Why Plagiarism Matters

[Bolshevik]

Plagiarism is stealing.

Stealing is wrong.

Taking a loaf of bread without paying in order to save a starving child's life IS WRONG, because it's stealing.

Plagiarizing to (spiritually) save a life is WRONG.

[spectrum49]

You think you stipulated appropriately? Is that the same as you believing you made your point adequately clear?

If somebody doesn't understand the message you intended to send, whose responsibility is it to clarify... in the event the reader/listener asks for clarification or otherwise indicates that what they understood you to mean is not what you intended to say?

I could not help but to think of something my dad used to say: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant."

Of course, it's up to the originator to clarify in the event the receiver asks for it. Perhaps they are in agreement already, except for the way it was worded! With patience and "fair play" on both sides (point and counterpoint until the "ammo" is exhausted) it is hoped that an agreement (at least to some extent) will be reached. And if not, then "no big deal".

And when someone "wins the debate" it's truly a win-win situation: The one convinced differently has improved his position, now having a "more logical" approach than he had before the discussion took place.

I also consider it very honorable to "agree to disagree" on a point (or even a few), knowing there may still be much to gain in other areas.

SPEC

Edited February 10, 2016 by spectrum49

[spectrum49]

I was recently wondering about the possibility of someone with dual personalities perhaps suing himself for plagiarism? Judge says: "Call your next witness." And the guy already sitting there merely morphs to the "other version" of himself, arguing against what his "former self" had just testified to!

Just sayin'…

SPEC

Edited February 10, 2016 by spectrum49

[shortfuse]

Plagiarism is stealing.

Stealing is wrong.

Taking a loaf of bread without paying in order to save a starving child's life IS WRONG, because it's stealing.

Plagiarizing to (spiritually) save a life is WRONG.

I think your analogy breaks down here, and maybe that's the point of the "maybe it's not so bad" folks. I would most definitely steal bread save a child's life, especially my own child. Letting the child die is a bigger evil in this case. Yes, stealing is morally wrong, but in the context you gave, I don't care.

[spectrum49]

I think your analogy breaks down here, and maybe that's the point of the "maybe it's not so bad" folks. I would most definitely steal bread save a child's life, especially my own child. Letting the child die is a bigger evil in this case. Yes, stealing is morally wrong, but in the context you gave, I don't care.

Pr 6:30 Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

There are many ways to show that stealing is wrong; obviously however, Bolshevic's example was simply not a "valid choice".

SPEC

PS: And here’s a quote by Paul: 2Co 11:8 --- “I robbed other churches…” So, if I want to visit the local parish and remove a solid gold statue of Mother Mary, then all I need consider is: “If it was ok with the apostle Paul, then it’s certainly ok with me!”

Edited February 10, 2016 by spectrum49

[Raf]

I am totally humming the music to Les Miserables right now.

[Bolshevik]

I am totally humming the music to Les Miserables right now.

2-4-6-0-OOnnnne !!!!

I think your analogy breaks down here, and maybe that's the point of the "maybe it's not so bad" folks. I would most definitely steal bread save a child's life, especially my own child. Letting the child die is a bigger evil in this case. Yes, stealing is morally wrong, but in the context you gave, I don't care.

I would agree with you.

I see the plagiarism as an indicator, not a definitive proof, that VPW was a bad guy with bad intentions. The plagiarism must be taken into account with other evidence of his character and actions. If the argument just focuses on plagiarism, we get nowhere.

[skyrider]

I see the plagiarism as an indicator, not a definitive proof, that VPW was a bad guy with bad intentions. The plagiarism must be taken into account with other evidence of his character and actions. If the argument just focuses on plagiarism, we get nowhere.

In light of this thread topic, isn't that what staying on topic is all about? :)

Now....if we were going to discuss wierwille's "manner of life" towards adultery, drunkenness, etc.

there are PLENTY of threads for that.

[Bolshevik]

In light of this thread topic, isn't that what staying on topic is all about? :)/>

Now....if we were going to discuss wierwille's "manner of life" towards adultery, drunkenness, etc.

there are PLENTY of threads for that.

