I would never have left TWI.
I think I've been misunderstood, though, in making this statement:
"Okay, first of all, we need to remember VP thought (or flat out claimed and lied) that God told him he'd teach him the Word like it had not been known from the first century if he'd teach it to others. (see The Way Living in Love for his statements on this). Arguing with such a person is futile.He's already taken a position that's not possible to falsify. "
I was thinking of what William James talks about in Varieties of Religious Experience, when he explains that people's subjective experience cannot be proven or disproven. But the value of what they claim can be determined by examining the "fruit" in their life. (James explains this far better than I).
To me, the experience in VP's case is that he heard what he thought was God. (or he lied and never heard anything). I personally don't think it was God and as you so very well used scripture stating God cannot lie, it is very obvious we can say the CONTENT of what VP said he heard was false. And I've mentioned on other posts how there wasn't a stable 'first century church" to refer back to much less recapture exactly what was taught then, etc. etc.
But by examining what VP taught, we see it could not have been a God of any sort. VP stole what he taught, for the most part. This topic has been discussed so much here at GSC that what I have said here is redundant, I know.
So, I realize that my writing just didn't turn out very well today. I apologize and I do admire the research you put into your reply, Wordwolf.
socrates did i tell you i really liked your opening post
Thank you. I was just saying what I felt needed to be said and asking questions that had been noodling in the back of my head for a long time.
As to the undisputable position category, the minisrty was full of those.
"You'll go farther faster ABS than not." How would you go about proving that?
"Your stepping on the hose." Again, how would you prove that?
"Obey the man of God, even if he's wrong and you'll be blessed." How would you...you get the idea.
Also, it strikes me we should have figured something was wrong when vpw gave one version of origional sin in the garden of eden, and lcm another. They also differed on the armor of god and AOS.
Recommended Posts
year2027
God first
thanks SoCrates
there are some of us that agree with you VPW but not God or Christ
I am a god kind
but I have not been born yet
I am only conceive in Christ
I will be born at my death
yes you born again to the list of things VPW got wrong
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Just another Cult Leader to me. 1 size fits all LIARS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I dunno. It's kinda like finding out your spouse has been cheating on you for years. Does that make YOU a bad person? I don't think so. It just means you put your trust in an unworthy dipstick. (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, I heard he got his degree from a diploma mill of some sort. You gotta give him some credit, he created quite a mythology for himself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I have come to the conclusion over the years that he was a wolf in sheeps clothing, one masquerading as an angel of light.
When the "jesus movement" exploded in the '60s in CA, he went there with the intention of getting a piece of the action. He had a product to sell (the class) and just needed young men to move it for him. He managed through Heefner and Dopp to get a piece of the action.
People ask, how can he have been so nasty in his personal life, but seem so wonderful on stage or while teaching?
Simple, he stole another man's class (B.G. Leonard), called it his own, learned it and taught it.
The class didn't come from his heart, it came from another man's heart.
There was no love in VP 's heart for the "people." OH, sure, he liked individuals well enough, and if he thought you had leadership potential, would spend money on you so you could get your teeth fixed (he did that for one leader), or whatever would make you more presentable.
I think once he had his leadership in place, the mask slipped a little more.
Anyway, he hijacked others' ministries and claimed them for his own.
Many people knew.
If you didn't agree with him you were shut out, and kicked out - you were silenced.
But, it was Geer's Passing of the Patriarch that really opened peoples' eyes - and not in the sense I think CG had in mind. He was another VP idolitor. Instead of throwing our allegience to him, people saw how self-serving that writing and the author really were.
People turned away in disgust - it was the straw that broke the camel's back. People now had license to leave - and we did.
Yes, I think people felt betrayed. They gave their life, gave up their youth - for what?
VP was shown to be just another "man behind the curtain." Especially at the end - a whiny man - blaming everyone but himself for TWI's failings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
very sad but true thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Mrs. Wierwille's book, Born Again to Serve, details how young wierwille was nearly ready to quit the ministry after just one year in. While in his Paine and Van Wert pastorates, wierwille was searching far and wide for answers. In 1953, after sitting thru Rev. B.G. Leonard's class (twice) in Calgary, Alberta.....vpw rushed home and began signing people up for this "new class" that he, vpw, would teach in October 1953.
After taking Leonard's class....EVERYTHING CHANGED. Wierwille shifted to a class-based ministry, class registrations, teacher-student format, class materials, bookstore operations, subsequent classes, fnd/int/adv classes, etc. Years later, wierwille came up with the name "Power for Abundant Living" class (from J.E. Stiles ??).
