In the late 80s it was done, and my impression was that it was done every year and was expected. In my experience, twi'ers paid retail for everything, always. For an alleged "church" group, that's unusual. The "church" groups twi usually made fun of didn't do that to their membership.
In the late 80s it was done, and my impression was that it was done every year and was expected. In my experience, twi'ers paid retail for everything, always. For an alleged "church" group, that's unusual. The "church" groups twi usually made fun of didn't do that to their membership.
Do you remember how much twi charged back then? Now, It's $175.00 for adults and children 12-18 and $60.00 for children 6-11.
I remember it did cost some money to attend. I also recall it took quite a significant effort to come up with the cash being on a military salary while raising a young family of four. Fifty dollars sticks in my mind.
Edited by Rusty Duck Eliminated repetitive statement. (need coffee)
I remember it did cost some money to attend. I also recall it took quite a significant effort to come up with the cash being on a military salary while raising a young family of four. Fifty dollars sticks in my mind.
Before I saw his reply, my first thought was "Fifty bucks." So, probably that, but I could be wrong.
Everything else was retail, too. Food costs were retail. Everything in the bookstore was retail. Showers cost money, but not a lot. Then again, they were set up more like an institution, so no privacy. Naturally, at least once during the evening teachings, they passed the baskets around for donations (in my experience, once a week during them, not once each night.) Interesting how food costs were retail, when the workers were all volunteers. As always, twi was organized to run everything at a profit, down to the least items. Pay the people nothing, pay nothing for locations/have the locals cover it out-of-pocket, charge everyone retail prices for all items, make everything possible in-house before charging retail, shake the people down for a 10% mandatory donation, then guilt them into giving more..... Although under lcm, the mandatory 10% went as high as 20%.
There was the mandatory "tithe" (which means "tenth" of 10%, 15 or 20% depending on the era. Then there were the shakedowns for "abundant sharing", which were above that, and people were guilted into paying. Under lcm (possibly sooner, but I only heard lcm speak of it), they invented "plurality giving." The concept there.... figure out what you need to live on. Everything else you make above that, you give to twi, period. Do not save money, do not invest money, do not pay for insurance. BTW, while doing this, you weren't allowed to go into debt, either.
How were people supposed to get anything?
Well, remember those family members who weren't in twi? The ones we were supposed to blow off if they weren't in twi? Well, we were expected to shake them down for financial help. The only savings allowed was to receive an inheritance when someone died or something....and you were expected to tithe on that, too.
Naturally, none of this applied to the people at the top, who lived well at twi's expense, not even counting any money that they received as a salary. rfr had twi peons working for her, doing her yardwork and housework and maintaining her boat, etc. twi covered any expenses there- not that the people were paid even like day laborers, they were serfs to twi. Naturally, all of that started with vpw, who considered anything belonging to twi as "his." Some things owned by twi were reserved for his specific use, and all expenses were paid for by twi. That was done after him, and if someone told me that stopped now, I'd say they didn't know what they thought they knew, and were being deceived by the people who still benefited from this system.
Before I saw his reply, my first thought was "Fifty bucks." So, probably that, but I could be wrong.
Everything else was retail, too. Food costs were retail. Everything in the bookstore was retail. Showers cost money, but not a lot. Then again, they were set up more like an institution, so no privacy. Naturally, at least once during the evening teachings, they passed the baskets around for donations (in my experience, once a week during them, not once each night.) Interesting how food costs were retail, when the workers were all volunteers. As always, twi was organized to run everything at a profit, down to the least items. Pay the people nothing, pay nothing for locations/have the locals cover it out-of-pocket, charge everyone retail prices for all items, make everything possible in-house before charging retail, shake the people down for a 10% mandatory donation, then guilt them into giving more..... Although under lcm, the mandatory 10% went as high as 20%.
There was the mandatory "tithe" (which means "tenth" of 10%, 15 or 20% depending on the era. Then there were the shakedowns for "abundant sharing", which were above that, and people were guilted into paying. Under lcm (possibly sooner, but I only heard lcm speak of it), they invented "plurality giving." The concept there.... figure out what you need to live on. Everything else you make above that, you give to twi, period. Do not save money, do not invest money, do not pay for insurance. BTW, while doing this, you weren't allowed to go into debt, either.
How were people supposed to get anything?
Well, remember those family members who weren't in twi? The ones we were supposed to blow off if they weren't in twi? Well, we were expected to shake them down for financial help. The only savings allowed was to receive an inheritance when someone died or something....and you were expected to tithe on that, too.
Naturally, none of this applied to the people at the top, who lived well at twi's expense, not even counting any money that they received as a salary. rfr had twi peons working for her, doing her yardwork and housework and maintaining her boat, etc. twi covered any expenses there- not that the people were paid even like day laborers, they were serfs to twi. Naturally, all of that started with vpw, who considered anything belonging to twi as "his." Some things owned by twi were reserved for his specific use, and all expenses were paid for by twi. That was done after him, and if someone told me that stopped now, I'd say they didn't know what they thought they knew, and were being deceived by the people who still benefited from this system.
I believe it was in penwork's Undertow book where she mentioned the large piles of money that came in during the ROA from passing the baskets. I'll look it up because I was amazed how barrels full of cash were carted off somewhere to be counted.
Studying how twi's book "Christians Should be Prosperous" was wrong according to scripture and then being insulted and dismissed by the top leadership when I went to discuss it with him was the day I walked away from twi without ever looking back.
I believe it was in penwork's Undertow book where she mentioned the large piles of money that came in during the ROA from passing the baskets. I'll look it up because I was amazed how barrels full of cash were carted off somewhere to be counted.
Studying how twi's book "Christians Should be Prosperous" was wrong according to scripture and then being insulted and dismissed by the top leadership when I went to discuss it with him was the day I walked away from twi without ever looking back.
This reminded me of the vivid imagery in a post from Skyrider. Couldn't remember the title of that thread, but I found it very quickly when I searched that unforgettable phrase, "trash cans of cash."
This reminded me of the vivid imagery in a post from Skyrider. Couldn't remember the title of that thread, but I found it very quickly when I searched that unforgettable phrase, "trash cans of cash."
I'm thinking now this is where I had read about the barrels/trash cans of money, not in the book "Undertow." Thanks for looking it up Nathan. Skyrider did not write whether this collection of cash was each night of the ROA or one specific night as WordWolf remembers it. Rounding up this much money every night would have been astounding.