Sorry. When I talk to followers of The Way, plagiarism, and staying on topic, is a bad idea. Staying on topic, is one of their tactics. Narrow the discussion.

Why does plagiarism matter? In the context of other topics. It is and indicator.

This plagiarism was done during the time of hippies? The 60s and 70s? Hippies were known for following the rules. It was an age of rule-following. People were soul-searching and leaders who were strict rule-followers would have been perfect for them. The Way International, strict rule-followers from the 60s and 70s.

[waysider]

I'm not sure if this is off topic.

Hippies were known for NOT following rules. That's a part of what drove the movement. Chuck the old rules of society and reinvent the antiquated mores and morals.

VPW offered a chance to do that, explore religion and spirituality without the old, stale constraints that ruled the day. Of course, that's not really what he offered but it was perceived that way by a generation of youth who were searching to make sense of a chaotic time in history. You could go to twig in jeans. No one condemned your long hair. Sit on the floor, play guitar. Very radically opposed to the traditional idea of church.

It's probably hard to imagine that the same TWI, known today for its rigidity and legalism was once a place were people thought they were experiencing a new freedom.

He used other peoples' works to create that false atmosphere and claimed it came to him through profound insight. He was an opportunist who used other peoples' ideas for his own personal gain. Why do people still try to justify that? I don't know the answer.

[shortfuse]

I'm not sure if this is off topic.

Hippies were known for NOT following rules. That's a part of what drove the movement. Chuck the old rules of society and reinvent the antiquated mores and morals.

VPW offered a chance to do that, explore religion and spirituality without the old, stale constraints that ruled the day. Of course, that's not really what he offered but it was perceived that way by a generation of youth who were searching to make sense of a chaotic time in history. You could go to twig in jeans. No one condemned your long hair. Sit on the floor, play guitar. Very radically opposed to the traditional idea of church.

It's probably hard to imagine that the same TWI, known today for its rigidity and legalism was once a place were people thought they were experiencing a new freedom.

He used other peoples' works to create that false atmosphere and claimed it came to him through profound insight. He was an opportunist who used other peoples' ideas for his own personal gain. Why do people still try to justify that? I don't know the answer.

Since it is my thread, do I get to bless this diversion?

A few months ago, for a school project, I was reading up on the Jesus People Movement. One thing that struck me was how quickly many of them (and not even the folks that later got sucked into TWI) tended towards rigid rule following as they embraced Christianity.

Now, I wasn't there, but I share your perception of the hippies being a counter cultural, rule breaking subculture. That said, it seems like the move towards the Hippie Christianity of the JPM was a shift toward conservativism as the "anything goes" ethos of the era reached it's logical end. I think that's why so many hippies were ready for religion. They just wanted it on their own terms. Some of the examples I'm thinking of were around gender roles. Even in the context of communal Christian (proto-Way Home) living, there quickly emerged a rigid Patriarchal, "men are spiritual, women belong in the kitchen" kind of attitude.

All of this is to say, that the generation so embracing of freedom also seemed quick to embrace the reassurance of restriction. Wierwille cast himself as the paternal 'Father-in-the-Word" that so many craved.

[Raf]

Since it is my thread, do I get to bless this diversion?

Permission granted.

[Bolshevik]

So if I were to be talking to wayfers, about plagiarism (the thread topic), and point out it's wrong and unethical and illegal by today's standards . . . might their minds jump back 30-40 years to a time of who-gives-a-hoot? Are we judging this plagiarism action out of context since it was done in a different time period/subculture? (Or at least the precedent established during a different era?)

edited for grammar

Edited February 10, 2016 by Bolshevik

[shortfuse]

So if I were to be talking to wayfers, about plagiarism (the thread topic), and point out it's wrong and unethical and illegal by today's standards . . . might their minds jump back 30-40 years to a time of who-gives-a-hoot? Are we judging this plagiarism action out of context since it was done in a different time period/subculture? (Or at least the precedent established during a different era?)

edited for grammar

I think the diversion into the Hippie discussion was a response to your description of that generation as being rule followers. I think you and Waysider are actually both right - they were followers and breakers.