Here at GS....thread after thread documents the plagairism that has surrounded wierwille thru the decades. The man's work was not original. Everything from his self-proclaimed "black snowstorm" to his India itinerary to his "law of believing" to his published works.....have been served a strong brew of reality here at The Cafe.
Edited by skyriderLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I wonder the class was B.G. Leonard, how much was E.W. Bullinger, and how much he pulled out of his tail
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
p. 36 ... Born Again to Serve
"On the first Sunday in February 1943, a special collection was received in order to pay off the mortgage on the [Payne] parsonage. And on March 7 we held a special mortgage-burning service."
"After our move into the new parsonage, Rev. Wierwille found a room a block away from the church, formerly a dentist's office, which he rented and made into his office/study. Not a particularly patient young minister, he got pretty discouraged by not knowing how to handle various challenges within the congregation. At one time he told me that he was ready to quit the ministry if he didn't learn how to handle these seemingly helpless situations. Something seemed to be lacking in answer to prayers."
"I'd had the best education money could buy; but with all that I knew, I just could not help people. I was discouraged the first year in the ministry, 1941-42. I thought, 'Had my dad spent all that money to educate a fool?' I prayed a great deal about it. Even then I was discouraged with my life. The principles of the ministry bothered me. The shallowness bothered me."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
SoCrates.....you might want to check out THIS LINK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
(clapping hands moronically) now do lcm, now do lcm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
The book also lists his hobbies...hmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
He had hobbies???
Geeze, we were chastised for even suggesting we would like to have hobbies.
Wasting all that time and money that we could be giving to the "ministry", dontcha know?.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
I've thought about this subject a whole lot, like many others here at GSC and I appreciate the documentation from Mrs. W's book on these topics. While I don't have the book, I know first-hand the rationale that went on in the Research Dept., even from Walt*r C*ummins, when he answered charges about VP's plagarism. His defense was that VP said he learned from many people, he did cite their names (yes, but only here and there but not as he should have). In Research we would be reminded that VP said he didn't do anything original, he just was able to "put together" knoweldge from many sources, making them "accurate." This is rationalizing at its best.
Okay, first of all, we need to remember VP thought (or flat out claimed and lied) that God told him he'd teach him the Word like it had not been known from the first century if he'd teach it to others. (see The Way Living in Love for his statements on this). Arguing with such a person is futile. He's already taken a position that's not possible to falsify. Who knows what VP heard? I doubt he heard that, but it's a claim and not possible to disprove with contrary evidence. But it is possible to show evidence of VP's poor, wrong, or stolen research that makes God look pretty stupid if indeed he was the one responsible for teaching VP.
Besides the fact that plagarism, in "normal" venues like universities, etc. will get you expelled, fired, etc. there is another aspect to this that occurred to me lately. It's this:
Based on VP's own statement that God was supposedly teaching VP himself, why would VP need to borrow, steal, use or take from other men's works? Did God tell him it was okay to do that? I DON"T THINK SO.
My impression of how Walt*r C*ummins and others rationalized VP's wrongdoing is they didn't get specific about it. Once I tried to pin down Walt*r C*ummins about Lamsa. Regarding Eli Eli being wrongly taught by VP, I asked, "What if Doctor was just misled by Lamsa?" I thought if I asked my question this way instead of attacking VP's error straight on, we could talk about it. Wrong. He said, "I believe Dr. Wierwille was more spiritual than any of us." End of conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Watered Garden
So if you're "more spiritual than any of us" it's okay to lie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Exactly.
And.....along with the wierwille-doctrine deception, was/is an INNER CIRCLE OF ENABLERS....ie C*mmins, T*wnsend, Martindale, Geer, Rivenbark, etc who ran cover for the con.
The wierwille betrayal continues to this very day......in another generation of vipers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
(Doing the worst werewolf impression he can muster) Hi, I'm VP, my hobbies are drinking, womanizing and misinterpreting the bible....
So if your more spiritual than any of us its okay to blow your nose in the 10 commandments, not to mention what we're instructed to do in the new testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I disagree. I believe the evidence at hand is able to either prove or disprove vpw's claim.
Consider the following statements as given:
A) God cannot be mistaken. (He may not tell you everything, but He will not discover later that He did not know the truth.)
Psalm 147:5
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.
B) God cannot lie.
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
Therefore, anything God Almighty says, that will be true and come to pass.
If it does not come to pass, God Almighty did not speak it.
BTW, in case you forgot, according to vpw, right in pfal, he said a prophet is "one who speaks for God",
and a prophecy is "anything that is foretold or forth-told."
If a man claims to speak for God and convey a message from God that foretells something,
then, to use vpw's own definition, that man could properly be referred to as a "prophet."
vpw claimed he heard from God, and conveyed that information to others.