I'm thinking now this is where I had read about the barrels/trash cans of money, not in the book "Undertow." Thanks for looking it up Nathan. Skyrider did not write whether this collection of cash was each night of the ROA or one specific night as WordWolf remembers it. Rounding up this much money every night would have been astounding.
P.S. I miss Skyrider very much.
WordWolf and others would have a better understanding of what Sky meant, but I understood it as an accumulation of cash at one event on one day, "the big meeting" -- where hermeneutical fallacies, contrived definitions and imaginary grammar flowed like...well, cash.
Here's the quote from Skyrider's reply to Rocky in that thread...
"As you noted, I wouldn't begin to guesstimate how much cash went undisclosed "under the table." I remember ushering and collecting horns of plenty at roa in the early 80s. You know, when wierwille did the big meeting and abs-push for all that twi had done for you.
In each section, we collected the horns of plenty with cash only and were strategically told to take these to the OSC Building, thru the big door where they parked the fire truck. At the back of this room (out of sight from the general public).... there were like 8 clean trash barrels for us to dump the cash into. I do not remember seeing one check (only cash) in all the activity. Make no mistake... the security guys were watching all of this movement like hawks. I got the impression that they didn't even trust Limb/Region guys from sticking their grubby little paws into these horns and pocketing some money for themselves.
What happened to these trash cans of cash. Well, I have no idea, but was given the impression that they were swiftly taken to the Finance Department for counting and safe keeping. All of it, cash. How would any one ever know if major sums never made it on the books? Whose to say that one (or two) trash cans of cash never even made it to the Finance Department? Everyone was glued to their chairs as wierwille opened his Bible and began teaching. Slick, nice diversion."
It wasn't just the ROA, either. Whenever vpw made a visit to people "out on the field", it was an experience all around. Sometimes he was put up in someone's house, and we've had a few horror stories about that. One female poster mentioned vpw exposing himself to her and smiling. Whether or not he was put up in someone's house, someone was assigned a little shopping list. People who never smoked were sent to buy Kool Shorties for him, people who didn't drink were trying to figure out where to buy this Drambuie he drank. And every time, there was always a passing of the horn, and he was handed an envelope full of cash. Nice, untraceable cash. I'm sure the IRS never heard about any of that, just as the ROA cash donations would be news to them also, little undocumented, undeclared assets.
Whenever vpw visited a place, they assigned people to buy his creature comforts out of pocket (like bottles of Drambuie as one poster reported- their first experience buying alcohol.) On top of everything else, they took up collections of nice, untraceable cash which was handed over to vpw in a bag. I'm sure he was happy not to report that to the IRS. He also made no secret that he could-and did- go to the twi treasurer whenever he felt like he needed some cash, and got it. ALSO, a LOT of things owned by twi were reserved for his SOLE use, and he called them "MY STUFF."
My experiences as a Way Corps leader back in the 1970s and 1980s included providing those "perks" for VPW that WordWolf mentioned. So WordWolf is not making up what he posted.
That is the kind of man he was. Take those perks, drink that booze, sexually assault women and get away with it. Too many women have told me their stories, independently from one another, not to believe that is true.
So that is the man that followers of The Way even TODAY praise as a "great man of God." Actions speak louder than words ...
My experiences as a Way Corps leader back in the 1970s and 1980s included providing those "perks" for VPW that WordWolf mentioned. So WordWolf is not making up what he posted.
That is the kind of man he was. Take those perks, drink that booze, sexually assault women and get away with it. Too many women have told me their stories, independently from one another, not to believe that is true.
So that is the man that followers of The Way even TODAY praise as a "great man of God." Actions speak louder than words ...
We know the exact brand of nicotine products he smoked. We know the exact type of alcohol he drank. How many churches do you think have that as common knowledge among the rank-and-file? Right- most ministers don't smoke and many or most don't drink.
BTW, he often chided people for lack of self-discipline. This was from a man notorious for angry fits without explanation or warning, whose addiction to tobacco killed him, and who was a chronic alcoholic.
Don't believe me that he was a "chronic alcoholic"?
We know what he drank. When he was away from the office for a few days, people were assigned to buy some for him. He couldn't manage a weekend without it? We also know that he carried a coffee mug around a lot- which didn't have coffee in it. When he was expected to speak, he had a system in place to cover alcohol breath. He had as a requirement that a bowl of mints be provided right where he was supposed to speak. When he would show up, he would put a mint in his mouth, break it in half- to release the most effective breath coverage all at once, then start speaking. We know that because he was once misunderstood. He explained to someone that he broke the mints in half- but didn't explain about covering alcohol breath. They went off thinking he likes mints broken in half. So, the bowls started to have mints pre-broken in half. That lasted until he finally complained, they explained, and he clarified that he broke them in his mouth (without explaining it covered alcohol breath.) So, he had procedures in place to help cover his chronic drinking.
His chronic smoking is what gave him the cancer that killed him. We had long arguments about this. vpw insisted that the cancer was caused by the bright studio lights he used for 2 weeks while recording pfal. Ask any actor- bright studio lights do not cause cancer. If they did, Broadway and London's West End would be full of horror stories of great actors and actresses who got cancer when they did a 3-month run of a show. We're supposed to believe 2 weeks of those lights would give cancer. The only evidence of bright lights causing cancer came up when looking at professional WELDERS who didn't wear a welding mask. So, if you're teaching by the light of an OXY-ACETYLENE TORCH, you might be at risk for cancer, but even then, not so likely if you only do it for 2 weeks. We do know that chronic alcohol consumption weakens the immune system, making it easier to die from cancer, since your immune system is being beaten up when it's needed most. We also know that tobacco smoke exposure to eyes is a risk factor for getting eye cancer. So, vpw smoked a lot, and delivered a lot of smoke to his eyes, over decades. He got eye cancer, which spread and killed him, and his immune system was not able to fight it off. Which makes more sense?
A) His chronic smoking started the cancer, and his chronic drinking multiplied the cancer's effectiveness in killing him.
or
B) 2 weeks of exposure to lights that don't cause cancer mysteriously caused him to get cancer over a decade later.
To quote vpw himself, "You would have to be stupider than stupid" to think it was the bright lights.