As for harkening to a time when plagiarism was viewed as more trivial, I've personally never heard a wayfer make this case. It has always been more a matter of minimizing - saying VPW acknowledged he learned from many sources even if he didn't cite properly, the thing that matters is that the message got out - that sort of thing.

Now... to go a bit further back in the evangelical Christian culture a young VPW developed in, there definitely was a wide acceptance of the practice of borrowing from others work. In my understanding though, this was more in the context of preaching, where sermons were treated as almost public domain and freely recirculated as desired, and this was deemed harmless. If I am being charitable, I could cite this as a possible origin of VPW's borrowing. However, I think it steps into a bigger transgression when you are talking about published work, making claim to biblical research expertise, and benefiting considerably financially.

[waysider]

"I think the diversion into the Hippie discussion was a response to your description of that generation as being rule followers. I think you and waysider are actually both right - they were followers and breakers."

Think of it this way. When tie dye became popular, it was a way to express your individuality. The process involved taking a t-shirt, wrapping it up in rubber bands, in your own way, and dying it to create a one of a kind shirt. Eventually, the idea became so diluted and prostituted, the result was the opposite of the intent. We now have mass produced tie dye shirts, millions of them all looking exactly the same. The same people who once created it in their basement washtubs are now content to pick it off a retail clothing rack.

When Wierwille was teaching from the church pulpit in the 1940's and 1950's it was probably not such a big deal to stand in front of 75-100 people and deliver someone else's sermon. It was still plagiarism, deceptive and wrong, but who was going to know? Enter the era of television. Suddenly, the world became a smaller place. Information flowed more freely but it was still limited in scope. Wierwille played on that limitation. We no longer live in that world. People have the ability to uncover deceitful practices like plagiarism with the click of a mouse. Plagiarism was always wrong, that hasn't changed. What has changed is our ability to protect ourselves from it.

Edited February 10, 2016 by waysider

[Bolshevik]

. .

As for harkening to a time when plagiarism was viewed as more trivial, I've personally never heard a wayfer make this case. It has always been more a matter of minimizing - saying VPW acknowledged he learned from many sources even if he didn't cite properly, the thing that matters is that the message got out - that sort of thing.

. . .

Yes I've heard minimizing plagiarism. And seen the shocked look in response that anyone would accuse VPW of that. Go to the Victor Paul Wierwille Prevailing Word Auditorium and look at all the pictures on the wall of those other people he met. THERE is his credit to THEM, for all wayfers to see and acknowledge, VPW had help from other people.

I've been told from numerous sources "you're too young to know what happened back then" or some variation. Therefore, VPW's plagiarism is a gray area. My bias, being from a different time, means I have no right to accuse VPW of plagiarism.

[shortfuse]

I can appreciate your frustration. For those inside the group, there is scarcely a transgression that can not be over looked when it comes to their perceived value in having "the rightly divided Word" and residing in "the household." They are willing to suffer a lot for the privilege.. Whether the plagiarism (which is in my view a lesser matter) or the adultery, manipulation and abuse committed by Wierwille and his underlings (considerably bigger matters), all of these things remain strangely dismissible.

Lurking Wayfers: Ask yourself why this is?

Ultimately, I started this thread with one thing in mind. Acknowledging for my own sake, yes, plagiarism was and is a big deal. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong, and I'm sorry, TWI, I can't let you off the hook.

[spectrum49]

I'm not sure if this is off topic.

It's probably hard to imagine that the same TWI, known today for its rigidity and legalism was once a place were people thought they were experiencing a new freedom.

He used other peoples' works to create that false atmosphere and claimed it came to him through profound insight. He was an opportunist who used other peoples' ideas for his own personal gain. Why do people still try to justify that? I don't know the answer.