"And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century."
Now, first of all, vpw was unable TO KEEP HIS STORY STRAIGHT.
In the first account "The Way:Living in Love", the entire thing happens across 2 days and includes black snow.
In the second account in "Born Again to Serve", the entire thing happens in a few minutes and involves black snow.
Account 1:
"I was praying. And I told Father outright that He could have the whole thing, unless
there were real genuine answers that I wouldn't ever have to back up on.
And that's when He spoke to me audibly, just like I'm talking to you now. He said He
would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would
teach it to others."
"Well, on the day God spoke to me, I couldn't believe it. But then I
came to the point by the next day where I said to myself-maybe it's true. So the next
day I talked to God again. I said, 'Lord, if it's really true what you said to me
yesterday, if that was really you talking to me, you've got to give me a sign so that
I can really know, so that I can believe.'
The sky was crystal blue and clear. Not a cloud in sight. It was a beautiful early
autumn day. I said 'If that was really you, and you meant what you said, give me a
sign. Let me see it snow.' My eyes were tightly shut as I prayed. And then I
opened them.
The sky was so white and thick with snow, I couldn't see the tanks at the filling
station on the corner not 75 feet away."
Account 2:
""I stood in my newly rented office and prayed to the Father. "Father, teach me the Word, teach me the Word."
He told me as plain as day that if I would study the Word, He would teach me the Word like He had not been able to
teach it to anybody since the first century. And, of course, at that time I thought, "Now that's a dandy.
Boy, if I learned this Word of God, everybody will listen to me. The whole church will be blessed; my denomination will grow
by leaps and bounds because we'll have the Word of God." And I thought that was terrific. But during the process of that revelation,
I said, "Father, how will I know that this is You and that You'll really teach it to me? Because I had worked the Word in commentaries
and the rest of it, and I couldn't understand it, couldn't get it to fit.
And the sun was shining brightly. It was in the fall of the year. Gorgeous. There wasn't a cloud in the sky.
And just on the inside of me it seemed to say, "Well, just say to the Father,
"Well, if it'll just snow right now, you'll just know that this is God talking to you.'"
Cause you see. I'd never had much experience with God's talking to me. And this business of His saying to me,
just as audibly as I am speaking to you, that He'd teach me the Word if I'd teach it, sort of shook me.
I'd been expecting to hear from heaven for a long time, but I hadn't heard that way before.
Oh, my ears were perhaps clogged up. Since that time I've heard a lot of things from Him.
And I said, "Lord, to know that this is true, I'd like to see it snow." And I opened my eyes, and it was pitch-black,
almost pitch-black outside, and the snow was falling so thick. I have never seen it fall that thick since that day."
So, first of all, the incident which supposedly transformed his life, it made so little impression that he
couldn't keep straight whether it was 2 days it happened or 1, and he saw heavy snow but couldn't keep straight
whether it was white snow or black snow. (Heavy, heavy WHITE snow makes everything look white- and produces
what is called a "white out." Therefore, for the snowstorm to look black, the snow had to look black.)
All right, ignoring the inconsistencies in vpw's own accounts, let's look at the claim.
"He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
All right. We know vpw claimed God told him this. He told others God said this concerning the future.
Therefore, vpw prophesied this in the name of God, and either God told him exactly this,
or vpw spoke it presumptuously.
Deuteronomy 18:20-22.
20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.'
21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?'
22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."
Therefore, according to God, there's one way to tell if vpw, the plagiarizing rapist, spoke this presumptuously-
that is, lied about this entirely- or if God told him exactly thia.
Look at the results. If it didn't come to pass, or was untrue, then it wasn't from God Almighty,
but was a lie from the pit of vpw's corrupt heart.
Thus, we look at the claim itself, then at the results.
" He said He would teach me the Word as it had not been known since the first Century if I would teach it to others."
The parts of this claim:
1) God would teach vpw God's Word
2) God would teach vpw God's Word as it had not been known since the first century Church
3) vpw would have to teach all of that very same to others
Let's look at this one at a time.
1) "God would teach vpw God's Word."
This failed to come to pass. Virtually all of vpw's teachings can be traced back to the work of others, which he
plagiarized. We know he took BG Leonard's class and then immediately began teaching BF Leonard's word,
and he met JE Stiles, got his book, then began teaching JE Stiles' word,
and that someone brought him EW Bullinger's books, he read them, then began teaching Bullinger's word.