The only reason to even consider the lights is because vpw said it. Big surprise... the man was a liar, and he lied often, to everyone. His saying something is true is proof of nothing. The man lied all the time, without guilt and without hesitation.
we've previously discussed and whether or not he was completely a fraud. That is, was he even a Christian at all, or was it all an act from the beginning? Was he a Christian once whose sins dominated his ministry, or was he a fraud from the beginning of his career?
We know- by his own wording- that he chose ministry out of 3 possible careers, besides business or entertainment, and it was a toss-up. The only indications he was actually interested in God before his decision was 2 anecdotes- and vpw lied a lot. One anecdote was when he was a kid. A preacher showed up and preached at his local church. When the preacher asked him what he planned to be when he grew up, vpw supposedly said he wanted to be a man of God like the preacher. vpw followed this up with saying that he'd thought that he himself wasn't serious when he said it. "You know how kids talk." So, even he didn't believe that story. The other story was that he would shirk his chores as a kid and run off into the woods for hours. When there were no witnesses, he supposedly was off "preaching to the trees" and practicing how to preach. Naturally, nobody came forward and said they ever saw him do it, even once. Even more naturally, vpw- most obviously a big plagiarist- plagiarized that story as well as all the others he plagiarized. ORAL ROBERTS preached to the trees. He fought his own stage fright by going among trees and got used to addressing them as if they were the public, making altar calls and so on. Now, with the internet, that story is easy to find, and easy to trace to Oral Roberts. In vpw's lifetime, it was a LOT harder to catch him plagiarizing, without access to the internet. We know that his efforts in school leading up to the ministry were slack enough that his father had to get involved for vpw to be allowed to continue his education. By vpw's own admission, when he claimed to choose the ministry, his own father pointed out he lacked the discipline to be a decent farmer, and thought the ministry would require MORE dedication.
When in divinity school, vpw chose the SOFTEST option available- preaching. He skipped studying church history, church languages, and so on. Later, he pretended to know both, but, as we've seen since. he was awful at both. His area of study was "homiletics"- or putting together sermons. How hard is that? Most of the posters here, if not all the posters here, have done it at some point, when in twi. We called them "teachings" but they were sermons by another name. vpw went to school for it, we did not. That's how soft an option that was. According to vpw himself, when he was first assigned a church to pastor, the local elders gave him almost no instructions. Rather than focus on what his congregation needed, he supposedly spent the entire first month focusing on going completely against what the local elders had said, and mouthed off to them when they confronted them on it. The story rings hollow and sounds made-up because they didn't have him removed and the church locals didn't stop attending when he spent his entire first month focusing ALL of his sermons on giving money to the church. However, as a lie, it shows his frame of mind- that he thinks that this is an appropriate lie to tell of his early days as a preacher. And he didn't spin this as "but I learned better and I thank God I'm not like that any more", he gave that as an example of his frame of mind, that he chafed at authority so much he would preach "up" if he was told to preach on "down,", and focusing all his sermons on talking people into giving him money was fine. Did you think it was a new thing with him that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (why I should give twi my money) was mandatory reading for all pfal students, a book they paid for with their pfal tuition, a book they paid retail prices for, a book printed in-house for a LOT less than they paid?
He got a job editing the sermons and articles of other Christians. Shortly thereafter, he got used to re-preaching whatever they'd worked at. In short, in his entire career, he plagiarized freely whenever and wherever he was able. He himself admitted that he's completed his entire divinity education, and spent his entire first year preaching BEFORE he ever believed the Bible was the Word of God. Is it even possible to believe a man could spend that much time as a GENUINE ministry student and preacher and not have that as A foundation for everything if not THE foundation for everything? By his own admission, TWICE in his first year as a preacher, he considered giving up as a minister. I'm supposed to believe he was a dedicated, GENUINE minister when he kept looking back and considering hanging it all up. What changed everything? All evidence points to him ripping off/plagiarizing BG Leonard's class, and JE Stiles book, both in the same year, and making those the 1.0 version and following of pfal. (The very first pfal class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", was a ripoff clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail, and remained so until he added Stiles' work, then Bullinger's work.)
All evidence points to him being a fraud from the beginning. Every step was calculated as a business move, and none of it was "at the behest of God Almighty." When all of this came up, the counter-argument- the claim that vpw was always actually genuine, was entirely based on four things.
A) Everything he taught was accurate, and of God, so he must have been connected to God to be that correct. vpw claimed to work by revelation, so he must have been working by revelation. As it turns out, the main reasons to believe he worked by revelation were his own claims he did so, and certainly all claims everything he taught was accurate run the same way- since we've examined some of his work and found errors all over it. Understandable as human error, but a problem if supposedly it was ALL by revelation, and so on.
B) vpw claimed "the 1942 promise." vpw claimed God Almighty spoke to him, and that was the basis for his preaching, and of the material he presented later. It didn't take a lot of work to show that these claims didn't hold water. They fell apart easily when examined. Once again, vpw, a chronic liar, had lied to his congregation.
C) I feel really blessed when I hear his teachings, and I felt really blessed when I was in twi, so vpw must have been genuine. Well, genuine Christians were in twi, and there was genuine, plagiarized material. I could see either blessing someone, even if vpw was a complete fraud. Furthermore, by vpw's own admission, feeling really blessed when he himself taught meant nothing- some people make similar claims about sitting on a Psychiatrist's couch (something he denigrated, probably because he was in competition with Psychiatrists who completed medical school.) So, those claims don't hold water, either.
D) vpw sounded really sincere when he taught for decades, and supposedly nobody could sound sincere faking it for decades.
YES THEY COULD.
Now, none of US could do that, because we have a conscience. A true sociopath (like vpw) could brazenly go for decades, presenting things he didn't believe, to people who did believe them, in order to bring in the money. Certainly, any half-decent actor- or any half-skilled CON ARTIST- could do it for an entire sermon, given the right materials (like being able to plagiarize all the materials, the presentations, and so on, from real preachers.) So long as it was clear it was all for the stage, any decent actor could keep doing it- like Steve Martin performing in the movie "Leap of Faith". But his conscience would bother him if he pretended to be real while faking it and actually preaching at the pulpit. Heck, early acting exercises have actors practicing to speak convincingly while speaking literal gibberish. Any number of politicians have gone and given speeches they didn't really believe, and delivered them with gusto, as if they believed them. (No examples, please, politics is off-limits at the GSC.)