I remember "the early days" (1st PFAL in '75). GRACE was a big thing then --- and perhaps even too big at times! But I'll tell ya what --- If I had only the choice between too much grace or too much legalism, I'd choose the GRACE every time!

BTW: A while back, I indicated that I see Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible as a veritable "blueprint" for PFAL, and in many ways it's Table of Contents appears just like a "detailed outline" to that foundational class. I had asked if anyone else has seen that, but there have been no answers on that as of yet.

Anyone?

SPEC

Edited February 10, 2016 by spectrum49

[Raf]

Yes. We have discussed that on this board many times.

Wierwille got "all author exception v. all without distinction" from Bullinger, among other ideas.

[spectrum49]

Yes. We have discussed that on this board many times.

Wierwille got "all author exception v. all without distinction" from Bullinger, among other ideas.

Thanks for confirming that for me, Raf. (And I didn't truly think you guys could have missed such a blatant example of plagiarism. (Ya don't miss very much, do ya?)

SPEC

Edited February 10, 2016 by spectrum49

[WordWolf]

The how all Scripture explains itself was straight out of that book.

Bullinger also wrote extensively on "Figures of Speech" and wrote a book

with that title.

Bullinger also wrote "Witness of the Stars", which was one of the 2

books that were used when writing "Jesus Christ: Our Promised Seed".

Bullinger also wrote 2 books, both with titles phrased as questions,

on the subject of the dead. vpw claimed to write a book on the subject,

with the same content included, and the title was phrased as a question.

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's

works,

most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?"

and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?"

Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark"

in addition to the content of the books.

[Twinky]

Spec - if you want to know a bit more about grace, try a read of Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?" or Swindoll's "The Grace Awakening."

Both are a jolly sight more "accessible" than PFAL.

[spectrum49]

The how all Scripture explains itself was straight out of that book.

Bullinger also wrote extensively on "Figures of Speech" and wrote a book

with that title.

Bullinger also wrote "Witness of the Stars", which was one of the 2

books that were used when writing "Jesus Christ: Our Promised Seed".

Bullinger also wrote 2 books, both with titles phrased as questions,

on the subject of the dead. vpw claimed to write a book on the subject,

with the same content included, and the title was phrased as a question.

"Are the Dead Alive Now?" is a compilation of some of Bullinger's

works,

most notably "the Rich Man and Lazarus: an Intermediate State?"

and "King Saul and the Witch of Endor: Did the Prophet Samuel Rise at Her Bidding?"

Most readers will note that vpw also ripped off the "title with question mark"

in addition to the content of the books.

Thanks for the info, Wordwolf. I was already aware of most those things, but the thing about the "?" is new to me.

Thanks again!

SPEC

Spec - if you want to know a bit more about grace, try a read of Yancey's "What's So Amazing About Grace?" or Swindoll's "The Grace Awakening."

Both are a jolly sight more "accessible" than PFAL.

Thanks Twinky! I may just take a look at that. I also have "my own take" on grace; perhaps I'll take the time to post that in the future.

SPEC:)

Edited February 11, 2016 by spectrum49

[Bolshevik]

I can appreciate your frustration. For those inside the group, there is scarcely a transgression that can not be over looked when it comes to their perceived value in having "the rightly divided Word" and residing in "the household." They are willing to suffer a lot for the privilege.. Whether the plagiarism (which is in my view a lesser matter) or the adultery, manipulation and abuse committed by Wierwille and his underlings (considerably bigger matters), all of these things remain strangely dismissible.

Lurking Wayfers: Ask yourself why this is?

Ultimately, I started this thread with one thing in mind. Acknowledging for my own sake, yes, plagiarism was and is a big deal. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong, and I'm sorry, TWI, I can't let you off the hook.

Minimizing is denial. Denying that the plagiarism is important is abusive behavior.

When you point out the plagiarism, and they minimize that fact, they are trying to encourage you to doubt yourself, rather than confront themselves. Do that enough and you begin to lose confidence in your own thinking. That's manipulative.

Yeah, I can see why you started this thread, as you mentioned. You're standing up for yourself.

Awesome, Dude.