None of this was God teaching vpw. This was vpw photocopying the work of others- even making the same mistakes
they made (like Bullinger saying "the kingdom of heaven" and "the kingdom of God" were different things)
and sometimes lifting nearly precise sentences from their works. He even copied their work when their claims
contradicted each other (like when he provided 2 different explanations for when "heteros" and "allos" were
used.) This reflects a lack of understanding of the material and only the most surface understanding-
like when someone just learns to recite back an answer without understanding what it means or why it's correct.
Therefore, God did not teach vpw. vpw got his work entirely through plagiarism.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
2) "God would teach vpw God's Word like it has not been known since the first century."
This claim fails on several counts.
First of all is the nebulous claim that some aspect of God's Word had been unknown from AD 99 to sometime after 1942.
God's Word as it REALLY was known in the first century was NOT an INTELLECTUAL, BOOK thing.
The New Testament hadn't even fully circulated! What the people knew was not a reading, text thing,
but a living reality of the power and love of God Almighty.
That's the type of thing that made the news at the House of Acts, but bore no resemblance to anything from vpw.
In fact, he did its exact opposite. The 1st century Christians were decentralized and ran things locally.
vpw dismantled that and DEMANDED a hierarchy. The 1st century Christians had all things in common. vpw insisted
on having the best stuff and-even when the ministry owned it- claimed it for himself.
"Keep your hands off my stuff." The 1st century Christians didn't care about money or possessions, but they
set aside arrangements for the widows and orphans- vpw used the excuse "the poor you have with you always"
and kept all the money at hq after having it all sent there.
The 1st century Christians would have been driven to tears if they saw vpw's work being touted as the same as theirs.
Finally, everything vpw taught was already known before he taught it- Bullinger knew some, Stiles knew some,
Leonard knew some, Kenyon knew some...it was not "unknown" before that. It was not public knowledge everywhere,
but it was accessible to the public, and was being taught and circulated before vpw heard of any of it.
Therefore, God didn't teach God's Word to vpw as it hasn't been known since the 1st century, and vpw didn't
teach it to others.
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
3) I already incorporated the discussion of the third claim into the second discussion.
vpw taught others- but what he taught was the opposite of "God's Word as it has not been known since the first century."
Thus, vpw's entire claim fails. vpw did not hear from God- vpw spoke presumptuously and lied.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Wow. Thanks for all this. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Obviously, I didn't make myself very well understood. First, as I said, I doubt VP heard such a revelation from God. If I thought he had, I would never have left TWI.
I think I've been misunderstood, though, in making this statement:
"Okay, first of all, we need to remember VP thought (or flat out claimed and lied) that God told him he'd teach him the Word like it had not been known from the first century if he'd teach it to others. (see The Way Living in Love for his statements on this). Arguing with such a person is futile. He's already taken a position that's not possible to falsify. "
I was thinking of what William James talks about in Varieties of Religious Experience, when he explains that people's subjective experience cannot be proven or disproven. But the value of what they claim can be determined by examining the "fruit" in their life. (James explains this far better than I).
To me, the experience in VP's case is that he heard what he thought was God. (or he lied and never heard anything). I personally don't think it was God and as you so very well used scripture stating God cannot lie, it is very obvious we can say the CONTENT of what VP said he heard was false. And I've mentioned on other posts how there wasn't a stable 'first century church" to refer back to much less recapture exactly what was taught then, etc. etc.
But by examining what VP taught, we see it could not have been a God of any sort. VP stole what he taught, for the most part. This topic has been discussed so much here at GSC that what I have said here is redundant, I know.
So, I realize that my writing just didn't turn out very well today. I apologize and I do admire the research you put into your reply, Wordwolf.
Cheers.
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe the whole question would be.. did mr(?) wienerville have a "gift"..
and how one trades it, or uses it really determines everything..
even if it were in the category of a stolen gift..
I really think.. the mere moment one puts a greasy price tag on it.. it becomes poison..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
socrates did i tell you i really liked your opening post
and all of you those that followed
now that's a dandy ! lol
the sunofabeach told me he was more spiritual in the "sexual" category -- and so did a lot his followers tell me that
for a while i bought it, in a way, but i kept thinking about "god is love"
and i always found myself thinking about the bible verses i was taught regarding god loving me more than a parent could love a child etc.
Edited by excathedraLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Thank you. I was just saying what I felt needed to be said and asking questions that had been noodling in the back of my head for a long time.
As to the undisputable position category, the minisrty was full of those.
"You'll go farther faster ABS than not." How would you go about proving that?
"Your stepping on the hose." Again, how would you prove that?
"Obey the man of God, even if he's wrong and you'll be blessed." How would you...you get the idea.
Also, it strikes me we should have figured something was wrong when vpw gave one version of origional sin in the garden of eden, and lcm another. They also differed on the armor of god and AOS.
SoCrates
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.