I once saw comedian/actor John Candy deliver an example of that. He got onstage pretending to be a member of the Canadian Parliament. All of the MPs are supposed to be bilingual in English and French, but many don't know much French, and that was the basis for the joke. With lots of florid hand gestures and looking "genuine", he delivered a speech in French- in poorly-pronounced French. The subtitles clued English-speakers in on the jokes. "Good evening and welcome. I do not speak French. This speech was written for me by someone else, and I don't understand a word I am saying. I am a fat English pig." The entire time, that was delivered every bit as if he was giving a genuine speech. It's the example I know best, but it's common enough for actors. Faking it can be done if someone's conscience doesn't stop them. So, the only remaining objection doesn't hold water, either.
Oh, there was also the "argument" that vpw was real because he spoke in tongues. No matter what twi said and says now, speaking in tongues can be faked, speaking in tongues with interpretation can be faked, word of prophecy can be faked. We had some heavy discussions as to whether or not they WERE ALL faked, or if they simply WERE faked LOTS OF TIMES. We know some were faked because some of us faked them at the time- all while trying to be genuine and meaning well, but faking it anyway because that's how we were taught. Now, I actually changed my position as a result of these discussions. I once believed it was all real, and now believe all the "speaking in tongues/interpretation" of twi and that style was and are all faked. (I'm convinced most of the "word of prophecy" was faked, but not all of it, I believe some of it was genuine.) Nobody is required to agree with me, but it's clear enough that SIT CAN be faked. So, the idea that vpw should be believed to be genuine because he was seen to SIT doesn't hold water either- it can be faked. Why do people believe it can't be faked? That's what we were taught by vpw- a man who lied to us all the time.
Do you know the difference between "sincere" and "insincere"? vpw didn't. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle has to BE really sincere. UNTRUE. The man has to FAKE sincerity, he has to APPEAR sincere. Unless he is a complete moron, he would have to know such a product is defective and useless for its proclaimed purpose. He would be trying to con you, and APPEAR sincere while he FAKED his sincerity. Why would vpw be unable to understand such a simple distinction? It was part of his character. To him, there was no difference between BEING sincere- meaning it from the heart- and FAKING sincerity- looking like you meant it from the heart but faking all of it, making a performance with a genuine appearance.
All evidence points to vpw having been a fraud from Day One. Oh, perhaps something, somewhere was genuine, but being 100% fake and being 95% fake pretty much look the same.
My experiences as a Way Corps leader back in the 1970s and 1980s included providing those "perks" for VPW that WordWolf mentioned. So WordWolf is not making up what he posted.
That is the kind of man he was. Take those perks, drink that booze, sexually assault women and get away with it. Too many women have told me their stories, independently from one another, not to believe that is true.
So that is the man that followers of The Way even TODAY praise as a "great man of God." Actions speak louder than words ...
It's interesting to me how many people have CLAIMED to believe the Bible, but who have freely discarded the Biblical exhortations for conduct- but only when it comes to vpw. They will only accept an UNBiblical standard for evidence as to whether or not to believe vpw was capable of evil, and performed evil.
I Timothy 5: 19-20
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
II Corinthians 13: 1
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Deuteronomy 19:15
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Now, we're not required to follow the Mosaic Law, and I wasn't advocating for vpw to be executed. In case someone wants to fog the issue, that's a non-issue, the point is that matters are considered established, BIBLICALLY, at the mouths of THREE witnesses. MANY MORE than 3 witnesses have come forth testifying of vpw as a rapist and a molester. But some people are more willing to discard the Bible as God's Word than vpw as the false teacher of God's Word, taking his word at things as having greater authority than the Bible from which he supposedly taught.
We've even heard people who claimed that-since vpw was never brought before civil authorities- he gets a free pass. He wasn't arrested when he was alive, and that's largely due to the elaborate system he devised to keep him from being caught- and especially the system used to monitor women who might report him. Ever heard the doctrine of the "lockbox"? It's not in the Bible- it was invented by vpw to cover his tracks. Since he said so, and since we all bought into the nonsense that he was a real, principled man of God, we all bought into the nonsense that "lockbox" was Biblical. (At least those of us who were taught it.)
BTW, a criminal who's never caught is still a criminal. A murderer isn't a murdered because he's caught, he's a murderer because he's killed someone. vpw was a rapist and a molester because he raped and molested. His not being arrested for it doesn't change that. According to the Bible, it's not hard to see, and not hard to call him a rapist and a molester. But because it's vpw, who taught people he was a special exception, some people are willing to make a special exception for him. Don't they see how circular that reasoning is? The only basis for him as an authority is his claim that he is so- which is believed because he claimed it and was an authority, but we only have his claim to say he's an authority. When exposed to the light, vpw's foul deeds are easy to see,
Is it all an unpleasant read? To say the least, yes. That makes it no less true.
Oh, and I don't spend my life throwing darts at photos of him. My life revolves around my life, not his sins. But people upset that vpw was caught sometimes malign either his victims who have come forth, or people who expose his evil deeds. To them, his rapes and molestations are forgivable, but for a woman to come forth and admit he raped or molested her- THAT is the REAL evil.
Today I earned that victor not only ripped off Oral Robert's Fourth Man sermon, he claimed as his own Robert's personal story of preaching to the trees.
WITAF!
This is as petty and weak as his plagiarizing poetry.
Today I earned that victor not only ripped off Oral Robert's Fourth Man sermon, he claimed as his own Robert's personal story of preaching to the trees.
WITAF!
This is as petty and weak as his plagiarizing poetry.
When I was in junior high school, I learned plagiarism is wrong. Obviously, he heard it was wrong in high school, college, and PTS. He simply chose to completely disregard that. A man to be trusted with the things of God Almighty, and he can't even be trusted with the things of man.
BTW,
I once heard that it was OK for him to plagiarize.
First, God Almighty told him to plagiarize.
Second, God Almighty authorized it, so it was OK.
Third, all Christian writings belong to God, so copyright doesn't count.
Fourth, the other Christians who were plagiarized from were OK with it.
I'm not going to address the first 3. If you're hearing God telling people to break the law, you need more help than I can provide. As for the other Christians, most of them were dead (Bullinger, Kenyon, etc.) He didn't let Stiles or Leonard know when he plagiarized them. In fact, when he plagiarized Leonard for the first time, he told Leonard he was going to run Leonard's class on location ONE TIME. Instead, he told all the students it was his OWN class and kept doing it. The content was identical to Leonard's class. Eventually, Leonard found out. He didn't sue vpw but he added elaborate notices about copyright and railed about theft. As for all Christian writings belonging to God, vpw certainly didn't believe that- he slapped copyright notices on every single thing twi put out.
I also heard
Fifth, shame on the other Christians for objecting to vpw plagiarizing their work.
Sixth, it was appropriate for vpw to plagiarize their works, but his weren't supposed to be plagiarized.
That last one was based on the completely-disproven 1942 promise. It's been disproven beyond any REASONABLE doubt. I'm sure there's still UNreasonable doubt, beyond which nothing can be proven. Any sensible person could see it, however.
7th, "if it's the truth, what does it matter if he plagiarized?"
Except so much of what he plagiarized isn't true or accurate. And I don't mean doctrinal positions -- that's a matter of belief, opinion, preference. Also, to plagiarize is to lie. The liar can't convey the truth - simple math.
It's not the truth because victor says so. If one must dishonestly twist the text to say and mean what it plainly does not, it's not the truth. Test all things.
We've advanced a long, long way in our understanding of Koine Greek since Bullinger and his Victorian sensibilities. Bullinger is outdated. There are better, more accurate lexicons available today. Not to mention easily reproved, corrected and refuted imaginations like the four-crucified stupidity.
7th, "if it's the truth, what does it matter if he plagiarized?"
Except so much of what he plagiarized isn't true or accurate. And I don't mean doctrinal positions -- that's a matter of belief, opinion, preference. Also, to plagiarize is to lie. The liar can't convey the truth - simple math.
It's not the truth because victor says so. If one must dishonestly twist the text to say and mean what it plainly does not, it's not the truth. Test all things.
We've advanced a long, long way in our understanding of Koine Greek since Bullinger and his Victorian sensibilities. Bullinger is outdated. There are better, more accurate lexicons available today. Not to mention easily reproved, corrected and refuted imaginations like the four-crucified stupidity.
From Goodreads, a blurb about Levi Roach's book
An in-depth exploration of documentary forgery at the turn of the first millennium
Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium takes a fresh look at documentary forgery and historical memory in the Middle Ages. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, religious houses across Europe began falsifying texts to improve local documentary records on an unprecedented scale. As Levi Roach illustrates, the resulting wave of forgery signaled major shifts in society and political culture, shifts which would lay the foundations for the European ancien régime.
Spanning documentary traditions across France, England, Germany and northern Italy, Roach examines five sets of falsified texts to demonstrate how forged records produced in this period gave voice to new collective identities within and beyond the Church. Above all, he indicates how this fad for falsification points to new attitudes toward past and present―a developing fascination with the signs of antiquity. These conclusions revise traditional master narratives about the development of antiquarianism in the modern era, showing that medieval forgers were every bit as sophisticated as their Renaissance successors. Medieval forgers were simply interested in different subjects―the history of the Church and their local realms, rather than the literary world of classical antiquity.
A comparative history of falsified records at a crucial turning point in the Middle Ages, Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium offers valuable insights into how institutions and individuals rewrote and reimagined the past.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
In the late 80s it was done, and my impression was that it was done every year and was expected. In my experience, twi'ers paid retail for everything, always. For an alleged "church" group, that's unusual. The "church" groups twi usually made fun of didn't do that to their membership.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Do you remember how much twi charged back then? Now, It's $175.00 for adults and children 12-18 and $60.00 for children 6-11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rusty Duck
I remember it did cost some money to attend. I also recall it took quite a significant effort to come up with the cash being on a military salary while raising a young family of four. Fifty dollars sticks in my mind.
Edited by Rusty DuckEliminated repetitive statement. (need coffee)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Before I saw his reply, my first thought was "Fifty bucks." So, probably that, but I could be wrong.
Everything else was retail, too. Food costs were retail. Everything in the bookstore was retail. Showers cost money, but not a lot. Then again, they were set up more like an institution, so no privacy. Naturally, at least once during the evening teachings, they passed the baskets around for donations (in my experience, once a week during them, not once each night.) Interesting how food costs were retail, when the workers were all volunteers. As always, twi was organized to run everything at a profit, down to the least items. Pay the people nothing, pay nothing for locations/have the locals cover it out-of-pocket, charge everyone retail prices for all items, make everything possible in-house before charging retail, shake the people down for a 10% mandatory donation, then guilt them into giving more..... Although under lcm, the mandatory 10% went as high as 20%.
There was the mandatory "tithe" (which means "tenth" of 10%, 15 or 20% depending on the era. Then there were the shakedowns for "abundant sharing", which were above that, and people were guilted into paying. Under lcm (possibly sooner, but I only heard lcm speak of it), they invented "plurality giving." The concept there.... figure out what you need to live on. Everything else you make above that, you give to twi, period. Do not save money, do not invest money, do not pay for insurance. BTW, while doing this, you weren't allowed to go into debt, either.
How were people supposed to get anything?
Well, remember those family members who weren't in twi? The ones we were supposed to blow off if they weren't in twi? Well, we were expected to shake them down for financial help. The only savings allowed was to receive an inheritance when someone died or something....and you were expected to tithe on that, too.
Naturally, none of this applied to the people at the top, who lived well at twi's expense, not even counting any money that they received as a salary. rfr had twi peons working for her, doing her yardwork and housework and maintaining her boat, etc. twi covered any expenses there- not that the people were paid even like day laborers, they were serfs to twi. Naturally, all of that started with vpw, who considered anything belonging to twi as "his." Some things owned by twi were reserved for his specific use, and all expenses were paid for by twi. That was done after him, and if someone told me that stopped now, I'd say they didn't know what they thought they knew, and were being deceived by the people who still benefited from this system.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I believe it was in penwork's Undertow book where she mentioned the large piles of money that came in during the ROA from passing the baskets. I'll look it up because I was amazed how barrels full of cash were carted off somewhere to be counted.
Studying how twi's book "Christians Should be Prosperous" was wrong according to scripture and then being insulted and dismissed by the top leadership when I went to discuss it with him was the day I walked away from twi without ever looking back.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This reminded me of the vivid imagery in a post from Skyrider. Couldn't remember the title of that thread, but I found it very quickly when I searched that unforgettable phrase, "trash cans of cash."
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I'm thinking now this is where I had read about the barrels/trash cans of money, not in the book "Undertow." Thanks for looking it up Nathan. Skyrider did not write whether this collection of cash was each night of the ROA or one specific night as WordWolf remembers it. Rounding up this much money every night would have been astounding.
P.S. I miss Skyrider very much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
WordWolf and others would have a better understanding of what Sky meant, but I understood it as an accumulation of cash at one event on one day, "the big meeting" -- where hermeneutical fallacies, contrived definitions and imaginary grammar flowed like...well, cash.
Here's the quote from Skyrider's reply to Rocky in that thread...
"As you noted, I wouldn't begin to guesstimate how much cash went undisclosed "under the table." I remember ushering and collecting horns of plenty at roa in the early 80s. You know, when wierwille did the big meeting and abs-push for all that twi had done for you.
In each section, we collected the horns of plenty with cash only and were strategically told to take these to the OSC Building, thru the big door where they parked the fire truck. At the back of this room (out of sight from the general public).... there were like 8 clean trash barrels for us to dump the cash into. I do not remember seeing one check (only cash) in all the activity. Make no mistake... the security guys were watching all of this movement like hawks. I got the impression that they didn't even trust Limb/Region guys from sticking their grubby little paws into these horns and pocketing some money for themselves.
What happened to these trash cans of cash. Well, I have no idea, but was given the impression that they were swiftly taken to the Finance Department for counting and safe keeping. All of it, cash. How would any one ever know if major sums never made it on the books? Whose to say that one (or two) trash cans of cash never even made it to the Finance Department? Everyone was glued to their chairs as wierwille opened his Bible and began teaching. Slick, nice diversion."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It wasn't just the ROA, either. Whenever vpw made a visit to people "out on the field", it was an experience all around. Sometimes he was put up in someone's house, and we've had a few horror stories about that. One female poster mentioned vpw exposing himself to her and smiling. Whether or not he was put up in someone's house, someone was assigned a little shopping list. People who never smoked were sent to buy Kool Shorties for him, people who didn't drink were trying to figure out where to buy this Drambuie he drank. And every time, there was always a passing of the horn, and he was handed an envelope full of cash. Nice, untraceable cash. I'm sure the IRS never heard about any of that, just as the ROA cash donations would be news to them also, little undocumented, undeclared assets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Whenever vpw visited a place, they assigned people to buy his creature comforts out of pocket (like bottles of Drambuie as one poster reported- their first experience buying alcohol.) On top of everything else, they took up collections of nice, untraceable cash which was handed over to vpw in a bag. I'm sure he was happy not to report that to the IRS. He also made no secret that he could-and did- go to the twi treasurer whenever he felt like he needed some cash, and got it. ALSO, a LOT of things owned by twi were reserved for his SOLE use, and he called them "MY STUFF."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peruser
Recall every year i went ('75-94) the entrance ticket was $25.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
My experiences as a Way Corps leader back in the 1970s and 1980s included providing those "perks" for VPW that WordWolf mentioned. So WordWolf is not making up what he posted.
That is the kind of man he was. Take those perks, drink that booze, sexually assault women and get away with it. Too many women have told me their stories, independently from one another, not to believe that is true.
So that is the man that followers of The Way even TODAY praise as a "great man of God." Actions speak louder than words ...
Edited by penworksLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
We know the exact brand of nicotine products he smoked. We know the exact type of alcohol he drank. How many churches do you think have that as common knowledge among the rank-and-file? Right- most ministers don't smoke and many or most don't drink.
BTW, he often chided people for lack of self-discipline. This was from a man notorious for angry fits without explanation or warning, whose addiction to tobacco killed him, and who was a chronic alcoholic.
Don't believe me that he was a "chronic alcoholic"?
We know what he drank. When he was away from the office for a few days, people were assigned to buy some for him. He couldn't manage a weekend without it? We also know that he carried a coffee mug around a lot- which didn't have coffee in it. When he was expected to speak, he had a system in place to cover alcohol breath. He had as a requirement that a bowl of mints be provided right where he was supposed to speak. When he would show up, he would put a mint in his mouth, break it in half- to release the most effective breath coverage all at once, then start speaking. We know that because he was once misunderstood. He explained to someone that he broke the mints in half- but didn't explain about covering alcohol breath. They went off thinking he likes mints broken in half. So, the bowls started to have mints pre-broken in half. That lasted until he finally complained, they explained, and he clarified that he broke them in his mouth (without explaining it covered alcohol breath.) So, he had procedures in place to help cover his chronic drinking.
His chronic smoking is what gave him the cancer that killed him. We had long arguments about this. vpw insisted that the cancer was caused by the bright studio lights he used for 2 weeks while recording pfal. Ask any actor- bright studio lights do not cause cancer. If they did, Broadway and London's West End would be full of horror stories of great actors and actresses who got cancer when they did a 3-month run of a show. We're supposed to believe 2 weeks of those lights would give cancer. The only evidence of bright lights causing cancer came up when looking at professional WELDERS who didn't wear a welding mask. So, if you're teaching by the light of an OXY-ACETYLENE TORCH, you might be at risk for cancer, but even then, not so likely if you only do it for 2 weeks. We do know that chronic alcohol consumption weakens the immune system, making it easier to die from cancer, since your immune system is being beaten up when it's needed most. We also know that tobacco smoke exposure to eyes is a risk factor for getting eye cancer. So, vpw smoked a lot, and delivered a lot of smoke to his eyes, over decades. He got eye cancer, which spread and killed him, and his immune system was not able to fight it off. Which makes more sense?
A) His chronic smoking started the cancer, and his chronic drinking multiplied the cancer's effectiveness in killing him.
or
B) 2 weeks of exposure to lights that don't cause cancer mysteriously caused him to get cancer over a decade later.
To quote vpw himself, "You would have to be stupider than stupid" to think it was the bright lights.
The only reason to even consider the lights is because vpw said it. Big surprise... the man was a liar, and he lied often, to everyone. His saying something is true is proof of nothing. The man lied all the time, without guilt and without hesitation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
"Stupider than stupid" = four-crucified stupid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Dat's riiiight!... Er sumptin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW,
we've previously discussed and whether or not he was completely a fraud. That is, was he even a Christian at all, or was it all an act from the beginning? Was he a Christian once whose sins dominated his ministry, or was he a fraud from the beginning of his career?
We know- by his own wording- that he chose ministry out of 3 possible careers, besides business or entertainment, and it was a toss-up. The only indications he was actually interested in God before his decision was 2 anecdotes- and vpw lied a lot. One anecdote was when he was a kid. A preacher showed up and preached at his local church. When the preacher asked him what he planned to be when he grew up, vpw supposedly said he wanted to be a man of God like the preacher. vpw followed this up with saying that he'd thought that he himself wasn't serious when he said it. "You know how kids talk." So, even he didn't believe that story. The other story was that he would shirk his chores as a kid and run off into the woods for hours. When there were no witnesses, he supposedly was off "preaching to the trees" and practicing how to preach. Naturally, nobody came forward and said they ever saw him do it, even once. Even more naturally, vpw- most obviously a big plagiarist- plagiarized that story as well as all the others he plagiarized. ORAL ROBERTS preached to the trees. He fought his own stage fright by going among trees and got used to addressing them as if they were the public, making altar calls and so on. Now, with the internet, that story is easy to find, and easy to trace to Oral Roberts. In vpw's lifetime, it was a LOT harder to catch him plagiarizing, without access to the internet. We know that his efforts in school leading up to the ministry were slack enough that his father had to get involved for vpw to be allowed to continue his education. By vpw's own admission, when he claimed to choose the ministry, his own father pointed out he lacked the discipline to be a decent farmer, and thought the ministry would require MORE dedication.
When in divinity school, vpw chose the SOFTEST option available- preaching. He skipped studying church history, church languages, and so on. Later, he pretended to know both, but, as we've seen since. he was awful at both. His area of study was "homiletics"- or putting together sermons. How hard is that? Most of the posters here, if not all the posters here, have done it at some point, when in twi. We called them "teachings" but they were sermons by another name. vpw went to school for it, we did not. That's how soft an option that was. According to vpw himself, when he was first assigned a church to pastor, the local elders gave him almost no instructions. Rather than focus on what his congregation needed, he supposedly spent the entire first month focusing on going completely against what the local elders had said, and mouthed off to them when they confronted them on it. The story rings hollow and sounds made-up because they didn't have him removed and the church locals didn't stop attending when he spent his entire first month focusing ALL of his sermons on giving money to the church. However, as a lie, it shows his frame of mind- that he thinks that this is an appropriate lie to tell of his early days as a preacher. And he didn't spin this as "but I learned better and I thank God I'm not like that any more", he gave that as an example of his frame of mind, that he chafed at authority so much he would preach "up" if he was told to preach on "down,", and focusing all his sermons on talking people into giving him money was fine. Did you think it was a new thing with him that "Christians Should Be Prosperous" (why I should give twi my money) was mandatory reading for all pfal students, a book they paid for with their pfal tuition, a book they paid retail prices for, a book printed in-house for a LOT less than they paid?
He got a job editing the sermons and articles of other Christians. Shortly thereafter, he got used to re-preaching whatever they'd worked at. In short, in his entire career, he plagiarized freely whenever and wherever he was able. He himself admitted that he's completed his entire divinity education, and spent his entire first year preaching BEFORE he ever believed the Bible was the Word of God. Is it even possible to believe a man could spend that much time as a GENUINE ministry student and preacher and not have that as A foundation for everything if not THE foundation for everything? By his own admission, TWICE in his first year as a preacher, he considered giving up as a minister. I'm supposed to believe he was a dedicated, GENUINE minister when he kept looking back and considering hanging it all up. What changed everything? All evidence points to him ripping off/plagiarizing BG Leonard's class, and JE Stiles book, both in the same year, and making those the 1.0 version and following of pfal. (The very first pfal class, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today", was a ripoff clone of Leonard's class in EVERY detail, and remained so until he added Stiles' work, then Bullinger's work.)
All evidence points to him being a fraud from the beginning. Every step was calculated as a business move, and none of it was "at the behest of God Almighty." When all of this came up, the counter-argument- the claim that vpw was always actually genuine, was entirely based on four things.
A) Everything he taught was accurate, and of God, so he must have been connected to God to be that correct. vpw claimed to work by revelation, so he must have been working by revelation. As it turns out, the main reasons to believe he worked by revelation were his own claims he did so, and certainly all claims everything he taught was accurate run the same way- since we've examined some of his work and found errors all over it. Understandable as human error, but a problem if supposedly it was ALL by revelation, and so on.
B) vpw claimed "the 1942 promise." vpw claimed God Almighty spoke to him, and that was the basis for his preaching, and of the material he presented later. It didn't take a lot of work to show that these claims didn't hold water. They fell apart easily when examined. Once again, vpw, a chronic liar, had lied to his congregation.
C) I feel really blessed when I hear his teachings, and I felt really blessed when I was in twi, so vpw must have been genuine. Well, genuine Christians were in twi, and there was genuine, plagiarized material. I could see either blessing someone, even if vpw was a complete fraud. Furthermore, by vpw's own admission, feeling really blessed when he himself taught meant nothing- some people make similar claims about sitting on a Psychiatrist's couch (something he denigrated, probably because he was in competition with Psychiatrists who completed medical school.) So, those claims don't hold water, either.
D) vpw sounded really sincere when he taught for decades, and supposedly nobody could sound sincere faking it for decades.
YES THEY COULD.
Now, none of US could do that, because we have a conscience. A true sociopath (like vpw) could brazenly go for decades, presenting things he didn't believe, to people who did believe them, in order to bring in the money. Certainly, any half-decent actor- or any half-skilled CON ARTIST- could do it for an entire sermon, given the right materials (like being able to plagiarize all the materials, the presentations, and so on, from real preachers.) So long as it was clear it was all for the stage, any decent actor could keep doing it- like Steve Martin performing in the movie "Leap of Faith". But his conscience would bother him if he pretended to be real while faking it and actually preaching at the pulpit. Heck, early acting exercises have actors practicing to speak convincingly while speaking literal gibberish. Any number of politicians have gone and given speeches they didn't really believe, and delivered them with gusto, as if they believed them. (No examples, please, politics is off-limits at the GSC.)
I once saw comedian/actor John Candy deliver an example of that. He got onstage pretending to be a member of the Canadian Parliament. All of the MPs are supposed to be bilingual in English and French, but many don't know much French, and that was the basis for the joke. With lots of florid hand gestures and looking "genuine", he delivered a speech in French- in poorly-pronounced French. The subtitles clued English-speakers in on the jokes. "Good evening and welcome. I do not speak French. This speech was written for me by someone else, and I don't understand a word I am saying. I am a fat English pig." The entire time, that was delivered every bit as if he was giving a genuine speech. It's the example I know best, but it's common enough for actors. Faking it can be done if someone's conscience doesn't stop them. So, the only remaining objection doesn't hold water, either.
Oh, there was also the "argument" that vpw was real because he spoke in tongues. No matter what twi said and says now, speaking in tongues can be faked, speaking in tongues with interpretation can be faked, word of prophecy can be faked. We had some heavy discussions as to whether or not they WERE ALL faked, or if they simply WERE faked LOTS OF TIMES. We know some were faked because some of us faked them at the time- all while trying to be genuine and meaning well, but faking it anyway because that's how we were taught. Now, I actually changed my position as a result of these discussions. I once believed it was all real, and now believe all the "speaking in tongues/interpretation" of twi and that style was and are all faked. (I'm convinced most of the "word of prophecy" was faked, but not all of it, I believe some of it was genuine.) Nobody is required to agree with me, but it's clear enough that SIT CAN be faked. So, the idea that vpw should be believed to be genuine because he was seen to SIT doesn't hold water either- it can be faked. Why do people believe it can't be faked? That's what we were taught by vpw- a man who lied to us all the time.
Do you know the difference between "sincere" and "insincere"? vpw didn't. He said that the man who tries to sell you a toothbrush with only one bristle has to BE really sincere. UNTRUE. The man has to FAKE sincerity, he has to APPEAR sincere. Unless he is a complete moron, he would have to know such a product is defective and useless for its proclaimed purpose. He would be trying to con you, and APPEAR sincere while he FAKED his sincerity. Why would vpw be unable to understand such a simple distinction? It was part of his character. To him, there was no difference between BEING sincere- meaning it from the heart- and FAKING sincerity- looking like you meant it from the heart but faking all of it, making a performance with a genuine appearance.
All evidence points to vpw having been a fraud from Day One. Oh, perhaps something, somewhere was genuine, but being 100% fake and being 95% fake pretty much look the same.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
It's interesting to me how many people have CLAIMED to believe the Bible, but who have freely discarded the Biblical exhortations for conduct- but only when it comes to vpw. They will only accept an UNBiblical standard for evidence as to whether or not to believe vpw was capable of evil, and performed evil.
I Timothy 5: 19-20
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
II Corinthians 13: 1
This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ahhh,yes. The Lockbox.
One must never reveal its contents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Today I earned that victor not only ripped off Oral Robert's Fourth Man sermon, he claimed as his own Robert's personal story of preaching to the trees.
WITAF!
This is as petty and weak as his plagiarizing poetry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
When I was in junior high school, I learned plagiarism is wrong. Obviously, he heard it was wrong in high school, college, and PTS. He simply chose to completely disregard that. A man to be trusted with the things of God Almighty, and he can't even be trusted with the things of man.
BTW,
I once heard that it was OK for him to plagiarize.
First, God Almighty told him to plagiarize.
Second, God Almighty authorized it, so it was OK.
Third, all Christian writings belong to God, so copyright doesn't count.
Fourth, the other Christians who were plagiarized from were OK with it.
I'm not going to address the first 3. If you're hearing God telling people to break the law, you need more help than I can provide. As for the other Christians, most of them were dead (Bullinger, Kenyon, etc.) He didn't let Stiles or Leonard know when he plagiarized them. In fact, when he plagiarized Leonard for the first time, he told Leonard he was going to run Leonard's class on location ONE TIME. Instead, he told all the students it was his OWN class and kept doing it. The content was identical to Leonard's class. Eventually, Leonard found out. He didn't sue vpw but he added elaborate notices about copyright and railed about theft. As for all Christian writings belonging to God, vpw certainly didn't believe that- he slapped copyright notices on every single thing twi put out.
I also heard
Fifth, shame on the other Christians for objecting to vpw plagiarizing their work.
Sixth, it was appropriate for vpw to plagiarize their works, but his weren't supposed to be plagiarized.
That last one was based on the completely-disproven 1942 promise. It's been disproven beyond any REASONABLE doubt. I'm sure there's still UNreasonable doubt, beyond which nothing can be proven. Any sensible person could see it, however.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
7th, "if it's the truth, what does it matter if he plagiarized?"
Except so much of what he plagiarized isn't true or accurate. And I don't mean doctrinal positions -- that's a matter of belief, opinion, preference. Also, to plagiarize is to lie. The liar can't convey the truth - simple math.
It's not the truth because victor says so. If one must dishonestly twist the text to say and mean what it plainly does not, it's not the truth. Test all things.
We've advanced a long, long way in our understanding of Koine Greek since Bullinger and his Victorian sensibilities. Bullinger is outdated. There are better, more accurate lexicons available today. Not to mention easily reproved, corrected and refuted imaginations like the four-crucified stupidity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
From Goodreads, a blurb about Levi Roach's book
An in-depth exploration of documentary forgery at the turn of the first millennium
Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium takes a fresh look at documentary forgery and historical memory in the Middle Ages. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, religious houses across Europe began falsifying texts to improve local documentary records on an unprecedented scale. As Levi Roach illustrates, the resulting wave of forgery signaled major shifts in society and political culture, shifts which would lay the foundations for the European ancien régime.
Spanning documentary traditions across France, England, Germany and northern Italy, Roach examines five sets of falsified texts to demonstrate how forged records produced in this period gave voice to new collective identities within and beyond the Church. Above all, he indicates how this fad for falsification points to new attitudes toward past and present―a developing fascination with the signs of antiquity. These conclusions revise traditional master narratives about the development of antiquarianism in the modern era, showing that medieval forgers were every bit as sophisticated as their Renaissance successors. Medieval forgers were simply interested in different subjects―the history of the Church and their local realms, rather than the literary world of classical antiquity.
A comparative history of falsified records at a crucial turning point in the Middle Ages, Forgery and Memory at the End of the First Millennium offers valuable insights into how institutions and individuals rewrote and reimagined the past.
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.